MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 13.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:12 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Some people even think that a permit requirement for concealed carry is crazy.


I don't know anyone who thinks it's crazy, but I know plenty of people who think it is unnecessarily burdensome or even completely unconstitutional. But there's never been a permit requirement in Vermont, nor is one necessary now in Alaska, Arizona, or (for its own residents) Wyoming. Nor will one be required in Arkansas starting next month. Nor is one required in large chunks of other states because the prosecutors and police say they will not charge or prosecute people who carry concealed without a permit. So the trend away from requiring any sort of "permit" seems to be continuing to grow. One Wisconsin legislator says he'll be introducing a constitutional carry bill here after the budget is done. So stay tuned!
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:16 pm

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not Second Amendment zealots.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20571
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:22 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not Second Amendment zealots.


You left out "anti-freedom minded gun control freaks."

Interesting that you believe the Supreme Court always gets it right.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:30 pm

I never said the Supreme Court always gets it right. It's just that they are the final arbiters. I'm a judical realist. The USSC always bats last.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20571
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:39 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I never said the Supreme Court always gets it right. It's just that they are the final arbiters. I'm a judical realist. The USSC always bats last.


If you don't think they always get it right, then apparently you're doing your own interpretation of the Constitution-- just like everyone else, including those you call "2nd Amendment zealots."
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:57 pm

It's a matter of degree. While I might disagree with certain decisions, I don't want to go with a confederacy interpretation of state's rights, like certain Second Amendment advocates seem to want. As others have said, the Civil War is over.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20571
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:34 pm

What does the Second Amendment have to do with this bill?

Health groups oppose bill to ban doctors from asking patients about guns
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20571
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:38 pm

You're right D-man and I was mistaken. Wisconsin Carry Inc. is indeed a non-profit offering free classes. So I guess a better phrasing would be that they were trying to minimize their expenses. Free classes still cost money to put on, so packing more people in would save the corporation money. Being non-profit doesn't mean you don't worry about money.

Your protestations aside, the legislature reacted to the Emergency Rules the DOJ put in place via the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules by accepting some, and overruling some. Since the Legislator didn't spell out or limit what the training requirements would be (beyond stating that showing competency with a fire arm can not be a requirement) and upon JCRAR review left more DOJ rules in place then it over ruled, I'd say your interpretation of the statues are probably a bit off.

What I don't get though D-man is your defense of this bull shit. Unless you are full of crap when talking about the class you teach, cramming 50 people into a class that doesn't even have a time requirement should offend the shit out of you. I have no personal issue with concealed carry and if I didn't have a three year old in the house I might carry myself in certain circumstances, but the fact that carrying a concealed handgun doesn't require at least 8 hours of training on safe handling, care of your fire arm, and actually showing you have the ability to handle firing the weapon you chose to carry in addition to use of force training, worries the fuck out of me. I can't believe you as a responsible gun trainer don't see a major flaw in the current system.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2987
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:43 pm

Anybody who wants to conceal-carry is obviously a responsible and dedicated gun owner. They should just have to show up, show off their weapon, and get a gold star for being (potential) heroes.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2935
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:53 pm

[
Francis Di Domizio wrote: Since the Legislator didn't spell out or limit what the training requirements would be (beyond stating that showing competency with a fire arm can not be a requirement) and upon JCRAR review left more DOJ rules in place then it over ruled, I'd say your interpretation of the statues are probably a bit off.

What I don't get though D-man is your defense of this bull shit. Unless you are full of crap when talking about the class you teach, cramming 50 people into a class that doesn't even have a time requirement should offend the shit out of you. I have no personal issue with concealed carry and if I didn't have a three year old in the house I might carry myself in certain circumstances, but the fact that carrying a concealed handgun doesn't require at least 8 hours of training on safe handling, care of your fire arm, and actually showing you have the ability to handle firing the weapon you chose to carry in addition to use of force training, worries the fuck out of me. I can't believe you as a responsible gun trainer don't see a major flaw in the current system.


