Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[ATM]

It is one thing to be grumpy about the state of things. It is quite another to act on your beliefs.

Thoreau had something to say about this to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

If you are assuming inaction on my part, or even grumpiness, you err - again, not logical.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Do you really want me to go through post by post of what you said and how it was wrong, and actually didn't relate to the OP at all? Let's start with your first post on this website.

Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?

It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.

While training in law is the issue at hand, the definition of well-regulated has no bearing on the matter. As stated before, it is a prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment, which has no bearing on the operative clause. It only supports the operative clause, which you actually agree with here:

I'm missing a quote somewhere, that the prefatory clause supports and comports with the operative clause.

Also, as has been stated, Indiana's Constitution does not have this clause and is actually quite simple to understand. You should read it. Article 1, Section 32, FYI. Next.

I see you haven't read Heller.

Well, I obviously have, as I quoted from Justice Scalia's majority opinion. If you ever actually read it, you will see that it states precisely what I stated.

Now, I could go on with your other posts, but I don't think you will actually read it anyway. Plenty of others have already tried debating with you on what you have stated, but you are ignoring our statements. Hence, you are a troll. Now if you actually have something to add to the discussion at hand, that would be GREAT!

 

[SteveM4A1]

I think we can all agree that while training should be sought by everyone (not just gun owners), it should NOT be required. Please contact your elected officials folks, and let them know where we stand. And that we support the Freeman law (edit: PLAN)

 

[ATM]

...Freeman law

Isn't that where Kirk works?

 

[kiddchaos]

Handgun training. Requires a person who applies after December 31, 2014, for a license to carry a handgun to first complete an eight hour handgun safety and training program.

Sounds like North Carolina, they do everything with more difficulty.

 

[actaeon277]

Still waiting on the overwhelming need by the State.
Training would be to prevent accidents.
Indiana has less gun accidents per person than many States that require training.
So why is this even under consideration?

 

[actaeon277]

And Indiana requires training to drive?
I never went to driving school.

 

[Scutter01]

So why is this even under consideration?

I already told you. Sen. Breaux isn't interested in anyone getting training. If she was, she'd have instead written a bill to give tax breaks to people taking classes. What she IS interested in is erecting more barriers to people wanting to acquire a carry license.

 

[ATM]

...I beginning to understand that many of you limit your civil disobedience to snarky remarks on a friendly forum.

Since you added this after I'd already responded above, I'll just ask, is this is your primary motivation for posting here? To ultimately goad people into civil disobedience?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Having to be fingerprinted as we do with criminals for the sake of lawfully exercising a Constitutional and natural right is distasteful, among other non-flattering but descriptive terms.
The state requirements to obtain the LTCH presently consist of being a good and lawful citizen. If we must have some state-issued permission slip, those requirements are the only acceptable ones, however even that is too much, as it excludes those who wish to be in that group but have not been in the past. That is, a "former felon" is prohibited from the means to effectively protect himself and his family. Put another way, if you had two DUIs within five years when you were in your early adulthood (say, between 18 and 22), then you have no legal means of effectively resisting the rapist who wants to take advantage of your femininity and/or helplessness in the face of his greater physical strength. And all the laws in the world making rape a crime won't stop him until he's defiled you in whatever way he chooses. Your choices, then, are 1) hope he gets caught and can be prosecuted and maybe locked up for a few years, for which he'll only serve half-time, or 2) smile and take it.

Neither is acceptable.

As for our "civil disobedience"... One need not disobey laws in the effort to change them. For my part, I write here, informing people and making sure they know to contact their elected representatives, how to contact them, and whom to contact. I make people aware of things they may not have time, inclination, or knowledge of their ability to find out.
In addition, I'm in contact with some of our legislators and marginally involved in writing bills that go to the legislature for action. Finally, I make contact with my elected representatives and make sure they know what I, as one of their employers, want them to do.
In addition, when I have time and a willing student, I teach others about shooting, and have been, in the not too distant past, an active (presently inactive) instructor in the Appleseed Project.

One need not be disobedient, civilly or otherwise, to work for positive change in the law.

Blessings,
Bill

It is one thing to be grumpy about the state of things. It is quite another to act on your beliefs.

Thoreau had something to say about this to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I beginning to understand that many of you limit your civil disobedience to snarky remarks on a friendly forum.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This will be the final warning in this thread.

The word "troll" is used to describe people's actions, as a verb. When it is used as a noun, that is, the direct object of a verb, it becomes a personal insult. Generally, this site has been forgiving of that term, but as I consider it, in fairness, I can't see allowing its use where other insults are not.

Please modify your future posts accordingly.

Thanks,
Blessings,
Bill

 

[KS1956]

Since you added this after I'd already responded above, I'll just ask, is this is your primary motivation for posting here? To ultimately goad people into civil disobedience?

No. I am an advocate for training, period. And firearms are only one of many potentially fatal tools that fall under that general belief.

And in counterpoint I would think that many of the comments by the "usual suspects" serve to undermine gun rights by providing fodder for the anti-gunners.

While I am not familiar with what LEO departments require in Indiana, I would suspect that they require instruction, training and practice with the firearm(s) they carry on a daily basis. Why is it less so for the civilian? As I stated earlier, I believe the 2A implies (at the very least) that a person who bears arms knows how to use them. It is only on forums such as this that some feel that they have a God-given right to do as they please. Bluster. And BS.

The prefatory clause is in the 2A because it is necessary. The writers did not include unnecessary phrasing.

I leave this thread because it is useless to debate with those who feel they know what is in the mind of others and particularly what the founders meant.

Scalia said, as to the prefatory clause of 2A

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 

[ATM]

The right to keep and bear arms was to be protected from infringement such that the need of the prefatory clause could be fulfilled by the general populace rather than a standing army. What was that need? Security of a free state.

The people were always to retain the means to provide the security of a free state. The prefatory clause contained no limits or mandates upon the right or duty of the people. Neither did it contain contingent qualifiers to gain the right to keep and bear arms (which existed before the 2A and would exist despite it).

It is a restriction upon the government we created to secure and protect our rights.

 

[KS1956]

Even if responsibilities are left unsaid, they are there in common law and antiquity. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to use said weapon to murder your neighbor or rob a bank. Those acts are not in the constitution but are understood among the common man of the time. Let's please not parse that which is common sense.

 

[EM45HP]

I'll admit it, I did not read all 22 pages. If someones already said this here's my +1 to them...

I don't think training should be required by law to exercise your right, but also I don't think it's a bad idea to get some training if you're new to guns. As for me, I grew up with guns. My dad never kept them from me and has taught me how to shoot and taught me firearm safety, so I don't feel like I should have to go through the NRA basic pistol class or whatever else would be a possible training requirement. However, it would probably be a good idea for me to take some of the other defensive pistol classes and train regularly with my EDC.

Just my $0.02.

 

[88GT]

Back to the original topic. The proposed Bill would require training as a pre-requisite to an LTCH. The objections seem to be overwhelming in this forum; however, you've already complied with the requirements for an LTCH, haven't you? Where was your rugged individualist objections to that restriction? Do you presently carry without a license? That would seem to be the only logical position of your views.

I can oppose a law and remain in compliance with it and doing so is not illogical. I give you the prohibitions laws. I oppose them. All of them. But as I do not drink alcohol or partake in the use of illegal drugs (or the misuse of legal ones), I remain in compliance with the laws governing those products.

Where do firearms purchasers presently get their training? From family, friends, gun shop employees (who run the knowledge gamut from professional to neanderthalian)? Based on the topics and responses I've seen on this website and others, it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that this type of informational instruction is anywhere from superb to abysmal. Yet, you are quite happy to have the untrained or poorly trained walking into a deadly situation without knowledge of their rights, duties and responsibilities?

Correction: no one is 'happy' that there are untrained/poorly trained individuals walking the streets. None of us want to be injured or killed because someone made poor decisions. The difference is some of us recognize that mandatory training doesn't actually produce the desired results because the efficacy of training is correlated to the individual's desire to improve, not the government's requirement that he take it. Some of us prefer liberty to well-intentioned control that has no influence on the outcomes anyway. Freedom is risky. And stupid and irresponsible will be stupid and irresponsible regardless of the Certificate of Achievement they've hung on the fridge.

Indiana requires hunter safety education if born after 1986. Is there an objection to this requirement as well?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will register my answer in the affirmative to this question.

Speaking of answering questions. Is there a reason you are not answering mine?

Steve: You've added little to the discussion other than highly opinionated drivel. Please get back on topic or give mommy back her keyboard.

And you've managed to insult someone in almost every post you've made as well. Tit for tat. If you can't take it, don't dish it.

You've done little more in 7 or 8 recent posts than criticize me. Nothing in those posts relates to the OP's topic. I'm sure you imagine yourself witty, but sniping on the net doesn't support your self image.

I find your comments boring.

And yours are in poor taste, offering nothing of substance to the discussion either. It is clear that the members here are engaging you respectfully and giving you ample opportunity to defend your position (or in my case, clarify it). You've done nothing more than stir the pot with each successive post after about your 4th one. I

It is one thing to be grumpy about the state of things. It is quite another to act on your beliefs.

And the two are not mutually exclusive, dependent, or even related. One is an emotional response to a set of circumstances. The other is rational choice to behave in one's best interest. Do not make the juvenile mistake of believing that the only form of action is breaking the law.

Thoreau had something to say about this to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I don't think much of Thoreau or Emerson. But comparing his actions under a different set of circumstances with the actions of people today under a different set of circumstances is dishonest.

I beginning to understand that many of you limit your civil disobedience to snarky remarks on a friendly forum.

I try not to practice too much civil disobedience these days. I have obligations that require my presence in the home. Sitting in a jail cell would put a crimp in my ability to fulfill those obligations. Instead, I exercise my voice as a constituent, my franchise on election day, and the opportunity of the friendly forums to expose people to the idea that we don't need government controlling our every move. I don't have to explain myself to you, but I want you to know that we are all real people with real lives (well, I have my suspicions about a few, and there are the shill accounts of mbills2223, chezuki, and MikeDVB; but aside from those....) who value freedom and don't want to be governed by heavy-handedness motivated by do-gooders who think they know better than us what is in our best interest.

I don't know where you're located, but consider this an invitation to join a group of us getting together for food and fun January 12.

 

[88GT]

Even if responsibilities are left unsaid, they are there in common law and antiquity. You have a right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to use said weapon to murder your neighbor or rob a bank. Those acts are not in the constitution but are understood among the common man of the time. Let's please not parse that which is common sense.

Another false dichotomy. The prohibited acts to which you refer are prohibited precisely because the immediate and direct consequence of them is the violation of another man's rights. Who is being harmed by not requiring training of all LTCH holders? No law should exist that does not prevent a behavior that directly harms another, with few allowable exceptions.

 

[Ottboys3]

As a gun owner, I agree with the gentleman above in that I see no harm in requiring training for people to conceal and carry a weapon in public. In many cases (not including guns), our government has to protect the law-abiding, sane, GOOD AMERICANS from those who are not those things. You bring up the word "right". As a citizen, I feel I have the RIGHT to be protected from irresponsible, untrained people carrying deadly weapons. In my opinion, because I have only good intentions for carrying....I have no problem being required to be trained. I understand and respect your stance...just wanted to share mine also.

good discussion always leads to positive ends.

 

[SteveM4A1]

The prefatory clause is in the 2A because it is necessary. The writers did not include unnecessary phrasing.

I leave this thread because it is useless to debate with those who feel they know what is in the mind of others and particularly what the founders meant.

Scalia said, as to the prefatory clause of 2A

I can quote Scalia as well, as I have been doing. I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about this:

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).[SUP]3[/SUP] “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).

We all believe in training. I think 88GT nailed it with this:

The difference is some of us recognize that mandatory training doesn't actually produce the desired results because the efficacy of training is correlated to the individual's desire to improve, not the government's requirement that he take it. Some of us prefer liberty to well-intentioned control that has no influence on the outcomes anyway

Pretty simple.

 

[KS1956]

I suppose we just have a different view of things. You trust your fellow man to carry a firearm but do not trust your fellow man to develop a training program that would do anyone any good. I take the opposite view.

I have friends who teach the Utah course up in Warsaw and they get very good reviews from new owners and those who have owned firearms for many years. I fail to see that the training is a detriment. I have friends in Ohio that teach their mandatory course. I hear similar things.

So, leaving aside the 2A debate, we have more gun deaths per year in Indiana than vehicular deaths (according to a 2009 study that I read today). It would seem that training might help reduce those deaths.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing here that would change my mind in that regard.

As to the meeting on the 14th, I'm not free. But, I've let one of my relatives who lives near there know about the meeting and he has said that he would try to make it.

Adieu.