Supreme court case against MA on guns

[Picton]

You mean the org that prohibits any use of handguns in scouting activities other than the LE Explorers program?

How would I know? I was never a scout.

I just know they come shoot at my club sometimes. I assume that meant they had some marksmanship instruction.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How would I know? I was never a scout.

I just know they come shoot at my club sometimes. I assume that meant they had some marksmanship instruction.

They do, very limited in scope to 22LR as far as I know.

 

[Picton]

They do, very limited in scope to 22LR as far as I know.

Good enough for me.

If you're going to have a training requirement, and it seems that's constitutional, it should be as basic as possible.

 

[enbloc]

How would I know? I was never a scout.

sure, you were...
Just not as a boy...

 

[Picton]

sure, you were...
Just not as a boy...
View attachment 671505

13F, baby.

Not a scout. More of a guy with binos, a radio, and some beer, forgotten about in front of the FLOT.

 

[enbloc]

13F, baby.

Not a scout. More of a guy with binos, a radio, and some beer, forgotten about in front of the FLOT.

better...?

 

[babygorilla]

Have you read the briefs? The judge has a significant amount of information at hand at this point.
And your point of no formal training before the NRA is simply incorrect. There were private military schools to go along with the state required militia drilling.

Norwich University - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This all gets down to what each individual accepts as an infringement. Including the judges.
IMO, any requirement to own a firearm infringes. Even that of training.

 

[Picton]

This all gets down to what each individual accepts as an infringement. Including the judges.
IMO, any requirement to own a firearm infringes. Even that of training.

Exactly. And very few of us disagree with you.

But SCOTUS does. And their opinion matters more than yours does. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but that's the way it is. You can't wish away judicial supremacy any more than the antis can wish away 2A; both those ships sailed centuries ago.

As for what to do about it? These are laws you can choose to obey, or not; that's up to you.

 

[pastera]

This all gets down to what each individual accepts as an infringement. Including the judges.
IMO, any requirement to own a firearm infringes. Even that of training.

I agree
However I understand the reality we live in where SCOTUS, in a public carry case, stated in Dicta that fees and training would be held unconstitutional if excessive. That is easily extended to they are acceptable if not excessive.
We aren't getting that subject before them again in the next ten years so we need to work to restrict where fees and training apply and limit levels.
This fight will be fought state by state but each one is still important because any loss pollutes case law and gives anti-states ammunition and ideas.
Easiest win would be to define the types and levels of knowledge necessary for safe handling in public - likely aligning with a NRA basic pistol. If a person can clearly show knowledge and experience they bypass the training requirement.
Someone else in the thread mentioned a list that I felt was pretty good.

The balls is in our court now. We need make it easier and more accepted for soccer moms to go grocery shopping while openly carrying. It won't take a large percentage to normalize and that alone will destroy the anti's message to kids that guns are bad and only criminals have them.

 

[Coyote33]

We need make it easier and more accepted for soccer moms to go grocery shopping while openly carrying. It won't take a large percentage to normalize and that alone will destroy the anti's message to kids that guns are bad and only criminals have them.

Yup. This is what needs to happen, and I think IS happening to a small extent.

 

[babygorilla]

I agree
However I understand the reality we live in where SCOTUS, in a public carry case, stated in Dicta that fees and training would be held unconstitutional if excessive. That is easily extended to they are acceptable if not excessive.
We aren't getting that subject before them again in the next ten years so we need to work to restrict where fees and training apply and limit levels.
This fight will be fought state by state but each one is still important because any loss pollutes case law and gives anti-states ammunition and ideas.
Easiest win would be to define the types and levels of knowledge necessary for safe handling in public - likely aligning with a NRA basic pistol. If a person can clearly show knowledge and experience they bypass the training requirement.
Someone else in the thread mentioned a list that I felt was pretty good.

The balls is in our court now. We need make it easier and more accepted for soccer moms to go grocery shopping while openly carrying. It won't take a large percentage to normalize and that alone will destroy the anti's message to kids that guns are bad and only criminals have them.

It's just.....retarded.
Heller states that the militia is separate from the right to own.
The only acceptable historical precedence is that training was either naturally acquired or was given to those seeking to become military or militia.
Per Heller AND Bruen then the training historical precedence is required to join the militia, not the right to own.
Why should ANYONE accept half truths & any infringement on ANY enumerated right? Either rule using precedents and past rulings or not, biased USSC justices that allow their emotions sway their arguments are the problem.
Just the tip? Eff that!

 

[pastera]

It's just.....retarded.
Heller states that the militia is separate from the right to own.
The only acceptable historical precedence is that training was either naturally acquired or was given to those seeking to become military or militia.
Per Heller AND Bruen then the training historical precedence is required to join the militia, not the right to own.
Why should ANYONE accept half truths & any infringement on ANY enumerated right? Either rule using precedents and past rulings or not, biased USSC justices that allow their emotions sway their arguments are the problem.
Just the tip? Eff that!

Agree to all except the bold.
You do not join the militia, you are the militia.
Military IS NOT the militia. Unfortunately very few understand this.

I am not arguing that requiring training is proper. I am arguing that because there is an analog to training in the Constitution the State will use that to propose draconian requirements in order to dissuade ownership. SCOTUS opened the door for this line of reasoning so only they can close it and that's not happening for a decade or more (unless a state goes way overboard on fees and training)

Given we are unlikely to prevail on removing training requirements, we, as experts, should be the ones setting proper requirements.
I don't think anyone disagrees that firearms safety and marksmanship have fallen out of common knowledge.
Therefore it behooves us to set a proper minimum standard of training that would allow the multitude to safety carry and not create resentment through endless NDs and bad shoots.

We need to be careful to fight the good fight and resist going for wins before the foundation of good case law is created.

 

[Roadglide]

One hopes it will be the least intrusive process possible, from both a time and money perspective. Exemptions ought to be easy to get: not just veterans, but ANYONE who's ever held a hunting license, been a boy scout, etc. ANY degree of prior firearms training.

Not only least intrusive but final. Meaning they cant keep moving the goalposts. CDL licenses can no longer be backed into via dpw's or say using your friends truck and winging the test. Must now go to a driving school end of story. Hoisting engineers license for heavy equipment started a few years back with "continuing education" (lol) classes every time you renew. And they keep tweaking them making it harder for you to just earn a living.

 

[Picton]

Not only least intrusive but final. Meaning they cant keep moving the goalposts. CDL licenses can no longer be backed into via dpw's or say using your friends truck and winging the test. Must now go to a driving school end of story. Hoisting engineers license for heavy equipment started a few years back with "continuing education" (lol) classes every time you renew. And they keep tweaking them making it harder for you to just earn a living.

There's precedent now (I think) in many states for veterans to be exempt from some of the training requirements to get concealed licenses. So, at least their training is viewed as final.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[Roadglide]

There's precedent now (I think) in many states for veterans to be exempt from some of the training requirements to get concealed licenses. So, at least their training is viewed as final.

Interesting times ahead.

Wouldn't say that's a bad thing and definitely not shitting on our vets but I've always hated that kind of thing. The constant babble about how police have access to certain weapons because they're well trained LMAO

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Given we are unlikely to prevail on removing training requirements, we, as experts, should be the ones setting proper requirements.

The key, given that it is going to be, is to keep it private sector. Currently, NYC and RI don't have "Training" but a marksmanship test that may be administered by civilian instructors. The states that do require training have, thus far, kept it a non-governmental function.

 

[Picton]

Wouldn't say that's a bad thing and definitely not shitting on our vets but I've always hated that kind of thing. The constant babble about how police have access to certain weapons because they're well trained LMAO

I agree, which is why I'd place an afternoon on the Appleseed curriculum in the Cub Scouts on a par with a 20-year military career.

I don't want there to be any training requirements. But if there are going to be? I'll take whatever is least intrusive. For some, that's a trip to the woods with a hunting license, and for others it's a career as a LEO. Either one, or anything in between, should satisfy the government that one is minimally safe with a gun.

After all, to the extent that training is going to be required, the only compelling government interest I can see is preventing NDs. It's no business of theirs whether a shooter is good or bad at hitting their target, only that passers-by are safe from their negligence. Not that anything is a guarantee: as we all know, plenty of soldiers and LEOs make safety errors with firearms.

 

[babygorilla]

Given we are unlikely to prevail on removing training requirements, we, as experts, should be the ones setting proper requirements.
I don't think anyone disagrees that firearms safety and marksmanship have fallen out of common knowledge.
Therefore it behooves us to set a proper minimum standard of training that would allow the multitude to safety carry and not create resentment through endless NDs and bad shoots.

And I disagree with ALL of that.
Again, the MILTIA must be "in good order", not the people.

 

[pastera]

And I disagree with ALL of that.
Again, the MILTIA must be "in good order", not the people.

You might be correct - the plaintiffs might convince the judge that training for public carry isn't constitutional.
If one reads the federalist and anti federalist papers it is abundantly clear that the average person was much better informed and able to understand complex topics without formal training but that doesn't translate into a requirement of education to vote or run for office.

I just don't think that is a possibility with the current legal framework in place.
I believe they should argue that any training requirements beyond what the average colonist would have learned socially would be an impermissible infringement.

 

[SFC13557]

Since we live in the internet age training is readily available online for free. No excuse for a citizen NOT to know basic safety rules for handling a firearm if interested in purchasing and owning a firearm. Requiring a sanctioned in person safety class is just another hoop to jump thru for the average Joe or Jane. If newbie Joe or Jane walks into said gun shop and inquiries into buying a Glock the salesperson would give a simple instruction in operation, disassembly and reassembly of said firearm and any adult knows enough not to point a firearm at anything that he, she doesn't intend to shoot.

 

[M1911]

Hoisting engineers license for heavy equipment started a few years back with "continuing education" (lol) classes every time you renew. And they keep tweaking them making it harder for you to just earn a living.

Continuing education to run an effing crane? WTF.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Since we live in the internet age training is readily available online for free. No excuse for a citizen NOT to know basic safety rules for handling a firearm if interested in purchasing and owning a firearm. Requiring a sanctioned in person safety class is just another hoop to jump thru for the average Joe or Jane. If newbie Joe or Jane walks into said gun shop and inquiries into buying a Glock the salesperson would give a simple instruction in operation, disassembly and reassembly of said firearm and any adult knows enough not to point a firearm at anything that he, she doesn't intend to shoot.

Really???

 

[M1911]

any adult knows enough not to point a firearm at anything that he, she doesn't intend to shoot.

I have to disagree with that. I well remember the time that a fellow club member, a long-time shooter and Vietnam vet, casually muzzled me with his Colt SAA.

Men in the US seem to think that they know gun handling as a birthright. The reality is that they don't, unless they get some training. No, I'm not saying that I agree with training mandates -- I don't. But it is also a mistake to argue that people generally know how to handle guns safely. Go to a public range and you will see also sorts of stupidity.

 

[Mesatchornug]

any adult knows enough not to point a firearm at anything that he, she doesn't intend to shoot.

so you've never been to a gunshop, then?

Because too often the first thing newbies do is point that pistol at the guy behind the counter and pull the trigger. (right @drgrant?)

see also, the entire Alec Baldwin thread...

 

[1903Collector]

so you've never been to a gunshop, then?

Because too often the first thing newbies do is point that pistol at the guy behind the counter and pull the trigger. (right @drgrant?)

see also, the entire Alec Baldwin thread...

I've been swept at gunshops more than a dirty floor and I'm just a customer!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Since we live in the internet age training is readily available online for free. No excuse for a citizen NOT to know basic safety rules for handling a firearm if interested in purchasing and owning a firearm. Requiring a sanctioned in person safety class is just another hoop to jump thru for the average Joe or Jane. If newbie Joe or Jane walks into said gun shop and inquiries into buying a Glock the salesperson would give a simple instruction in operation, disassembly and reassembly of said firearm and any adult knows enough not to point a firearm at anything that he, she doesn't intend to shoot.

NO, they don't! I see it every time I walk into a gun shop and usually multiple people and times!

As much as I'd like to work in a gunshop, I couldn't do it strictly for this reason. I don't like or want to have guns pointed at me daily.

 

[SFC13557]

I've been swept at gunshops more than a dirty floor and I'm just a customer!

Big difference between muzzle swept and pointing a loaded gun at an unintended target. Being muzzle swept at the range is stupid and dangerous but common sense, much different than at a gunshop. That said there are many people who don't have the common sense to own a firearm as well as driving a car.

 

[drgrant]

so you've never been to a gunshop, then?

Because too often the first thing newbies do is point that pistol at the guy behind the counter and pull the trigger. (right @drgrant?)

I never had anyone snap a trigger in my direction, but I have literally lost track of the total number of muzzle sweeps and the # of times (especially in apr-july 2020 jesus h christ) i had to politely correct someones handling. Usually its sweeping but "finger in wrong place" is an easy 2nd.

The contrast between regulars and gun people versus " people who barely know anything about guns" is gigantic. I do actually like it when newbies would come in with people that actually know better... because the people that know better will keep them from being retarded and actually teach them the ropes a bit. Like a guy might come in with his wife or something and then she's pointing the thing all over the place and he kind of just guides her and tells her why it's not a good idea to do that LOL....

 

[M1911]

Big difference between muzzle swept and pointing a loaded gun at an unintended target. Finger off the trigger is the key.

Uh, no.

Sweeping someone with the muzzle is exactly the same as pointing a loaded gun at an unintended target.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Uh, no.

Sweeping someone with the muzzle is exactly the same as pointing a loaded gun at an unintended target.

FIFY