NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[rseymorejr]

I'll admit, I've tended to favor some training requirements based on some very poor behavior I've witnessed by people with handguns. But I understand the argument that, like 1A, you first start out with everyone has nearly-unlimited right, and then you limit/prosecute it when it is abused (fire in a crowded theater).

So my question to the group is: what conditions would you find acceptable for banning a person's future right to carry publicly?
Perhaps brandishing? Discharge when not in self defence scenario? Carrying while intoxicated? Non-felony battery or assault? Etc?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

My opinion is if you aren't prohibited you can carry without restriction.

 

[E.Shell]

...Just because I pass a class does not mean I'll keep doing what I did in front of the instructor after that class is complete.

<sigh>...right back to Mexican Carry.

 

[Inigoes]

If we made the penalties more severe and actually kept people in prison, fewer people would behave that way. When society gets rid of morals and promotes criminal behavior without consequences, this is the sh*t sandwich we end up with. We could easily afford to keep these people in prison instead of wasting money on any number of programs that don't benefit the public at all (or at least very little)
Why do you think so many criminals carry guns in Baltimore? Because there's little to no penalty to do so.
When the three strikes program was instituted, violent crime went down. Criminals were not carrying as many guns because they didn't want to get an automatic 10 years
There just isn't a very strong deterrent in place right now.

There is a problem with that logic.

As you pointed out, there is plenty of leniency with today's sentences.

That is due to overcrowding, and the cost of jailing the criminals.

Getting tough on crime did not work
Locking up everyone who broke the law did not work
Social programs rehabilating criminals does not work.

The people need to get back to protecting themselves. If a criminal dies in the process, shame on the criminal for not choosing wisely.

 

[rbird7282]

There is a problem with that logic.

As you pointed out, there is plenty of leniency with today's sentences.

That is due to overcrowding, and the cost of jailing the criminals.

Getting tough on crime did not work
Locking up everyone who broke the law did not work
Social programs rehabilating criminals does not work.

The people need to get back to protecting themselves. If a criminal dies in the process, shame on the criminal for not choosing wisely.

I would agree that it doesn’t solve everything but now the prevailing attitude seems to be that judges and prosecutors are far easier on criminals. Is that because of overcrowding or the misguided social pressure from the left to not send people to jail? (See Baltimore)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inigoes]

Is that because of overcrowding or the misguided social pressure from the left to not send people to jail? (See Baltimore)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, to all the above.

The left's argument for "people can change" has been used (and still is) to continually garner the vote to be elected into office.

Society likes the idea of separating the bad apples from the good. However, society is unwilling to bear the cost.

Criminals have overwhelmed the system to where it is not effective anymore.

 

[Inigoes]

Back to the SCOTUS

Justice Barrett has given us a little insight on how she and Kavanaugh are trying to remain apolitical, and deciding of granting petitions based on policy.

https://www.courthousenews.com/barrett-offers-path-forward-for-beleaguered-shadow-docket/

 

[ToolAA]

If you want to insist on training, then put it in the mandatory school curriculum (replacing Critical Race Theory with firearms training will do nicely for this), and make it mandatory for anyone who immigrates into the country. Problem solved.

I would support this. I wouldn’t make it mandatory but it would be offered just like drivers education used to be offered.

 

[MigraineMan]

<sigh>...right back to Mexican Carry.

.

 

[teratos]

.

Yep

 

[ToolAA]

Yep

I could 3D print that for you.

 

[teratos]

I could 3D print that for you.

With friends like you, who needs enemas?

 

[MigraineMan]

Yep

Not sure how you get the hammer to the ... <ahem> "cocked" position.

 

[teratos]

Not sure how you get the hammer to the ... <ahem> "cocked" position.

I hope it doesn’t require a buddy.

 

[Kharn]

.

Butthole bleaching will be required to remove powder burns before your next trip to Hedonism.

 

[Mark75H]

Yep

Remind me not to stand behind you.

 

[Dave.B]

deleted

 

[kcbrown]

I would support this. I wouldn’t make it mandatory but it would be offered just like drivers education used to be offered.

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.

 

[Mark75H]

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

 

[press1280]

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.

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

 

[rseymorejr]

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

We need that anyway