Training Before Obtaining Carry Permit?

[galvatron]

Ironically, the Second Amendment actually is "for the children."

Unfortunately most people don't understand that.

How does it go again, those who don't learn from history.......

 

[sinac84]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[StuP]

I'm not in favor of it.

I'm surprised no one's drawn a parallel with drivers licenses though. If you want to take a a couple of tons of vehicles out in public, (which is incontrovertibly a lethal weapon), you can't without demonstrating to the government you're skilled enough to do so without being a danger to others.

As to 'not infringed', it is for felons, and I don't notice any clause that states, "except for them", but how many people would support removing that restriction ?

 

[sinac84]

I'm not in favor of it.

I'm surprised no one's drawn a parallel with drivers licenses though. If you want to take a a couple of tons of vehicles out in public, (which is incontrovertibly a lethal weapon), you can't without demonstrating to the government you're skilled enough to do so without being a danger to others.

As to 'not infringed', it is for felons, and I don't notice any clause that states, "except for them", but how many people would support removing that restriction ?

Obviously if you are a felon you lost that right. If you are a law abiding citizen that wants to have a gun to carry for protection then requiring them to take a class is infringing on their natural right to protect themselves.

 

[65GT]

I say no , because it would be controlled by the government. They may only have one training center in the state requiring people to drive hundreds of miles for several sessions to attend. Also cost could be several hundred dollars making it impossible for most people. There could be a wait time of months to get in. They could also make it something that may need to be renewed over and over again. TERRIBLE IDEA !

 

[StuP]

Obviously if you are a felon you lost that right. If you are a law abiding citizen that wants to have a gun to carry for protection then requiring them to take a class is infringing on their natural right to protect themselves.

I quite agree, but I don't see that caveat in the constitution ? I don't claim to know it well. Is there that excludes any of the amendments from applying to certain classes of people ?

 

[GeauxLSU]

I'm surprised no one's drawn a parallel with drivers licenses though.

Because driving isn't a Constitutionally protected right, (much less one that explicitly states it shall not be infringed).

 

[StuP]

Because driving isn't a Constitutionally protected right, (much less one that explicitly states it shall not be infringed).

Very fair point. So what about classes of people who are 'infringed' ? There are plenty of states that require training before a permit's issued, have any of those been challenged as unconstitutional and won ?

 

[zipcode]

being in the military doesn't make u an expert .only 7 to 11% are combat troops. the rest are support. 11-B's do the grunt work. Sure all ranks were KIA's in VN, from generals to pvt's. Walking point almost 50 years ago doesn't make me an expert! This is my weapon, this is my gun, one is for killing, one is for fun. I along with my wife will be taking a carry course offered by a retired chief of police. I EDC when I step outside my home. BE RESPONSIBLE Some people should never have a weapon. How to determine that is the ??? Altz. or dem., depression, trimmers, where's the line? PTSD? What say all u Saints and Sinners???

 

[GeauxLSU]

Very fair point. So what about classes of people who are 'infringed' ? There are plenty of states that require training before a permit's issued, have any of those been challenged as unconstitutional and won ?

A carry 'permit' is unconstitutional by definition. Apparently "shall not be infringed" doesn't mean what it used to mean.
I can't answer your question but I'm pretty sure the answer is sadly "no".