NC "Constitutional Conceal Carry" Bill

Rogue said:
I'm all for gun ownership, but this statement cannot be used for the defense of such

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

Our security is protected now by many many levels of law enforcement, and a "well armed" militia would not make it out of its own county if it decided to revolt.

The second amendment simply does not apply as it did in 1776.

Again, I'm all for gun ownership, but with a 21st century argument.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the populous at large should have access to military grade weapons in order to ensure freedom.

Great, we agree.

(Or am I just stirring the pot)
 
Jeff B said:
So you would also be ok with anything you write on a public forum being reviewed and or redacted before being able to post it? (Amendment 1)

Maybe you are ok with the police just coming in your home & seizing/searching without a permit? (Amendment 4)


How about we just scrap the Bill of rights?
Click to expand...
No that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. I was saying specifically that the class must NOT be able to be a hindrance for getting the permit for the weapon. Cheap or ideally free and accessible to anyone and NOT run by the state so it could be used as a gate for possession. Where did you get censorship from?
 
Working as an RO at a gun range and having to help get people to pass the shooting portion(i also help with the class room part). I am pro gun but this scares me, we have people that need training and without the class they would have none. I was flagged 2 times this weekend, scary stuff. People snag a gun up and want to throw it in a pocket or purse and have never had the "common" sense handed down to them.........

And even if this does pass, it would not be in the best interest of most to not take a class, 80-90% of the class is laws and regs. Its really easy to break the law with chp, most wouldnt even know they where without the class!
 
RatLabGuy said:
No that's the exact opposite of what I was saying. I was saying specifically that the class must NOT be able to be a hindrance for getting the permit for the weapon. Cheap or ideally free and accessible to anyone and NOT run by the state so it could be used as a gate for possession. Where did you get censorship from?
Click to expand...
Jeff B said:
If you want to argue that then you should be advocating the training class before ANY purchase of a concealable weapon.
Click to expand...

RatLabGuy said:
Personally I'm OK w/ that too, as long as the classes are cheap and easily accessible, and run by a 3rd party.
Click to expand...

Jeff B said:
So you would also be ok with anything you write on a public forum being reviewed and or redacted before being able to post it? (Amendment 1)

Maybe you are ok with the police just coming in your home & seizing/searching without a permit? (Amendment 4)


How about we just scrap the Bill of rights?
Click to expand...
 
jeepinmatt said:
[sarcasm]Well since we're on this path, and we all agree that the government should decide what we need to know about guns before we can have them, maybe we should also have required voter education and an aptitude test. [/sarcasm]

Am I really hearing this? Look, training is great, and I encourage everyone to pursue it. But there is currently no training required to buy a rifle or pistol, and no one was up in arms about that. But, like @Jeff B said, if people can hide their guns, we suddenly need to train them? If my guns had not drowned in the accident, the ONLY reason I would consider getting a concealed carry permit is so that I would not be a felon within the current law structure (a law structure which seems in conflict with the second amendment I might add):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
So you are a member of a well regulated militia?
 
NC_IslandRunner said:
So you are a member of a well regulated militia?
Click to expand...

Being able to own a gun because you are part of an existing militia is a gross misinterpretation. The second amendment acknowledges that militias (or rather, the ability to form militias on demand) are absolutely necessary to having a free state, and you can not form a proper militia without firearms. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
as I read this I think of the two people that showed up for my CCW range time with calibers that didn't match their weapon. they were issued a refund and were asked to leave very politely.
 
snappy said:
Working as an RO at a gun range and having to help get people to pass the shooting portion(i also help with the class room part). I am pro gun but this scares me, we have people that need training and without the class they would have none. I was flagged 2 times this weekend, scary stuff. People snag a gun up and want to throw it in a pocket or purse and have never had the "common" sense handed down to them.........

And even if this does pass, it would not be in the best interest of most to not take a class, 80-90% of the class is laws and regs. Its really easy to break the law with chp, most wouldnt even know they where without the class!
Click to expand...

Nailed it. No right is being infringed upon by having to take a class in order to obtain a permit. It is simply giving the person an opportunity to become more educated on what, where, why, how to carry or use their weapon in a safe and responsible manner. There are too many dumbasses out there that need some edumacation on firearms handling in order to institute Constitutional Carry. Now, all of the people that carry now without the proper permitting, is an entirely separate topic.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Jeff, something was lost in your post, this was just a requote of the previous?
Click to expand...

Showing you what I read & why I replied. I guess I misunderstood your post.
 
StretchASU said:
Nailed it. No right is being infringed upon by having to take a class in order to obtain a permit. It is simply giving the person an opportunity to become more educated on what, where, why, how to carry or use their weapon in a safe and responsible manner. There are too many dumbasses out there that need some edumacation on firearms handling in order to institute Constitutional Carry. Now, all of the people that carry now without the proper permitting, is an entirely separate topic.
Click to expand...


It is not the governments responsibility to make you educate yourself on guns. We are talking about adults, not children. That is your responsibility, however. The government should mandate that you have read or the laws have been explained along with the repercussions of not obeying said laws. That doesn't need to be a class, that needs to be a short video and a signature..
 
how about back round checks? Right now unless a judge sends you to a mental institution, it is not on your record. should that be changed?

What about the no fly list? if the FBI is looking at you should you be able to buy a pistol?

How about Due process?
 
Jeff B said:
how about back round checks? Right now unless a judge sends you to a mental institution, it is not on your record. should that be changed?

What about the no fly list? if the FBI is looking at you should you be able to buy a pistol?

How about Due process?
Click to expand...



There seems to be a growing population that will buy a gun BECAUSE the FBI is looking at them.
 
ManglerYJ said:
There seems to be a growing population that will buy a gun BECAUSE the FBI is looking at them.
Click to expand...


And as much as I despise Obama and this liberal admin. they may be looking at me or even you... Would you not want Due process?
 
Jeff B said:
It is not the governments responsibility to make you educate yourself on guns. We are talking about adults, not children. That is your responsibility, however. The government should mandate that you have read or the laws have been explained along with the repercussions of not obeying said laws. That doesn't need to be a class, that needs to be a short video and a signature..
Click to expand...

You aren't grasping the fact that a large majority of people are too fucking stupid to educate themselves. We are the ones that are forced to deal with their actions through people accidentally getting killed or paying their incarcerations for doing stupid shit. Look how many people have kids who accidentally get shot and killed. If making people take a class saves one kids life, it isn't infringing on your rights, it is protecting theirs.
 
StretchASU said:
Nailed it. No right is being infringed upon by having to take a class in order to obtain a permit. It is simply giving the person an opportunity to become more educated on what, where, why, how to carry or use their weapon in a safe and responsible manner. There are too many dumbasses out there that need some edumacation on firearms handling in order to institute Constitutional Carry. Now, all of the people that carry now without the proper permitting, is an entirely separate topic.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The key is, like I stated, said classes must be very easily obtainable so as to not be a restriction.
I view it similar to registering to vote and having ID to verify you are properly exercising that right.
You absolutely have the right, and should not be inhibited, but it is reasonable for there to be some minimal checks to ensure that said right will be used in a proper fashion.

An extremist could argue that if you really believe that anybody should be able to purchase and carry w/o any check or inhibition first, then similarly there should also be no need for voter registration or IDs to vote. Just show up and do your thing.
 
Blaze said:
You aren't grasping the fact that a large majority of people are too fucking stupid to educate themselves. We are the ones that are forced to deal with their actions through people accidentally getting killed or paying their incarcerations for doing stupid shit. Look how many people have kids who accidentally get shot and killed. If making people take a class saves one kids life, it isn't infringing on your rights, it is protecting theirs.
Click to expand...


While I do agree with stupid fucking people. I also stand by my statement of they must educate them selves. The only thing that should be done before purchase is them watch a video and sign a statement stating they understand the repercussions of failing to obey the law.
 
RatLabGuy said:
An extremist could argue that if you really believe that anybody should be able to purchase and carry w/o any check or inhibition first, then similarly there should also be no need for voter registration or IDs to vote. Just show up and do your thing.
Click to expand...


the voter ID is about being a citizen, and you already have to prove that to buy a weapon.. ID and backround checks.
 
jankoid said:
For those of you who say that a local militia would get blown away by the US military, do some research about the Vietnam and Korean Wars.
Click to expand...

It would also help that a large majority of our local militias would probably be ex military. :lol:
 
Jeff B said:
While I do agree with stupid fucking people. I also stand by my statement of they must educate them selves. The only thing that should be done before purchase is them watch a video and sign a statement stating they understand the repercussions of failing to obey the law.
Click to expand...

You are probably against vaccinations too, huh?
 
Jeff B said:
every one of you should read this.


THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Everyone saying that you should have training before you buy a gun needs to go back and reread this. No where does it say anything about training. We used to have training in schools. We used to have training in boy scouts. We used to have fathers who taught children to shoot. We need those again, not a requirement to be trained before you can buy a firearm. Anything that allows any government intrusion onto any right destroys that right.
 
Jeff B said:
It is not the governments responsibility to make you educate yourself on guns. We are talking about adults, not children. That is your responsibility, however. The government should mandate that you have read or the laws have been explained along with the repercussions of not obeying said laws. That doesn't need to be a class, that needs to be a short video and a signature..
Click to expand...
Would be a 4-5 hour video......
 
I agree with Stretch and Snappy on the stupidity of lots of folks.
However I think the point Jeff is making is one that Ratlab has alluded to without outright stating it.

I think we all agree there are a bunch of dumbasses out there who don't know how to handle a gun.
I think we all agree they and all of us would be better if they were educated on how properly to use a gun.
It is not the governments ROLE to mandate people not be dumbassses. In fact allowing the government to dictate ownership eligibility contingent upon , well anything, is in fact a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Now if a PRIVATE company wants to mandate training before transaction, that is a different animal. Lets say, for example, Smith & Wesson says, there is a new S&W ownership course that teaches gun safety and responsible ownership. We refuse to sell a firearm to anyone who hasnt completed this course. I would wholly support that company and probably shift some of my purchases to them for that reason. But for a government entity to mandate it? Well that is just a slope towards infringement. Its one of the reasons a conservative congress was so adamant that when background checks were phased in there had to be a set maximum duration where by if it wasnt completed it defaulted to approved. Otherwise all background checks would strangely take 99 years...same thing here.
 
Back
Top