Omaha oakview mall

[rluening]

You're right, it is illegal in many places to incite panic by yelling "fire" in a crowded place. If you do it, you may be charged with inciting panic or something similar.

Similarly, if you do something stupid with a weapon, you may be charged with all manner of infractions.

Notice, though, that this is an apples and oranges situation. The government does not remove your voice box until you have proven that you are responsible enough to be able to speak in public. You are expected to behave yourself, and will be punished if you don't.

You are suggesting that nobody should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights until they have met some arbitrary standard of training, in effect assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent.

Who decides the standards we must meet?

There's a famous scrap of paper that reads:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

A particular addition to that piece of paper includes the words:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution."

If we let the government choose which of us are actually created equal before we have done anything to lose our rights we don't have any rights to begin with.

We are not born felons. We are born with "certain unalienable Rights" (another phrase lifted from that rag people seem to ignore).

If you are the one in power, it's quite likely you don't want me to carry a weapon because I haven't met some arbitrary and capricious standard. If I am the one making the rules, I probably won't want you to carry because your "some animals are more equal than others" sentiment scares me to death. Neither situation is proper or correct.

Until we do something to prove otherwise, we _both_ have the right to speak our minds, keep and bear arms, not have our homes tossed by random police or military forces, etc. Notice that we have those rights until we do something to have them taken away, not the other way around. If we need to prove we are worthy, they aren't rights.

/rl

[FarmerRick]

So, when will we ask Nebraska to require a class and background check to get a permit to OPEN CARRY, like Omaha has?

It sure can't be safe for just anyone to open carry now can it???  We'd better regulate that some more too.  
After all, is it really all that different if the gun is visible or not?  In fact it's probably MUCH MORE FRIGHTENING for the sheep to see the gun.  

Seems like that would make a few people here very happy.  

[justsomeguy]

Just a couple weeks ago, there was a guy in Oregon with a CCW permit firing shots at a car that was driving away.

This sounds like something that happened in Bellevue NE a few years ago only the one behind the trigger was one of the " Only Ones ". Yep, a police officer. "Someone who trains constantly" to use your words.

 

That guy just gave up his 2nd Amendment right, IMO, because he couldn't handle the responsibility that came with it.

Do you think this happened to the officer in question?
NO! The shooting was ruled justified and he was put back to work.

[DanClrk51]

Likewise, by allowing those who are un-trained or unsafe to carry loaded guns, we are putting the lives of others at risk.

No we are NOT. The act of simply carrying a loaded gun does not  put other lives at risk nor does it infringe on other peoples rights. However restricting me from exercising my God-given, inalienable right to bear arms unless I jump through some arbitrary hoops IS a violation of MY rights. The "crime" of carrying a concealed weapon is a victimless crime since the act itself harms no one. If it did hurt or infringe on other people's rights, then cops would be arrested on the spot for carrying their back up weapons concealed. Why don't we use common sense and logic and punish those that actually hurt someone. What we are doing now is punishing people for possessing the ability to hurt someone. Is that fair?

And by the way, no amount of training is going to make anyone 100% safe. We are all humans, and humans make mistakes even the most trained and experienced police officers. This is why mandates for training are in all cases arbitrary. Punish someone if they have actually done something wrong!

rluening actually explained the concept very well.

[justsomeguy]

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---------- Jeff Snyder

[AAllen]

I want to clear up a point that is an often misquoted item.  It is not illegal to yell fire in a theater.  You are responcible for the outcome of the act but the act is not illegal.  Examples, there are plays (they take place in theaters) were a caricter on stage my yell fire as part of the play.  If there is a fire in a theater and you are informing the audience it would be expected that a person would yell fire.  But if you yell fire in a theater, when there is not one, and cause people to stampead out you would be guilty of multiple differing possible charges, depending on if anyone was injured by your act or not.

This is the outcome of 2 supreme court cases, the first the person was held guilty for their action and this is where the misquote often comes from.  A year later there was another case where the supreme court changed the ruling to specify the speach is not what is illegal, it is the outcome.

To compare to firearms, it is not illegal to crry a firearm but the person carrying is resoncible for anything that may happen because of it (he pulls the gun to defend himself, negligent discharge ect.)

[Mudinyeri]

I don't even know where to begin to reply ....

I've been accused of wanting to ban guns.  Training has been characterized as punishment.  We're splitting hairs between carrying a loaded gun and using it irresponsibly.  I see arguments where the logical extension would result in the mentally deficient and those who've been diagnosed as mentally unstable carrying guns.

Let's see if we can find some areas of agreement and work from there.

1. Can we all agree that the Second Amendment ... and every other amendment of the first eight (the Enumerated Rights) have limitations by necessity since we do not live in a Utopian society?

2. Can we all agree that training is a good thing and not a punishment?

3. Can we all agree that, all else being equal, individuals with inadequate gun training and skills pose more of a danger to themselves and their fellow man than those who have adequate training and skills?

Let's start with that and see if we can find some common ground (even though I'm sure we all share more common ground than not).

[AAllen]

Actually I have trouble with the concepts in the common ground.

1. The enumerated rights in the constitution are not limited; they are God given rights that all people have.  Otherwise referred to as natural rights.

2.  Yes training is a good thing, when it is my choice.  When it is dictated by a government it is a punishment.  If I force you to eat ice cream until you become ill that?s a bad thing even though ice cream is good.

3. What is adequate?  I have also seen some very well trained people (police, military, and civilians) endanger their families and the public, so training does not always mean that the person has common sense.

[DaveB]

I never saw the limitations, is there small print at the bottom that I missed?

My "training" started with my father over 45 years ago, the only formal training I ever had was 35 years ago in the Army, and that was just shooting at silhouettes. I had the right to buy guns before I was allowed to buy alcohol. The limitations you speak of are added on because the gun grabbers are doing anything they can to take away our God given rights. Because the majority of my training came from my father, does that not qualify me to carry a gun in public? You might just want me around when something bad starts to happen. Might surprise you that I can hit what I'm aiming at, without the formal training. If someone wants training, they should be free to get it whenever they want. I would love to, just can't afford it.

I do agree that training is a good thing, but it should be voluntary. The reason for the 2nd amendment is to keep this runaway government from removing our rights.

I think that the qualifying for a CCW is more than enough.

[Mudinyeri]

Actually I have trouble with the concepts in the common ground.

1. The enumerated rights in the constitution are not limited; they are God given rights that all people have.  Otherwise referred to as natural rights.

2.  Yes training is a good thing, when it is my choice.  When it is dictated by a government it is a punishment.  If I force you to eat ice cream until you become ill that?s a bad thing even though ice cream is good.

3. What is adequate?  I have also seen some very well trained people (police, military, and civilians) endanger their families and the public, so training does not always mean that the person has common sense.

1. So, you don't follow any of the laws that have been established over the 200+ years since the amendments were passed?

2. Why is training a bad thing if someone else requires it?  Is hunter safety training a bad thing? 

3. We're not going to achieve perfection here.  Let's not fool ourselves (or try to fool others) by suggestion that training and practice bring perfection.  We're trying to improve people's skills and abilities so they know how and when to utilize guns.

DaveB, the limitations I'm talking about are not limited to the Second Amendment.  Each of the amendments has limitations.  Most of those limitations are for the good of society.  Some of the limitations go beyond "for the good of society" and truly restrict the right(s) to a point where they cannot be freely exercised.  That is where our responsibility to be politically active and vote comes into play.  We are responsible (there's that annoying word again) to remove the lawmakers from office - the ones who've pushed through truly restrictive laws - and put into office lawmakers who are fair in their approach to balancing rights and responsibilities.

It seems obvious from the arguments I'm getting that none of you has ever been personally endangered by a person who was not qualified to be using the gun they were holding.  When you have, as I have, it apparently changes your perspective.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

[Mudinyeri]

I've been reading the McDonald decision this morning, which hinges largely on the Heller decision, and have noticed an interesting consitency between both.  Both decisions refer to keeping a gun in the home for self-defense. 

Here are a couple quotations from the McDonald brief:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

So, if those of you arguing against me are arguing for keeping a gun in your home for self-defense, I'll gladly acquiesce that you may participate in as little (or as much) training as you like.  An untrained individual with a gun in their home is much less likely to put the general public at risk than someone like the idiot I mentioned in the AT&T store example eariler.  Only those who enter that individual's home will be potentially put at risk.  (Well, OK, I suppose a bullet could penetrate a wall and injure or kill someone within a few yards of the home.)

Finally, we all need to remember that our rights end where the rights of others begin.  If the right of one individual to bear arms infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life, what are we to do?

[DaveB]

When I lived and worked in Omaha, our store was robbed at gunpoint, I don't know how much training the robber had, but we were only allowed to be victims. By anybody being armed in the store at the time of the robbery, it may not have happened, and I would not have worried about whether or not they had formal training. The only people in danger were two people that had a gun pointed at them, all for $63.00. Fortunately no one was hurt. The right to self defense does not end as soon as I walk out of my home.

Seems that a lot of the pros are having some bad luck shooting change machines, their legs, and roofs, but I guess that's okay since they are cops.

I agree, we disagree.

I am also old and don't accept change well, and I argue until I get tired.

[DanClrk51]

I've been reading the McDonald decision this morning, which hinges largely on the Heller decision, and have noticed an interesting consitency between both.  Both decisions refer to keeping a gun in the home for self-defense. 

Here are a couple quotations from the McDonald brief:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.

So, if those of you arguing against me are arguing for keeping a gun in your home for self-defense, I'll gladly acquiesce that you may participate in as little (or as much) training as you like.  An untrained individual with a gun in their home is much less likely to put the general public at risk than someone like the idiot I mentioned in the AT&T store example eariler.  Only those who enter that individual's home will be potentially put at risk.  (Well, OK, I suppose a bullet could penetrate a wall and injure or kill someone within a few yards of the home.)

Finally, we all need to remember that our rights end where the rights of others begin.  If the right of one individual to bear arms infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life, what are we to do?

Those were Justice Samuel Alito's words not mine. And I disagree with his take here. His assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is not ?a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.?  is dangerous. This means now that we are going to be limited in the choice of weapons, manner carried, and for the purpose carried in the future. Sounds a lot like California's "May Issue" system were only a handful of people get awarded the privilege of carrying a concealed handgun. There you have to have a "legitimate" purpose to carry. Legitimate can mean so many things to so many different people, especially liberals who think you should only be allowed to carry a weapon unless its for your job or you can physically prove that your life is being threatened. This is a dangerous path that we are on.

Plus, I wanna know how a loaded holstered firearm carried by a citizen of this country "infringes, in all likelihood, upon the right of another individual to life"?

The only way there would be an infringement is if the armed individual has ill intent and abuses his right to use the gun to commit a crime such as robbery, rape, assault, or murder. OR if the individual were to become negligent and pull the gun out of the holster and start to point at around all over the place entailing the muzzle being pointed at peoples bodies and limbs. Even then however, one could argue, their life wasn't entirely in danger unless the trigger was pulled.

Police point their guns at innocent people all the time because of mistaken identities or out of caution or suspicion. Are the officers ever charged with putting people's life's at risk? No.

So long as a citizen peacefully carries a loaded gun there shouldn't be a problem. They should not be charged with "carrying a concealed weapon" they should not be charged with "disturbing the peace", they should not be charged with "disorderly conduct", and they shouldn't be required by government to have formal training and a government issued permit "or else we the government will charge you with a crime". Remember that as soon as the government has the power to issue you a permit (permission=privilege) it can also revoke it at any time for any reason whatsoever. Take the case of this mom who legally obtained a concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania but was revoked her permit because she openly (and legally) carried it at a soccer game. The sheriff held that carrying at a soccer game was "bad judgement".

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/4226-pistol-packing-pa-soccer-mom-loses-gun-permit.html

Sadly there is an update to this story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/melanie-hain-gun-carrying_n_315291.html

A CCW permit is the same as a gun registration. Gun registration eventually leads to confiscation when enough bad guys are in government.
Once you have one (CCW), the government knows that you own guns and they also know what address to come to when a fascist government has taken over in order to disarm the public to prevent an uprising against its oppressive regime.

[2 E L O]

I think some people argue just to argue.  Some people complain just to complain. 

Dave, crazy story about your store getting robbed.  I understand your point about only being allowed to be victims since guns weren't allowed.  I try not to shop at stores with posted "No Guns" signs.  That's an issue for another thread, though...

It would have been nice if an armed citizen that's proficient with his weapon would have been in the store to diffuse the situation however necessary.  I think we all fully agree on that point.  Mudinyeri's and my point is that it would NOT be nice if an armed citizen that didn't know a semi-auto from a revolver, has only ever put about 60 rounds through a handgun (56 of those at the CCW course), is not aware of their surroundings, etc. etc. etc.

Just look at the Walgreens incident... McCollough had some training (sounded somewhat minor), but he WAS proficient with his weapon, shot often, had situational awareness, etc. etc. etc.  He only landed 4 of 8 shots, which in a situation like that is probably pretty darn good! 

What happens when you throw somebody inexperienced off the street that just decided to get a CCW for the heck of it and now carries a gun everywhere?  Maybe they land 1 of 8 shots, maybe zero?  What happens if they hit the young lady at the ATM instead of the robber with the shotgun in her back?  What if that young lady is your daughter?  Your wife?

I'd rather the bad guy just take the $63 and leave rather than have one of the handful of idiots in my CCW class try to defend me or my family if I was unarmed.  I didn't even want to stand next to them when they were in a controlled environment and shooting downrange at paper targets.  No friggin' way would I want them shooting a gun in some crazy situation like a robbery in a small store.....

I'm a CHP holder.  I own guns.  I fully support the 2nd amendment.  If people want to keep guns in their home then so be it.  Keep an arsenal for all I care.  However, I believe that a CHP should require additional training and/or testing than the current standard.  Maybe the shooting and written tests should just be a little tougher?  Maybe there should just be some testing to verify weapon proficiency...?  That way it wouldn't require additional FORMAL training (or punishment, as so many of you like to call it) but it would help verify proficiency before someone is given a CHP.

Ok, now commence with the arguments for argument's sake and call me a gun hater....   

[AAllen]

My question is what training do you think is needed?  Everything that you describe people in you CCW class as having done I have witnessed Police doing the same thing, at the range, in my CCW class (I had one officer there and they were the most unsafe person in the class) and at the OPD when registering handguns.

So with this great amount of constant training I hear about not being able to remove these issues what training should a citizen need to be able to carry a firearm?

[Mudinyeri]

We can talk about specific anecdotes all day long but they do not prove a larger point.  That's like saying, "my grandpa smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100 so cigarettes must be good for you."  Or, "I knew a few people who drank a 12 pack of beer every day and none of them died of liver disease so alcohol must not be related to liver disease."  A handful of anecdotes - to the good or to the bad - do not support an argument.

Certainly, there are instances of law enforcement officers being careless with weapons.  There are also instances where someone with a gun might have prevented something ... maybe.  Hindsight really isn't 20/20 as much as we would like to believe so.  And there are also instances, I'm sure, where someone with little or no training or familiarity with weapons was able to do something positive with a gun.  I'm not talking about anecdotes and could-have-beens.  I'm talking about statistical probabilities.

Given a sample of say 100,000 random individuals, does anyone on here think it is truly realistic to expect that the individuals in the sample with less training and familiarity with weapons will do better than those with more training and familiarity ... on the whole?  I'm not asking if there might be a few individuals with less training/familiarity that might do better than a few individuals with more.  I'm talking about the overall results for the entire sample.  Anyone who has taken a basic statistics course should understand the question I'm asking.

Does anyone know the NRA's stance on training?  Now, I'm not saying that the NRA is the absolute authority on how we should view gun ownership, but they're probably about as close as it comes.  In case you're not sure of their stance on training, they have an entire website devoted to it: http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp

OK, on to answer a few of the questions posed ....

Should it be my choice whether to take training or not?  In a perfect world, yes.  However, we do not live in a perfect world.  Since we don't live in a perfect world, we've had to come up with laws as a society.  Unfortunately, laws are largely reactive - they only come into effect after someone has broken them.  How much better would it be for us to be pro-active as gun owners?

How can a law-abiding citizen carrying a "loaded, holstered firearm" potentially infringe upon my right to life?  As long as the firearm stays holstered, the risk is low.  However, once that firearm comes out of its holster, I think Ben's (2 E L O) example of the scenario in Dave's store is a good one to use.  Suppose there was a law-abiding citizen carrying a firearm that day.  Suppose that individual did not grow up with guns and had only received the training required in a Nebraska CCW class.  Suppose the individual decides to pull his gun from his holster.  He's nervous and relatively unfamiliar with his weapon since he never has time to get to the range.  He's obviously nervous and stressed.  He fires.  His weapon sprays bullets around the store.  An innocent bystander is hit and later dies.  That's how a law-abiding citizen with a holstered weapon potentially infringes on someone's right to life.

In my CCW class we were shown a photo of a scenario where a man had a woman at knifepoint.  He was behind her with only his head available as a target.  The instructor asked the class who would take the shot.  A guy behind me immediately bellowed that he would.  Most of the rest of the class was hesitant.  Having practiced similar scenarios just the weekend before I suggested that both the perp and the victim would most likely be moving, your adreniline would be flowing, your hand might be shaking and taking a head shot at 15-20 feet was a pretty big risk.  The guy in the back grumbled something under his breath and the instructor moved on.

By the way, I was about 95% accurate in my shooting the previous weekend (meaning 95% of my shots hit the perp or missed the victim; of the 95% about 98% hit the perp).  I was shooting at a still target while moving, to simulate a dynamic scenario.  I know I'm 5% likely to hit the victim.  Do you suppose the guy in the back had any such knowledge of his skill?  Having met him and talked with him a bit, I doubt it.  So, here you have a guy who has no idea whether or not he can make the shot ready and willing to take it without even a thought.  What if the woman in the scenario was your wife, girlfriend, daughter, mother ...?

What training do I think is needed?  Obviously, I have my own opinion.  My suggestion would be that we as collective gun-owners agree upon some level of training and propose it ourselves - beat the Brady Bunch to the punch, so to speak.  At a minimum, I'd like to see some scenario shooting as a part of the CCW test.  (Let's see if the guy in the back of the room can make the headshot.)  I'd also like to see some practice with mis-fires, FTF's, etc. as a part of the CCW process.  I'd also like to see people get to the range at least once a quarter if they want to carry concealed.  A little bit of retention training and practice would also be good.  I haven't spent the time to develop a specific proposal for curriculum, but I don't think any of those things are onerous.

[AAllen]

So what you are proposing is that i should not be able to carry concealed because i have not been to a class that teaches the items you spoke of (retention, dynamic situations ect.) in almost 2 years.  In fact in that time span I have made it to the range only 3 times, and 2 of those were rifle training/practice.

Does it make a differance that over a year of that time was as an unarmed civilian federal employee working in a combat zone?

Yes I support training.  Get all you can afford both in time and money.  But just because you don't have the latest wizbang course does not mean you should not have the ability to defend yourself.

And in case you are wondering, fact based statistically civilians have a greater chance of hitting what they are shooting at without injuring bystanders that the Police and other highly trained responders.  Even in the Walgreens example he hit over 50% of the time (4 to the body one down the barrel of the shotgun) thats double what police hit in that same situation.  Don't use the emotional don't you think the statistics would be the way you say, because the facts go the other direction.

[Mudinyeri]

AAllen, first, I'm not proposing anything.  I suggested some things that I think would be valuable.  As I stated, I haven't put together a syllabus that I would be ready to propose.  I'm definitely not suggesting "whiz-bang" courses.  I would only support substantive and practical training.  (Of course, I might be overruled.)

Second, if someone wanted to "test out" because they felt their skills were sufficient without training I would have no problem with that.

Third, with respect to the statistics ... the statistical sample of LEO shootings is MUCH larger and much more statistically valid than that of civilian shootings.  I haven't studied the research but the confidence interval for any research related to civilian shootings has to be a mere fraction of the CI for LEO shootings.  Since you don't cite the research on which you base your premise (as I didn't) neither of our premises is more valid than the other.  I will readily admit that I'm making an assumption that more training and practice improve performance.  Of course, it seems to be a pretty sound theory since I can't think of a single discipline where the outcome isn't readily evident.

[rluening]

Rights have nothing to do with statistics.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If people don't like it, it can be changed with a Constitutional Amendment. That won't remove our right to self defense, but at least the nanny state would have some control over it.

/rl

[DaveB]

2 E L O and Mudinyeri, you both fully support the 2nd amendment, but only at home. Does that mean that cops are going to be everywhere to protect my family?

If criminals are exempt from training, why shouldn't I be? I don't think the criminals are any too concerned about stray spray, but I'll bet the law abiding citizen that is carrying a gun will be. I at least am going to protect my family and self as long as I have the right to do so. Training or not.

Gun control is nowhere to be found in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor is a training clause that meets with your approval. Besides, if the guy has 60 rounds through his first gun, 56 while getting his carry permit, he is well qualified to be an American with all the rights that go along with it.

I am done now, this is upsetting me too much, I don't live in Omaha, Illinois, or California. I live in America, land of what is supposed to be the free.