The legislature DID spell out what the training requirements are, and the requirements are low, and intentionally so. They are any of the following:

1) Hunters safety course
2) A "firearms safety of training course" obtained from a list of possible sources
3) Military, law enforcement or security training substantially equivalent to #2
4) A current or expired concealed carry license issued by another state (note not all states require any training whatsoever, still their license/permit is accepted as evidence of training under WI law)
5) Small arms training obtained in the military

It does not say "showing competency with a fire arm can not be a requirement." It says firing live ammunition cannot be a requirement.

As a responsible gun trainer do I see a major flaw in the current system? Yes, but it's not the major flaw you're hoping that I see.

Here's why:

You can memorize the entire New Testament, but that won't make you a good Christian. You can be thoroughly familiar with the code of ethics of the legal profession, but that won't make you an honest lawyer. And you can read the Daily Kos daily without fail and still not be a good progressive. And no amount of training makes a person a responsible gun owner/user/ carrier.

To be a a good Christian, an honest lawyer, a good progressive or a responsible gun owner requires something that cannot be taught: a personal attitude and resolve to be good, honest or responsible.

The rules of safe gun handling are typically expressed in 3 or 4 sentences. They're very simple. Far more simple and fewer in number compared to say, the rules of road. A 10-year old can memorize them in a few minutes.

Yet we see so-called "highly trained" individuals, including law enforcement officers, gun instructors and military personnel sometimes commit violations of gun safety rules and sometimes commit violations of good judgment or law. And the reason they do so certainly isn't due to a deficiency in the amount of training they've received. It's a deficiency in their attitude or resolve. I'm tempted to use the word Bushidō.

And yes, I would prefer that everyone who carries a gun would have the resolve to get as much training as possible, but if they don't have the proper resolve, forced training will do no good. I also prefer that voters be informed, but we don't require forcing someone to be an informed voter in order to vote. If I was a church-goer I would probably prefer that everyone who attend church pay attention to the sermon. But even people who sleep through the sermon are allowed to attend. Even if we tested everyone in church regarding the content of the preacher's sermon, it wouldn't indicate whether they had taken the sermon to heart. Putting aside my atheism for the sake of argument, presumably God would care more that someone conducted their life in accordance with the 10 Commandment than whether that person could recite them. I not only would feel safer around a novice shooter who has the proper attitude than a very experienced and knowledgeable shooter who does not, I would also BE safer.

In my opinion mandated training's only purpose is to placate certain people. That's all it accomplishes. A person with the proper sense of responsibility will seek out training without it being required. I see people like that in my classes all the time: they already meet the formal requirements for a concealed carry license, but they owe it to themselves to go beyond that. A person who lacks the proper sense of responsibility will not gain it by being required to sit through a course of instruction.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:34 pm

Do you also believe people should be able to get a driver's license without training, experience driving on a road, a vision exam and a road test, and passing a written test of driving laws?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12081
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:25 am

Long time NRA member, conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, is speaking out about the NRA's absolutist views on the Second Amendment and they are running ads against him.

The senator from West Virginia said Thursday morning the NRA is using "paranoia" to keep lawmakers from making big moves on gun control, following the Newtown elementary school shooting in December that left 20 children and six adults dead.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20571
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:33 am

snoqueen wrote:Do you also believe people should be able to get a driver's license without training, experience driving on a road, a vision exam and a road test, and passing a written test of driving laws?


The problem with that comparison is that driving a vehicle on public roads isn't a protected right under the Constitution. A better question to ask would be "Should people be allowed to vote without training, experience in civics, a vision test and a test on how to fill out a ballot, and passing a written test of voting laws?"
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:42 am

Maybe the real question is: should something which practically requires special knowledge and training, and carries tremendous potential threat to society, be protected by the Constitution without consideration of these facts?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:46 am

wack wack wrote:Maybe the real question is: should something which practically requires special knowledge and training, and carries tremendous potential threat to society, be protected by the Constitution without consideration of these facts?


You're talking about both voting and bearing arms.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar