Sunday, January 30, 2011

Counter-offer to the gun-grabbers

You say that the reason carriage of weapons in public by the public ought not to be permitted is because of the supposed lack of skill of the persons carrying. Police should be permitted to carry as they are “highly trained” in firearms skills.

In reply, I give you this compromise proposal. If a person can demonstrate the same level of skill with a firearm that a police officer is required to demonstrate, they may possess and carry that same firearm in a functional and loaded state. Thus, by passing the qualification test or tests that a police officer must pass, a citizen has demonstrated his competence to the level required of the police, and may therefore possess and carry any weapon that the police officer may possess and carry after passing the same qualification test or tests.

I will accede to a demand that any time a person does so, they must be prepared to furnish evidence that they have passed such a qualification course to a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties. Having done so, the person may not be subject to arrest or detention for the possession or carriage of those firearm types that the person has provided proof of demonstrated proficiency with. I will further offer that a NICS check be required before the test be taken. If proof cannot be supplied on the spot, the person carrying would be summoned to court to defend themselves against a misdemeanor charge of some kind; similar to driving without a license, and with the same repercussions.

For reference, the NJ State requirements for firearms qualification standards. NJ permits officers to qualify at private ranges – the nearest range to me offers police/security qualification sessions weekly; IIRC the cost is $75; which accounts for the testing Range Officer’s time. I would require that the state make testing available for free or nominal cost, a la a driver’s license exam, in addition to the private testers.

In other words, if I can show I can shoot as well as any cop with a firearm, I can carry that firearm in public; just as the police can. So I would go down to the local range, pass a NICS check, shoot the course of fire that the police must shoot to demonstrate proficiency, and the instructor would sign off on a card with the date and types of weapons qualified with. That would be my “carry permit”.

Any takers? Make no mistake, this is the best you’re going to get; the worst is Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and soon to be Wyoming’s “no permit at all.”


  1. What you are refuring to is an infrigment on my Second Amendment right to bare arms. You give an inch; they will take a mile.


  2. Showing proof of skill is showing you're "well-regulated" in the original sense. Besides, take a look at the test before wigging out - the NJ one is a joke.

  3. I'm not wigging just don't like to set bad precedent not after we won two Surpreme Court case in our favor. "Well-regulated"; regulated in the sence of to make regular or not to restrict access to arms. It had nothing to do with showing skill. We didn't attach the word regulation to the meaning tell much later case law that I would have to look up and am to lazzy right now to do.

  4. Well-regulated, at the time, would have meant accurate; as in a well-regulated clock would be one that kept accurate time.

    At any rate, I see this more as the first step towards freedom for our side, the way that the gun-grabber sstarted small for their walk towards a self-defense-free society.

  5. No they ment it like when you say you are regulating your diet because you want your bowel movements to be regular. They didn't use my example in the Federalist Papers, but the meaning is the same.
    To use your exammple of a clock the spacing between the seconds would be regular and even making it acurate: i.e., like clockwork. To be smooth and reliable.

    Also, how is limiting my use of my right a step forward and not back?

    We seem to be at a disconect. this is a post on my site that sums up my position and I'm going to leave it at that.

    Good day to you,
    Josh :-)

  6. Try living in New Jersey...

    To be honest, guns in public don't scare me. Guns in the hands of someone who can't pass a police qual (which are jokes - there's a reason I linked to the NJ one) bother me a little.

    I don't think semi-annual quals are necessary for civilians - bi-ennial is probably more like it. The important part of this is that there is NO GOVERNMENTAL DISCRETION. Demonstrate minimal competence, carry in public.

    Please note - I explicitly stated that carrying without your qual ticket is a minor misdemeanor, and that the state should provide the opportunity for people to take the test at the state's expense.

    Finally, I'm not really opposed to Constitutional Carry - I think that's the end-game. I'll start with this, is all.

  7. Not sure, but as a qualifier for a NJ CCW, doesn't one have to successfully complete the same tests as LEO's?

  8. It would appear that at least some handgun permits are contingent on qualifying. I was next port over from an armored car guard who was qualifying, once.

  9. Thankfully, I live in Oregon, where the laws are fairly permissive (high-cap mags legal, NFA arms allowed, Open Carry mostly legal, and a "Shall Issue" state) but what about when I leave Oregon?

    I'm originally from Kalifornia, and man, I really didn't appreciate how bad it was until I left. Freedom will do that for you.

    But now when I go back to visit, the guns stay home, and I don't like that. It's so complicated, and each state has different rules - just ask Greg Revell.

    If there were some way I could carry my firearms at will and not worry about an imaginary line on a map somewhere, man, I'd jump at the chance.

    I figured there would be someone like Josh who would mention the give-an-inch-take-a-mile bit - and I'm not bashing Josh here, he's right - Constitutionally, we've already given too much.

    But frankly, I get just a mite bit concerned about some of the people I know who own guns and do the DUMBEST things, or don't have any training and wonder why they go bang at the wrong times.

    I'm a firm believer in education and training. And I think proficiency should be demonstrated, especially if you are carrying (concealed or otherwise) around me (e.g. in public).

    I also think that people who pass an advanced driving course (say, similar to what the police take) should be able to surpass "marginal driver" speed limits, but that's another issue...

  10. I moved to NJ as an adult, and one of my biggest regrets is not having taken advantage of being a VA resident to purchase guns before I changed legal residences. Didn't have the money, so ...

    Unstated, but yes, the chit for taking a police qual is good anywhere under the authority of the US Constitution.

  11. One more we issue drivers license to idiots all the time.

    Issuing a license will not insure morons do not use guns. It will just make harder and more expensive for us to own them.

    This discussion is just making have flash backs to some bad DMV experiences.


  12. Oh, I guess I didn't make it clear - I meant it to work the way auto inspection does (or did, anyway) in VA. You *could* go to a .gov-operated range for free; and keep their hours &c. Or you can go to your local range and the local certified RO can test you and sign your chit.

    This has nothing to do with owning guns; cash and carry is my philosophy there - no compromise. It was an interim step to constitutional carry for the timid states. At least one state has moved from permit to constitutional carry, and anothe rseem slikely. Give them a path there, eh?

  13. NC CCW requires competent shooting-you are graded. However, I doubt the farmers who joined the revolution could all shoot accurately. James Madison and others stated it-the well regulated militia is all of the citizenry.

  14. For all of you how think this is a measurement of accuracy, follow up the link to the NJ test. Among other things, I was poking fun at the grabbers' notion of "highly trained" cops.

  15. I see this plan as a good basis to expose the anti-rights nuts' cries for "compromise" as being the farce they really are, but, in reality, the only acceptable conclusion is the aforementioned "Constitutional carry". But, hey, I am all for showing the "gun control" boys and girls for what they are... :)

  16. One step at a time. It exposes the "hihgly trained cops" myth, is all


Please keep it civil