There are bills both expanding and contracting gun rights in Georgia before the Legislature right now.
NRA-ILA points to two bills that are restrictions. The more restrictive, HB 10, is an "assault weapons" ban that has very little chance of passage -- but if you're a citizen of Georgia, help kill it anyway.
HB 232 calls for concealed weapons permit holders to file some proof that they have received training in how to use a firearm. "House Bill 232 would require most gun license applicants to first complete a training course that would introduce the features of the handgun and a brief explanation of the loading, firing and unloading of a firearm. However, it would not require the applicant to actually fire a firearm. HB 232 does not provide specifically where the training would come from, nor does it provide a guide on potential costs associated with this training. All that HB 232 provides is that the instructor must be a law enforcement officer, nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety or a licensed firearms dealer."
The NRA is opposed to this, on the grounds that it would add to the cost of exercising a Constitutional right. I'm not actually convinced it's a bad idea, though. The concept of the militia is that it should be a trained fighting force, and I think that in the ideal case we would provide for such training for all able-bodied citizens. In the less-ideal case, it's not outrageous to suggest that you should have had basic training in the operation of a firearm before you carry one around; furthermore, the NRA stands to profit off this deal as the similar law in Virginia accepts NRA-licensed trainers as one of the options.
Finally, it brings the concealed weapons permit in line with Georgia's hunting licenses, which also require a hunter's safety course before issuance of the license. In Georgia, hunting is a right enshrined in the state constitution on the same terms as the right to keep and bear arms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne," says the state constitution. I don't know that it merits an infringement to state that you must have proper training, as such training would not infringe upon your right but rather enhance your capacity to exercise it effectively.
Thus, on the merits I would almost be inclined to support this law. The only concern is that the government can't be trusted to get its nose under the tent wall, so to speak. I will leave the matter to your consciences, those of you who are fellow citizens of the Great State of Georgia.
On the pro-gun side, Campus Carry is back again. You'll remember that it was passed and vetoed last year by our esteemed Governor, who did at least file a reasonably worthy and articulate explanation for his veto. This is HB 280. In my opinion it is sensible; in the opinions of the whole universe of college professor types that I know, it's a horrible invasion of barbarity on their sacred ground. So, again, follow your conscience.
9 comments:
Oklahoma requires a brief firearms safety course and the firing of 50 rounds.
Looking back at the "well-regulated militia" pre-Independence, all able-bodied men from 17 to 45 were required to buy their own arms and train usually one evening a week (depending on the colony) with the local militia. There were exemptions to this service, but that was the rule.
I don't see a minimum training requirement as infringing on the spirit of the thing, but rather supporting it. Obviously, you don't want to require so much training that it becomes unaffordable to the poor or an onerous requirement in terms of time, but even something like an annual firearms course might be an acceptable requirement, I think.
I object to the idea of these kinds of regulations for one specific reason. They are (as you point out) a way of getting the camel's nose in the tent. If this "reasonable" requirement is put into place, then next time perhaps they specify an annual refresher course (after all, what "reasonable" person can be against making sure you're up to date on the latest information?). Then next, it must be an active duty law enforcement officer who provides the training. Next, the local sheriff's office doesn't seem to have anyone with available time to provide the training, so no certification for you... and so on.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language. And comparing a hunting license (justified on limiting the amount of game taken per year in order to ensure future hunts are fruitful) is NOT the same as limiting citizens' right to protect themselves. I distrust someone who comes to me asking me to accept "reasonable" limits on my rights. Because sure as the sun will rise, those are not the only limits they want on my rights. History has borne that out time and again.
Oklahoma requires a brief firearms safety course and the firing of 50 rounds.
In Texas, we're expected to actually hit something with most of the 100 rounds we're required to fire.
I don't have a problem with a license that, like a drivers license, requires a demonstration of knowledge of how to use the/a firearm (a Texas LTC allows carry of any pistol, not just the one used to qualify). Like the drivers license, though, the carry license should be a will-issue, with the training and cost not used as an impediment.
As to government drift, that as I've often argued, is on us: it's not government that drifts, it's our attention to our duty regarding our employee. An unattended government will drift just as easily from a zero threshold as it will from a threshold drawn at any other level.
Eric Hines
Hit something!? That's infringement! We actually don't have that requirement. Just 50 rounds fired during the course. (At least, that was the rule back when I did it. I specifically asked that question.)
It is a reasonable idea. I can see the same potential for abuse that others have mentioned, but as E Hines says, that should be on us.
A right that requires a license to exercise is no right. A license is nothing more than a permission slip from the government saying you are allowed to do this thing. If you must ask permission to do a thing, then it's not a right. The very social contract of our nation says the government shall not infringe our God given right to keep and bear arms. A license constitutes an infringement on that right.
As to government drift, that as I've often argued, is on us: it's not government that drifts, it's our attention to our duty regarding our employee. An unattended government will drift just as easily from a zero threshold as it will from a threshold drawn at any other level.
And yet you are the very example of this kind of allowance. 50 years ago no one would have considered for a moment that you'd need a license to own or operate a firearm. But here we are, debating whether it is unreasonable for the government to require us to pass their test in order to exercise our natural rights. What's next, a license to write our political opinions in a manner fit for public consumption? I mean, shouldn't we have to at least demonstrate a grasp of good penmanship before we can write in public?
A will-issue license isn't a permission slip, it's a certification of a level of knowledge.
50 years ago no one would have considered for a moment that you'd need a license to own or operate a firearm.
You have some evidence of that? State and local jurisdictions have attempted to control possession and carry since the early 1800s. It wasn't until 1961 that Washington required will-issue permits--and still does, an unacceptable control according to you. New York's Sullivan Law was enacted over 100 years ago. And on and on.
The Feds have been banning or trying to ban certain types of long guns since about forever. The Gun Control Act of 1968, though, is only 49 years ago.
Eric Hines
Well, you may have me there. People were considering it. Mea culpa. But I stand on the license being a limitation on a right. Because anything the government issues can (and eventually will) be suspended at the government's will. I object to them having a say in our exercise of what the Constitution (again, THE social contract that gives the government it's legitimacy, without which it is operating without our consent) says is an inalienable, natural right.
Not to be too pedantic, the Constitution asserts no inalienable, natural rights, it only attempts to give secular reality to them through human law. It's the other document of our social contract, our Declaration of Independence, that acknowledges some inalienable, natural rights.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment