NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

lazarus · Nov 8, 2021

kcbrown said:
If the state doesn't make it a mandatory part of the school curriculum and a mandatory requirement for entering the country (or becoming a state resident, if said person cannot show they've already been trained), then the state simply cannot claim that training is necessary for "public safety".

After all, people can own firearms and carry on private property without a carry permit, even though missing the target exposes the public to danger. As such, the training claim clearly is an all-or-nothing thing. Either everyone who might ever have access to a firearm has to go through it, or nobody does. This is why making it a mandatory part of the school curriculum is clearly the proper approach: it ensures that everyone gets trained in the safe handling and use of firearms, regardless of whether or not they'll end up needing it in the future.

I think the state would just make the argument that you cannot exercise that right until one does the training.

And I think you'd also hear the argument that no right requires "training", to which the left would response "no OTHER right requires training".

I don't see anything about training in the 2nd amendment. I guess if we need that, it should be amended to say training is required.

lazarus · Nov 8, 2021

Mark75H said:
I agree. Everyone should know safe firearm handling and swimming/water safety. Imagine the number of lives that would be saved.

A hell of a lot!

MigraineMan · Nov 8, 2021

lazarus said:
I think the state would just make the argument that you cannot exercise that right until one does the training.

And I think you'd also hear the argument that no right requires "training", to which the left would response "no OTHER right requires training".

I don't see anything about training in the 2nd amendment. I guess if we need that, it should be amended to say training is required.

Can't wait to see the proposed "training" amendments for 1A. Not sure how you add a training amendment to the inferred rights like "abortion."

camo556 · Nov 8, 2021

Well, we do make people go to school until they are at least 16-17, and most places you cant vote until you are 18.

And yes, people dont absorb a whole lot and teachers are often wrong, but then gun instructors are also famously wrong on the law, shoot themselves in class, and I could not tell you what I learned in my utah CC class either.

Inigoes · Nov 8, 2021

camo556 said:
I could not tell you what I learned in my utah CC class either.

Hopefully, you learned where the end with the hole get pointed! :rolleyes:

camo556 · Nov 8, 2021

Inigoes said:
Hopefully, you learned where the end with the hole get pointed!

I already knew that lol.

MigraineMan · Nov 8, 2021

Grass roots, baby.

Fedora · Nov 8, 2021

Re: Training Requirement

I don't know how useful a training requirement might be, but the data is out there if anybody cares to investigate it. It should be a minor matter to compare negligent shootings in non-training states with states that require training.

I haven't been to a public range in over twenty years because the gun handling made me grasp my pearls just one time too many. But that's not data. And neither would data be accidental discharges. If the other three rules are present, an accidental discharge should not strike anybody and is likely to be unreported. Data would be negligent shootings, and that information should be reasonably available.

thomfantomas · Nov 8, 2021

I thought there were more oral arguments today?

lazarus · Nov 8, 2021

Fedora said:
I don't know how useful a training requirement might be, but the data is out there if anybody cares to investigate it. It should be a minor matter to compare negligent shootings in non-training states with states that require training.

I haven't been to a public range in over twenty years because the gun handling made me grasp my pearls just one time too many. But that's not data. And neither would data be accidental discharges. If the other three rules are present, an accidental discharge should not strike anybody and is likely to be unreported. Data would be negligent shootings, and that information should be reasonably available.

I think the problem is your really need to separate out NDs and bad shootings for just gun owners who had to have training for a license to carry (or license to own in those few states) vs everyone else.

Except the few states where you must have training for a license to own a firearm, it’s a small minority of gun owners who sought and got carry licenses.

As of last year the estimate is 20 million people had concealed carry licenses. That’s about 15% of gun owners. So if it reduced negligent discharges and bad shootings by 20%, you might only expect to see 1 less death in an entire state vs a neighboring state. Only about 450 such deaths per year and a number of those (about 100 if I remember correctly) are typically young kids accidentally shooting someone. Though maybe training for the adults would reduce inappropriate access.

If it reduced it by 20% and every gun owner took the training, nation wide you’d see a reduction of about 90 fatalities.

Not arguing one way or another. But I think there would need to be a VERY strong signal to get through the statistical noise of numbers that small.

That said, several studies (not just by far left wing academics) have shown repeatedly that states with safe storage laws do see a significant reduction in child involved accidental shootings. So maybe training would shine through too.

kcbrown · Nov 8, 2021

press1280 said:
The school boards would need to be drastically changed to make that happen.

No, they wouldn't. School boards don't get to override state law. All the state has to do is to pass a law requiring such training in the school curriculum, and the school boards wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.

kcbrown · Nov 8, 2021

lazarus said:
I think the state would just make the argument that you cannot exercise that right until one does the training.

Which is a prior restraint on the right. The need for self-defense doesn't operate at the government's whim or convenience. The case of Carol Bowne proves this.

Additionally, for the state to make that argument, it would have to be as a condition of firearm ownership, not carry. Otherwise it's a disingenuous claim.

And I think you'd also hear the argument that no right requires "training", to which the left would response "no OTHER right requires training".

I don't see anything about training in the 2nd amendment. I guess if we need that, it should be amended to say training is required.

I'm not arguing that training should be required. I'm arguing that if the state insists that training is necessary for "public safety", then its only non-infringing recourse is to include it in the mandatory school curriculum. And that the state isn't being sincere in its claim about "public safety" if it doesn't do that.

Crazytrain · Nov 8, 2021

Inclusion in the school curriculum makes a LOT of sense to me. Not only does it increase the odds of people not doing stupid stuff, and makes carry training essentially moot, it is perhaps a good thing from a national defense standpoint. If those crazy Canadians decide to invade it will give us a chance!

ToolAA · Nov 8, 2021

kcbrown said:
I'm not arguing that training should be required. I'm arguing that if the state insists that training is necessary for "public safety", then its only non-infringing recourse is to include it in the mandatory school curriculum. And that the state isn't being sincere in its claim about "public safety" if it doesn't do that.

I meant to comment on this when you posted it the other day. Being mandatory that schools offer gun safety was what I was agreeing with as well. However I’m not in agreement that the training is mandatory for every student. IMO, Families should still get to choose if they wanted their kids to take said training classes.

teratos · Nov 8, 2021

ToolAA said:
I meant to comment on this when you posted it the other day. Being mandatory that schools offer gun safety was what I was agreeing with as well. However I’m not in agreement that the training is mandatory for every student. IMO, Families should still get to choose if they wanted their kids to take said training classes.

I think every kid should get some firearm training. If they go to other people’s houses, they are likely to encounter a gun at some point. Hell, they are educated on sex and drugs. Add some rock and roll.

camo556 · Nov 8, 2021

The sensitive places issue in New York Rifle

Kopel / Halbrook

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/08/the-sensitive-places-issue-in-new-york-rifle/

A surprising issue dominated Paul Clement's time at the lectern on November 3 in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Justices are considering whether New York's limitation of handgun carry licenses to atypical citizens violates the Second Amendment. Clement, representing the challengers, was subject to a barrage of questions about the scope of the so-called "sensitive places" exception to the Second Amendment.

Allen65 · Nov 8, 2021

kcbrown said:
No, they wouldn't. School boards don't get to override state law. All the state has to do is to pass a law requiring such training in the school curriculum, and the school boards wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.

Never underestimate the power of passive-aggression. They'll find ways to deft the law in practice while claiming to be in compliance.

kcbrown · Nov 8, 2021

Allen65 said:
Never underestimate the power of passive-aggression. They'll find ways to deft the law in practice while claiming to be in compliance.

It's pretty easy to tell if they're in compliance. Does each school have a mandatory training class on firearms that every student must attend, in which training in the safe handling and use of firearms is actually taught? This is an observable thing, seeing how those classes that students must attend are, well, attended by students!

Any school that doesn't have this isn't in compliance, and it doesn't matter what the school board thinks. It only takes one parent to notice and make it obvious to everyone.

School boards can attempt to defy the law, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that such a law is the only way the state can legitimately claim that it's truly serious about public safety through firearms training. Anything less is just lip service.

press1280 · Nov 9, 2021

Allen65 said:
Never underestimate the power of passive-aggression. They'll find ways to deft the law in practice while claiming to be in compliance.

I agree. Just look at how radical the school boards have become. It seems only now people are waking up to this fact and they do their best to stealthily put in their agenda.

Racer Doug14 · Nov 9, 2021

My first firearms safety training was at Parris Island. I went there for a "mini boot camp" as a high school junior in JROTC. We had an awesome time at the rifle range firing the M16A2.

NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Attachments

Active Member

Crna Ovca

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Super Genius

Certified Grump

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Thread killer

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics