There is truth in your sarcasm. Another negotiation attack surface. "The cops get qualified immunity, in part, because of their training so, what protections will be in place for licensed folks in a DGU now that you've set a training standard?"
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
New Jersey - You want a LTC you need to train. New Use of Force Interim Training For Private Citizen Concealed Carry
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Not at all. You're still assuming they're negotiating in good faith. You might recall, GOAL refused to negotiate on HD.4420.
The answer is for shops (like @Cape Gun Works has said he would WRT HD.4420) to refuse to comply along with everyone else.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,728
- Likes
- 12,008
No is the only strategy.
Specifying training standards, Magazine limits, Needing a permit to buy and carry, MA Compliance, AWB Compliance, Pre ban mag compliance, Paying a fee to own a gun, storage restrictions, FA-10, registration at time of sale.................GMAFB.
We've negotiated enough of our rights away. I don't see any fxcking clauses having to be trained, or referencing training standards in the verbage of 2A. Along with any of the other bullshit listed above. Yet we negotiated it all for ourselves just because to "keep our rights".
Everyone knows they just further abuse the power, enough is enough.
Last edited:
NJ will say that makes the person incapable of safely handling a firearm, thus exempt from all ADA implications.
More akin to NASCAR or Formula 1 Grand Prix training. Or mandatory evasive driving.
Coda
NES Member
This is age discrimination. VERY few people of retirement age will be able to pass that training.
Then again a lot of young people will not be able to pass that training.
This is just another half ass liberal attempt at eliminating the 2nd amendment.
Then again a lot of young people will not be able to pass that training.
This is just another half ass liberal attempt at eliminating the 2nd amendment.
that was what people needed to say when they replaced horses with cars and made everyone to pay taxes and licenses over and over again for the right to use a same damn thing to move around.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Reasons.
This. I asked @SIGNES this in the other thread, too: do you believe they'd negotiate in good faith? His answer acknowledged that they would not.
So, I'll ask again in this thread: if New Jersey's legislators are not negotiating in good faith, what sense does it make for New Jersey's citizens to do so?
GOAL's whole existence is as a lobbying organization.
They broke with that tradition, a tradition that gives them a seat at the table with the legislators and yet they came out as 100% opposed to 4420, and rallied a #$%storm of blowback instead in a manner entirely inconsistent with their previous approach.
Think real hard. Why?
Hint: It's not because GOAL thinks they'll succeed without negotiating.
Now, I'm done with this debate in this thread because, yeah, people need to train to get a permit in New Jersey and @Rob Boudrie is right, ADA and other issues are the way to attack the requirement.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,613
- Likes
- 33,729
Step #1 is to get "Training requirement" handled as a stand alone item, and debate/fight on the merits of that one alone.
The opposition is trying to play the game "Bundle, if we win on one we win on all".
That would be a great approach.
My big worry about training requirements isn't so much the qualification threshold (I think 'less than cops' is winnable and cop qual isn't that hard), it's who is allowed to certify training completion. I think their play will be "One test every six months at Moon Island run by a Statie with a weather cancelation postponing to the next slot six months away" or some other similarly unworkable process.
Also, I said this elsewhere but 25 yards is a tricky spec because defending a DGU at that range in court would be damned hard. Pointing out that setting the expectation that an LTC and qualification at that distance implied that was an appropriate condition to actually shoot in self defense is another strategy in the fight on the merits.
chris_1001
NES Member
????? WTF?
Boghog1
NES Member
This is the exact same thing as a drivers license and converts the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege, the right to travel is protected
They infringe on that right by not permitting you the most common means if travel without permission, a firearm is one of the most common means of self defense.
Driving is a right that has been turned into a privilege as a means to control the population.
If their ranges are like the FUDD one in Charlestown, NH no one will ever qualify. You aren't allowed to fire more than one round every five seconds at that range. So no one could ever practice to meet the standard.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Training requirements are not only a clear infringement, but there is no evidence that they will fix a problem (which doesn’t exist anyway)
GL2020
NES Member
I was doing a job with a coworker in N Virginia. He's a life long resident of Arlington MA. He's older (late 60's) and very intelligent (MIT EE alum). I've enjoyed many chats with him on everything from technical issues to political policy. He is of course a lefty, but not obnoxious about it. He also has the character (lost art) to be able to let someone have a different opinion without casting aspersions or questioning someone's intelligence. He and I have discussed firearms several times and he has actually asked me about formal training....he may take a trip to my local range one day.
Anyway, I mentioned that it is entirely possible he might see someone open carry because Virginia required those without a permit, to open carry (not sure if it is still that way).
He perked up and started to pay attention as I explained the differences in licensed vs non licensed carry. He said "I would feel better if I saw someone with a pistol knowing they were licensed and trained, that they wouldn't just react and pull it out". I then had to explain, that those are the people who carry concealed and based on my trip to the local range there were tons of them. He honestly believe if someone had a gun they were very likely to use it. I knew I couldn't change that belief, so I went after the training myth.
I asked him point blank what tragedy/shooting would have been helped by training? Have you ever heard of a mass shooter who would have been stopped by training? How about a car jacker who needed training? a 13 year kid killed by a stray bullet cause a gang banger wasn't properly trained? Or a 7 yr old kid who shot his friend after he found Dad's gun? What problem is it exactly that you think training will help with?
So it's really a comfort thing I think that seems intuitive to believers, but has little evidence to back it up.
Last edited:
Gather all members together that want to actually train and have everyone do mags dumps at once. The old dickhead fudds that live at the range and act like they own the place will either stroke out or learn to not be faggots. I can’t stand places (or people) like that.
