Why we oppose training requirements for firearm ownership

[

most left wingers see Hollywood as the training authority.

 

For starters, your argument is moot, because this thread is about the possibility of a state requiring gun training, and the Constitution gives to the states, any powers not defined as belonging to the federal government, in the Constitution. IOW, a state would need not have the Constitution specify its having any particular power; as long as that power has not been reserved to the federal government.


If, however, you are looking at the Constitution, you will not see specifically detailed, many of the powers which have come to be accepted as Constitutionally based. As I'm sure you are aware, the Constitution was only meant as a blueprint, to be used as a guide for interpreting more specific issues, as they would arise. Therefore, the power to protect public safety or, literally, to "promote the general welfare," certainly is given to the federal government, and it would not be all that crazy of an idea, that requiring the purchasers of deadly weapons, to certify they understand basic concepts of gun safety, might fall under that power. This is particularly so, since the Constitution's Second Amendment does not say that laws requiring gun training are prohibited. Nor does the Amendment prohibit-- despite the thinking of some-- all gun regulations; it, in fact, uses the language "well regulated." So it is actually the Constitution, which shoots your own case, in the foot (so to speak).

 

Congress does not have legislative power to "promote the general welfare". It has specific legislative powers, enumerated in article one, section eight.

Also, the 2nd amendment is a blanket prohibition on federal legislation. So it doesn't matter what one thinks "well regulated" means.

 

A prohibition on federal legislation, infringing on well regulated state militias-- not a blanket prohibition on gun regulation. Pretty big difference. If you wear glasses, they might be overdue for wiping.

 

The 2nd amendment grants congress zero legislative power whatsoever.

 

<Snip>
Article I Legislative Branch
Section 8 Enumerated Powers
ArtI.S8.1 Overview of Congress's Enumerated Powers

Clause 1 *General Welfare
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States...
<End>

Perhaps it is time for you to get a whole new eyeglass prescription.

 

Yep. Collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United states.

And how does collecting taxes relate to firearms ownership?

 

Your reply is a double, non sequitur. First, I had been replying to your false claim, that 2A "is a blanket prohibition on federal legislation." I'd pointed out that this only covers legislation, infringing on the states' right to have a militia, not a blanket prohibition of any gun regulations, whatsoever, as your argument suggested. Therefore, talking about 2A not granting Congress powers, is not only a bait and switch, but it is illogical, as well. As you'd stated, yourself, Congress's powers are, "enumerated in Article One, section eight." So why would it need be granted any powers, in the Second Amendment? This argument of yours, is nonsensical.

Secondly, though, I will remind you that we are only talking about Congress, because of your earlier erroneous argument-- since the document linked in the OP, is put out by the New Jersey State Police, apparently requiring some training, in order to qualify for a concealed carry gun license. This has zero to do with the U.S. Congress, and zero to do with the U.S. Constitution, since the Second Amendment's prohibitions, however one interprets them, are clearly directed toward the federal government, not at the states.

 

Just poiting out that Congress has no legislative authority to make any law restricting the ownership or use of firearms.

I will let others who are more familiar with the incorporation doctrine deal with the New Jersey action.

 

Are you f'ing kidding me? All right, for all those with reading disabilities, let's all go over this (apparently very complicated) sentence, one more time, together:

Article I Legislative Branch
Section 8 Enumerated Powers

Clause 1 *General Welfare

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"--

for what purposes?--

"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States..."


Did you follow it, that time? There are two parts to the sentence: the enumerating first, of the power to tax, but then the enumerating of the powers of Congress, through which it could use those collected taxes. Now, I realize there is more than one purpose for you to keep track of, so I will list them separately:
1) pay the Debts of the U.S. government.
2) provide for the country's common Defense.
3) provide for the common Welfare, of the United States.

So, your argument is that the Congress has the power to spend tax income, on "the common Welfare," but not to pass any laws for the general welfare, which might incur the expenses, those taxes would be used to pay?
Think about that, a bit. Does it make any sense, to you?

If Congress can pay for programs for the general welfare, then it is understood that they have the power to legislate them, into existence-- from where else, would come the programs, incurring the cost, which Congress has the power to use revenue, to pay?

 

I think we agree that congress may only collect taxes for those three purposes you listed.

And taxation has nothing to do with laws restricting the use and ownership of firearms.

 

Did you miss Chicago v McDonald in 2010?

 

it is a negative restriction on a federal government that was never given ANY such power concerning private citizens acting in a private capacity. If the tenth amendment had not been raped by the FDR administration, we'd never have any federal gun control. and we shouldn't

 

gun banners tend to despise the constitutional limits on the government and since gun banners almost always are fans of bigger and bigger and bigger government, it makes sense

 

But the section on taxation, not to mention the Preamble, makes clear that Congress does have the power to pass laws, for the purpose of promoting "the general welfare." This is beyond question: look at all the laws that Congress has passed, for this purpose, which have been accepted as Constitutional. That is the connection to gun regulations: also, for the general welfare. I think there is much precedent, as well, to support the idea that the mere placing of any requirement, whatsoever, is not an "infringement" of a "right." Otherwise, no speech could be prohibited-- yet, some of it is; we would not be required to get permits, for large public gatherings-- but we are; we could not be sued for liable-- but we can. I think you get the point. The Second Amendment says only that gun ownership cannot be generally prohibited; not that it cannot be regulated.

Again, though-- this thread is about a state doing this, which is not even subject to the Second Amendment.

 

"(d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33."

Here's the rest of Chicago v McDonald:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html

 

We can't confuse congress's power to collect taxes for the general welfare with a non-existent power to enact any law that it considers to be for the general welfare.

 

I don't care about any given, recent ruling: the current, radical Court, is overruling established precedent, willy-nilly. Your arguing that the new standards they are establishing, are now a permanent part of our law, is a joke.

<Snip>
The Supreme Court's so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said.

Under the Supreme Court's new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country's "historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Courts in recent months have declared unconstitutional federal laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, felony defendants and people who use marijuana. Judges have shot down a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed and gun restrictions for young adults in Texas and have blocked the enforcement of Delaware's ban on the possession of homemade "ghost guns."

In several instances, judges looking at the same laws have come down on opposite sides on whether they are constitutional in the wake of the conservative Supreme Court majority's ruling. The legal turmoil caused by the first major gun ruling in a decade will likely force the Supreme Court to step in again soon to provide more guidance for judges.

"There's confusion and disarray in the lower courts because not only are they not reaching the same conclusions, they're just applying different methods or applying Bruen's method differently," said Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine University's law school who focuses on firearms law.

"What it means is that not only are new laws being struck down … but also laws that have been on the books for over 60 years, 40 years in some cases, those are being struck down — where prior to Bruen — courts were unanimous that those were constitutional," he said.
<End>

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...creates-turmoil-over-gun-laws-in-lower-courts


This Court is making a mess, trying to cast our law, in their own particular image. The way that things were, can be the way they are again, in the future. It only takes some new Justices; and Republicans may not be back in the White House, for some time.


P.S.-- I have recently heard about a judicial (not SCOTUS) decision, that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, but I don't recall the case. There will be a mess of cases in the near future, that the SCOTUS will not want to get involved with, but will have no choice, because their rulings have created such confusion.

 

FWIW: I strongly support and urge firearm training, as its part of being a responsible gun owner, at least for anyone realizing they may actually have to use such a weapon in self defense.

Regulations on the hand?… Nope, I don’t support them. Aside from legality issues - people will take it on their own to be responsible or not. All the training in the world won’t change that. Look at the number of irresponsible and unsafe drivers out there….

 

How in the hell could taxes be used to "provide for the... general welfare of the be United States," without some law, designating funds for that use?

 

can you find ANY language in the constitution that even hints at a FEDERAL gun control power over private citizens.

 

Since you emphasized the word "FEDERAL," I will point out, at the top, that the requirement addressed in this thread, is one imposed by the State, not the federal govt. However, Rucker 61 points out that, also in just the last dozen or so years, the Court has ruled, because of a clause in the 14th Amendment, that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, even though the text is clearly aimed at only the Federal government. So, interpreted from that non traditional perspective, I guess this would no longer make a difference.

On the federal level, though, (as I've already stipulated in this thread) it would fall under the same language which has been accepted for allowing the government to make laws in the interest of public safety, possibly in "promot(ing) the general welfare," which is such a basic function of the government, envisioned by our forefathers, that this phrase made it into the Constitutional preamble, along with only a few others (to insure Domestic Tranquility-- which might also apply to some gun regulation; to establish justice, provide for the common Defense, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves & our posterity).

Historically, it should be noted, government has long exercised control over people's right to carry a gun: there were many towns, in the old west, in which by local ordinance (or maybe at just the sheriff's discretion), people entering the town limits were required to surrender their guns, until they were leaving. Preventing certain felons from owning guns, is just one of numerous restrictions, which had formerly been unquestioned, which the Court will now need resolve, & offer clearer guidance on, since they've changed the traditional interpretation of the law (more exceptions that will need be reviewed, will be depriving either the mentally ill, or domestic abusers, from owning firearms).

 

do you oppose the doctrine of incorporation that came with the ratification of the fourteenth amendment? do you believe your desire to have gun control trumps the constitutional limits on such laws?

using the "general welfare" claim (which has never been used to support gun control bills) would essentially mean there is no constitutional limits on the federal government

 

Its worth noting that many law enforcement agencies have a far lower bar to pass to carry, and often may still carry even when they fail just as long as they keep taking the qualifications trial regularly. This is primarily due to union contracts.

I used to work fire and security and we worked closely with a federal LE agency. We were often invited to play 'opposition' for sim-munitions training when they would hold a local class, since all the federal peace officers needed to go through the class and we were a private agency that didn't need it. Some of the feds couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, but still carried on duty. One guy emptied his entire mag at me ('sim rounds'- colored marking projectiles, nonlethal, tho they can leave a pretty good welt) at point blank range while I was 'approaching him in a hostile manner' (as was part of the scenario) and he didn't hit me once. I just looked at the instructor and shrugged, and he motioned me for me to go down so the scenario could continue. This was not a pass/fail course, it was just a mandatory participation skills building course, so he went back on patrol in public after the class was over. And its worth noting, technically he's allowed to carry even on a plane.

...but I should have to pass with an 80% hit efficiency so I can protect myself? Thats total ****. Its not just unconstitutional, its also elitist.

 

Taxes are used to pay for the remaining of the legislative powers. Such as a navy, post offices, etc.