Supreme Court agrees to hear Concealed Carry license issue case

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

While I don't think it's going to happen, I'd love to see the SCOTUS come out with if may legally own a firearm, you may open or concealed carry it.  That's what the founders intended.    It's also important to remember that the constitution specifically comprehends private ownership of artillery.   Look at the words about letters of marque and reprisal.

 As much as I'd like to see a lot less restrictions on gun 'ownership', I still think a competency class should be part of getting a carry permit. Way too many times I see careless handling of firearms. I do some buying,selling and trading, and the first thing I do is check the chamber on a gun I'm looking at. I'm still shocked at the number of people who will show up with a gun for sale, or trade, that has rounds in it. They usually say, "bleep I forgot it was loaded", or "I didnt know it was loaded".   But its a common sense thing. Heaven forbid the potential buyer just pulls the trigger when they pick it up.

Then you TOTALLY contradict yourself here in your first sentence. Can't have it both ways. Rights are not privileges and shall not be infringed means just that. You can't legislate stupidity out of society no matter what sweet lberal BS they trot out. Keep in mind we've licensed drivers since the earliest days of the automobile yet the vast majority of accidents are caused by those who have drivers licenses.

[Rcher]

Sometimes it's hard to codify "common sense". The Constitution doesn't say that "criminals" or "mentally incapable people" should be prohibited to bear arms.

Guess what percent of US citizen had read Constitution? I doubt it would be > 10%. Ironically, those who're going through "naturalization process" to become US citizens might read it to pass knowledge test.

[armoredman]

There should be no restrictions on possession or carry of a firearm. There are no grounds for placing any limits on how a person may exercise this right.

It is a 'right', not a privilege and is not subject to any limit that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Exactly. The only thing I support is education in schools, since education by parents as I grew up with is not quite so commonplace. Arizona has an excellent firearms program in law, the Arizona Gun Safety Program, which is offered as an elective for high schools in this state. It requires a student to safely discharge a firearm at a target on a range to receive credit. However, no school has elected to offer this course. I think it should be a required elective, meaning the schools should have to offer it, whether or not the students take it. It also should not have a government required testing to be able to exercise the right, simply safety and historical education.
Having said all that, there can not be any government requirements for training or permitting, or the right is infringed, like poll taxes and literacy tests for freed slaves after the Civil War, to prevent them from voting.

[Tok36]

There should be no restrictions on possession or carry of a firearm. There are no grounds for placing any limits on how a person may exercise this right.

It is a 'right', not a privilege and is not subject to any limit that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Exactly. The only thing I support is education in schools, since education by parents as I grew up with is not quite so commonplace. Arizona has an excellent firearms program in law, the Arizona Gun Safety Program, which is offered as an elective for high schools in this state. It requires a student to safely discharge a firearm at a target on a range to receive credit. However, no school has elected to offer this course. I think it should be a required elective, meaning the schools should have to offer it, whether or not the students take it. It also should not have a government required testing to be able to exercise the right, simply safety and historical education.
Having said all that, there can not be any government requirements for training or permitting, or the right is infringed, like poll taxes and literacy tests for freed slaves after the Civil War, to prevent them from voting.

This one bugs me. I have often pondered the possibility of mandatory firearms training and education, but even if it could work in some places for a time in a productive way, it would soon become politicized and corrupted.

[Atomic Punk]

This one bugs me. I have often pondered the possibility of mandatory firearms training and education, but even if it could work in some places for a time in a productive way, it would soon become politicized and corrupted.

Exactly. Massachusetts gives the police chief discretion in issuing carry permits. Rationale being s/he might know the person is irresponsible and/or dangerous even though the person doesn't have an arrest record. On it's face, many would think this seems reasonable, a "common sense" check to make sure some kook doesn't get a gun. 

Like Tok36 says, it got abused. Some Chiefs, straight up, do not issue them to any one. Some felt citizens shouldn't be able to carry, it was safer for their officers, and/or they were afraid of the liability.

A right is a right, not a privilege. 

[Lorenzo]

If this plays out right, my state of Maryland could become a "shall issue" state instead of a "may issue" state like it is now.

[Lorenzo]

there can not be any government requirements for training or permitting, or the right is infringed.

I think the best we can hope for is required training and a permit application to have a concealed carry permit issued to you. From what I have seen at the range, training requirements are probably a good thing. Some of these bozos shouldn't carry a loaded firearm, since they are more likely to shoot themselves in the leg than to have a positive outcome in a defensive situation.

[Gunnerdad80]

I think the best we can hope for is required training and a permit application to have a concealed carry permit issued to you. From what I have seen at the range, training requirements are probably a good thing. Some of these bozos shouldn't carry a loaded firearm, since they are more likely to shoot themselves in the leg than to have a positive outcome in a defensive situation.

There are a couple gun ranges I don’t use anymore because they don’t have a divider or a beefy enough divider that I feel safe shooting with others around me. The last straw for me was at an outdoor range with no dividers. Three men, probably in their mid 20’s (not saying that’s a bad age), were showing zero gun safety. We left immediately. Sadly a few weeks back a man accidentally shot and killed himself at an indoor range and, from what I gather, the thick concrete dividers helped protect others. Not sure how I feel about “mandatory” gun training but maybe there should be some kind of incentivized training. Like discounted licensing fees if you show a certificate of so many hours of training. Or something similar.

[crosstimbers]

What bothers me about the idea of mandatory training, is that it WILL be used by the anti-gun crowd in some shape, fashion or form. Not "can" but WILL.

I agree that rights can't be limited by training requirements, and more and more I am sick and tired of "mandatory" anything. But it is concerning that fewer people nowdays practice the kind of firearms safety discipline that I grew up with. In a way, it's like when you see some weirdos at a gun show dressed or behaving in a manner that makes you want to slap them and tell them they are giving the anti-gun crowd ammunition. Likewise, people who do really stupid things with firearms also provide ammo for those who wish to destroy our freedoms.

I dont know what the answer is.

[cntrydawwwg]

Just curious how many people would like to have to take a class, and get a permit to voice any opinion they have? Can you imagine, a class that teaches you what you can and cannot say, and then having to go apply for a permit so that you can have the Governments permission to speak your opinion?
       
      Oh, and then along with that permit, you’ve gotta purchase insurance to cover the instances where your permitted speech offended and hurt someone’s feelings and made them feel bad.

   
    Hey, just saying. A right isn’t a right if you have to ask permission. [emoji85][emoji86][emoji87]

[moeman]

If this plays out right, my state of Maryland could become a "shall issue" state instead of a "may issue" state like it is now.

My home state, too. State Police controls it. It's so bad here I think you need to know someone on the inside or prove you've been shot at (at least a couple times...).

[Gunnerdad80]

A right isn’t a right if you have to ask permission. [emoji85][emoji86][emoji87]

Facts!

[Togmaster]

I listened to the entire recording of the arguments today. I have a good feeling about this case.

[tomboyjr]

While I don't think it's going to happen, I'd love to see the SCOTUS come out with if may legally own a firearm, you may open or concealed carry it.  That's what the founders intended.    It's also important to remember that the constitution specifically comprehends private ownership of artillery.   Look at the words about letters of marque and reprisal.

 As much as I'd like to see a lot less restrictions on gun 'ownership', I still think a competency class should be part of getting a carry permit. Way too many times I see careless handling of firearms. I do some buying,selling and trading, and the first thing I do is check the chamber on a gun I'm looking at. I'm still shocked at the number of people who will show up with a gun for sale, or trade, that has rounds in it. They usually say, "bleep I forgot it was loaded", or "I didnt know it was loaded".   But its a common sense thing. Heaven forbid the potential buyer just pulls the trigger when they pick it up.

Then you TOTALLY contradict yourself here in your first sentence. Can't have it both ways. Rights are not privileges and shall not be infringed means just that. You can't legislate stupidity out of society no matter what sweet lberal BS they trot out. Keep in mind we've licensed drivers since the earliest days of the automobile yet the vast majority of accidents are caused by those who have drivers licenses.

 Wow. Just wow. ALL I did was state my opinion, and I get someone that cant wait to tell me that I contradicted myself. I hope that makes you feel like a big man.
 And though I hate to burst your bubble, if you read my post again, I say I wouldnt want to see restrictions on 'gun ownership'. For a carry permit, I still think a gun safety class is in order.  Theres a big difference between owning a gun and carrying a gun.

[Grendel]

You guys need to dial back the rhetoric or this thread is going away. People need to remember that we're all on the same side here.