Guns and Training

…and to actually put more substance in my apology, I would like to re-open the previous guns and training discussion. My viewpoint is this:  like it or not, and whether or not you believe the text of the 2nd Amendment specifically allows it, the rights to keep and bear arms are currently held to encompass the right to self defense outside of the militia language. Kind of like the penumbra rights of the 1st Am.

My personal feelings are that people that carry in public should be very well-trained. I understand that some may disagree about what constitutes “well-trained.” But I need to reiterate that I do not believe that under ANY circumstances the government should be making such rules.  I don’t think there should be governmental restrictions, though I do think there should be heavy peer editing, so to speak. I do think that licenses are a good idea in theory, though I sometimes wonder if all they do is give unwarranted weight to a false distinction. But, I do think that having licensure requirements is one way to keep gun-law supporters mollified. Though I feel, for various reasons,  that such registries should not be available to the public.

If people have experience with training, or thoughts thereon, I would love to hear it, along with any other thoughts on these issues.

Caramel Apples



  1. Bob S. said,

    January 14, 2010 at 10:48 pm


    How do you define trained?
    For many people the perception is that it involves a class, instruction provided by another person, tests, etc; right?

    Is it required that a person be well trained or competent in their skills and ability?

    There is a difference and that is where the issue lies. In Texas, we are required — not an option at all — to take a “training class” in order to get our Concealed Handgun License.

    Setting aside why we have to get a license for a right — I ask why we have to take a class for it?

    If we must be licensed, why not a simple test – does the person know the applicable laws, does the person know the basic rules of safely handling firearms. These are things that require no outside instruction.

    Consider the Driver’s license- for adults there are two components: a test of knowledge and a competency test.
    Niether require a training class in order to pass.

    If we must get a licence – why add additional hurdles to the right to keep and bear arms outside of the actual license.

    The Texas CHL Class I mentioned — averages over $100 per person and by law has to be 8 to 10 hours long.
    The single parent who works 6 days a week, when is she going to be able to take that class and be able to pay for it?

    Your original post alluded to many people who had or carried firearms that were in less than stellar condition (trying to be polite). As long as the actions of the carrier or the condition of the firearm cause injuries to others….why not let them exercise their rights.

    The statistics ( don’t point to accidents being a leading cause of death or injury.

    Now, please note that I am not knocking training, training classes or those who provide training.
    I am also not stating that people should be irresponsible with firearms.

    I think that people should be competent and proficient with their firearms and can and often is different from being well trained.

  2. mike w. said,

    January 14, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    Though I feel, for various reasons, that such registries should not be available to the public.

    I couldn’t agree more with you here. Unfortunately in DE not only is the personal info of CCW holders public, but state law requires that anyone intending to apply for a permit put notice of said intent the local paper. This includes your full name and address.

    While I certainly think training is a good idea, I don’t think lack of training necessarily makes someone a liability or precludes them from being able to effectively defend themselves. That’s one of the beautiful things about firearms. They are egalitarian in nature, requring far less skill and physical prowess than the weapons that predated them.

    If lack of training were a serious issue or a liability we would see obvious evidence backing that, since some states require training and live fire qualifications and others do not.

  3. mike w. said,

    January 14, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Regarding training. The only frame of reference I have is my Utah Non-Res CCW. I actually think people would be better served in such classes if instructors put more emphasis on legalities, shoot/no-shoot scenarios, legal ramifications etc.

    I am generally opposed to mandatory training for one reason only. It can be made so cumbersome, expensive, or dlifficult to pass that most people will not satisfy the requirements. Such training can be used as a means of denying permits, and if unlicensed open carry is not an option in your state then your 2nd Amendment rights effectively don’t exist.

  4. southern female lawyer said,

    January 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    I don’t know that it is “required.” My take is current law allows the individual states to set the parameters. Which allows the usual patchwork results. As for what the state should require, well, I don’t know how much one takes away from the average CCW class. I do think that part of it is that some sort of training requirement *looks* good. I don’t necessarily think it IS good.

    My point was more as to the individual and community responsibility. Ideally, someone would have sufficient training in the handling of the specific weapon they carry – meaning that they are comfortable with THAT weapon.

    But the question of accessibility and affordability is a good point. As I have mentioned many times in the health care debate, “access” doesn’t just mean you can’t be denied something, you have to be able to get it in order for access to be meaningful.

    Maybe this is something that the lobby/supporters could address – provide training sessions for those who either cannot afford the classes, or have other considerations that make training inaccessible. Looks good and peer polices your own. Lawyers do it (CLE) and there are always good, free classes for those without all the $$$.

    As for people with shoddy guns? Seems like an accident waiting to happen. And they can exercise their rights all they want until an injury occurs. But like I said previously, just because they have the right to do something, that doesn’t mean I have to like it. No one wants to be a statistic. There will always be idiots that do stupid things with dangerous things. The problem is that when that dangerous thing is a gun, it seems a lot scarier.

    But as to what to do about irresponsible people with guns? I don’t know. But I would suspect that this is a situation, again, where perhaps a community/peer solution would be the better way to combat the problem – and it is a problem. Even if you can show that it statistically is not a problem, it is still very much a public perception problem.

  5. mike w. said,

    January 14, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Bob – Here in DE the costs make permits somewhat unattainable to the poor. The classes are roughly $250 + the newspaper ad notification + fingerprinting fees + notary fees + the actual application fee for the permit and you’re looking at over $400 minimum. And of course we are “may issue” so after all that time and expense a judge can simply deny your application for whatever reason he sees fit. Perhaps he was just in a foul mood the day he reviewed yours…

    The licensing requirements just rub me the wrong way, since people would go apeshit if such requirements & training were implemented to exercise other constitutional rights.

    I have to commend you on this post SFL. FAR better than your last ones. I take it you understand now why people took such an issue with the old post that started this whole mess. That one read like a Brady Campaign press release, and I think the whole discussion went downhill quickly from there (which wasn’t unexpected)

  6. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:04 am

    What about peer monitoring? Would that work? Would that be too cumbersome or an infringement?

  7. mike w. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:08 am

    provide training sessions for those who either cannot afford the classes, or have other considerations that make training inaccessible..

    I believe Texas has something like that, where they discount the price of the permit / qualifications for the poor. Bob S. or someone else from TX can confirm that.

    Shoddy guns is definitely an issue, but I’m not sure how legislation and or training can solve that. Having 1st carried in a cheap “universal” holster I can certainly attest to the importance of a quality carry rig. That’s just as important (if not more important) than the gun. Tam – of booksbikesboomsticks I think talked about this when she linked to your older post. TONS of good information in her post and in the comments section.

    I don’t know what to do about irresponsible folks either. In any large group there WILL be a subset who will act irresponsibly. That’s unavoidable and it applies to the exercise of all our Constitutional Rights. I really think the only sensible thing to do is what we already do. No more restrictions (there are already too many) but rather punish those who act irresponsibly in the exercise of their rights. The other major thing is education. Ignorance and fear breed irresponsible behavior.

    I think a community solution is definitely the answer. We need only look at the “gun culture” among the majority of us vs. the “thug culture” in inner cities and many of the worst parts of the US. Guns are a constant in both cultures (though many are held, & carried illegally in the latter culture) the variable is the people carrying, their attitudes, behaviors, and what they consider to be “acceptable” means of conflict resolution. (See Gilbert Arenas as an example of what I mean)

  8. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:49 am

    I wonder if the solution isn’t some sort of organized peer group – like if the NRA worked with the states so that it oversaw licensure and training. And put out its own model rules. Members could provide training and that sort of thing. It’s a thought…

  9. Peter said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:07 am

    My take is that arms (however you choose to define that) are one of a number of universal and inalienable human rights. This obtains regardless of citizenship and these rights exist outside the US Constitution, the USA, or even if the two of them didn’t exist.

    Free speech. Or not to speak.
    Arms. Or not to be armed.
    Worship. Or not.
    Free association.
    Being secure against arbitrary search and seizure.

    All of it. I focus on gun rights because for me it’s the bedrock issue that guarantees the rest. And since the Government uses force at all levels, it’s important as an American to be able to say no to that Government and do it in such a way as to be taken seriously. Anyone who tries to take my guns, tell my wife she cannot get an abortion or tell my sister that she cannot marry her girlfriend is likely to get shot. No, neither of my sisters is gay, but you get the drift.

    As for training, it’s a good idea that’s implemented poorly. Sitting through an 8 hour class doesn’t really train anyone for anything. As you thought, it’s just a sop to the folks who are scared of guns. Proper gun training is an ongoing thing, and either one is serious about that or one is not. Going to the range will generally let you know who is who.

    There’s quite a bit of “peer enforcement”. Idiots are regularly shunned and asked not to come back until they can handle a firearm responsibly. The problem is that you cannot unshoot someone, so it’s always a concern that somebody will do something irrevocable before they get their sh!t together. I don’t have any good answer to that.

  10. January 15, 2010 at 1:33 am

    For the record, I think your previous posts were right on target. Idiots like Grocery Store Guy should not take guns in public. Actually, they shouldn’t take themselves in public either, but that’s a different post entirely, that probably belongs on Failblog, or PeopleofWalmart.

    I don’t agree with all the restrictions on gun ownership, but some restrictions are really important, one being that crazy people should not have guns. Crazy people should also not have law licenses. I have a scandalous story about crazy lawyers/guns/needing guns to protect against crazy lawyers with guns, but alas, I cannot broadcast it to the interwebs. (We need a closed forum for lady lawyer gossips.)

  11. mikeb302000 said,

    January 15, 2010 at 2:12 am

    SFL, Thanks for the post and especially your reference to “heavy peer editing.” You mentioned it twice more in the comments, but I don’t see much response. You’re talking about training, but the way I see this playing a role is in weeding out the bad characters. Some folks cannot be trusted with guns, and since the main body of lawful gun owners don’t want the government or gun control folks interfering, I think they should take more responsibility in identifying the bad apples.

    Of course many of the passionate ones won’t allow for any “rights” to be infringed. But look what’s happening as a result. And after every incident the pro-gun guys shrug their shoulders and say it has nothing to do with them.

    About government interference and legislation, I’m afraid it’s a must. It needs to be administered better, for sure, but gun control laws are necessary.

  12. Weer'd Beard said,

    January 15, 2010 at 5:51 am

    “As for what the state should require, well, I don’t know how much one takes away from the average CCW class. I do think that part of it is that some sort of training requirement *looks* good. I don’t necessarily think it IS good.”

    Think back to a class you took in High-school or undergrad college that was on a subject matter you haven’t perused since. I took 2 years of French, and 4 years of Latin, and 1 year of Japanese in my various studies. Languages I’m proficient in: English.

    Meanwhile, as much as I’d love to get more professional training I’m only certified for the NRA Basic Pistol course that I was required to take before I BOUGHT my first gun (that shit needs to be thrown out ASAP on Constitutional grounds). This course usually runs about 2 days, but my one-on-one course taken by my local police armorer only took about 4-5 hours.

    I can only mumble a few VERY basic phrases from the above languages, but I’d be willing to take the Pepsi challenge at any Police Qualifier in my state, and I’d be willing to bet my score would be better than at least HALF of the officers on the force.

    Why? Because I pursue safety and proficiency training on my own. I use the skills I learned. If I had moved to Quebec right after I finished taking French I’d imagine my French would be damn near perfect by now. That being said drop me in Warsaw and leave me there a few years I suspect my Polish would be halfway decent.

    The old saying, if you don’t use it, you loose it. So if somebody is concerned about safety and training, they’re going to work on it through-out their life. If somebody doesn’t care it doesn’t matter WHAT courses they take, as they’ll forget it all by the time they get to their car in the parking lot.

    This is why in the patchwork of state open and concealed carry laws you don’t see much of a variation in gun accidents, nor do you see it as a particularly significant event.

    No nobody wants to be a statistic, but legal action makes us ALL a statistic for the sake of the few losers that we likely will NEVER reach.

    That being said I just recently on my blog about how laws don’t actually protect us from anything, but punish bad behavior after the fact. Somebody acting unsafe there are no laws or mandates that will stop them from doing that, and the best we can hope for is to punish the people who do act irresponsible…which is how the laws are currently written.

    Also I’m unfamiliar with your term “peer monitoring”. I’d like a little clarification before I comment on that.

    Thanks for this post, and I’m glad we’re making a little more progress here.

  13. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 6:22 am


    Weeding out the bad characters? Like the ones who admit to owning firearms illegally? Are those the same folks that can’t be trusted with firearms?

    We have a mechanism for weeding out people who can’t be trusted with firearms — the current laws.

    The grocery store guy will probably loose his right to keep and bear arms –not because he is a bad guy — but because he was negligent enough to have an accident.

    I don’t have a problem with that.

    But it is a double standard. If someone drinks and drive — how many chances do they get before they loose their license? Dozens?

    The point that SFL makes is valid, people should be competent in the safe use and handling of their firearms. I agree.

    But why do we need more laws, more restrictions to enforce that?
    How many criminals are sitting through the required classes and being licensed by the state?

    I can tell you that in Texas, it is an incredibly small percentage

    In 2007 (last year available), 61,260 people were convicted of crimes — out of that 160 were Concealed Handgun License holders -0.2612%

    That’s is all convictions, not just firearm related crimes. People who are going to be responsible with firearms are going to be responsible with firearms regardless of the law.

    Look at the firearm accident numbers I posted earlier. Compare the number of fatalities due to firearm accidents with drownings — people are more careless with swimming pools, with their cars, dozens of other things.

    Let’s look again at Grocery Store guyL Does anyone honestly think that the day of the accident was the first day he decided to carry that firearm?
    Probably carried it for dozens of years without a problem.

    If this was a case of a guy who made a mistake with a car — hitting gas instead of the brake — and injured someone — would we see calls for mandatory training, we would see such an uproar due to an accident?

    NOPE and I think that everyone knows it. So why is there such a double standard concerning firearms?

  14. Mike w said,

    January 15, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Bob. I don’t like calling incidents like grocery store guy ” accidents” it’sreally more negligence than anything.

  15. January 15, 2010 at 9:19 am

    […] point: My personal feelings are that people that carry in public should be very […]

  16. January 15, 2010 at 9:36 am


    Can you please point me to the source for the statistic you cite here?



  17. TXGunGeek said,

    January 15, 2010 at 9:53 am

    SFL, this looks more like reasoned discussion than the first attempt. Thanks!

    To answer Mike W., yes there are different fees for licensing in TX based on indigence, prosecuting atty, judge, active military, etc…

    As an Instructor of not just the Texas CHL program but also an instructor of other personal defense courses I can say people safely carrying and licensing of a right is a very sticky subject for many reasons.

    Individually, I am a huge fan of personal responsibility. You DO have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that does mean to carry them on your person for self protection. HOWEVER, with that right comes the personal responsibility to exercise this right in a safe and prudent manner. If you screw up and harm someone unjustified (like the doofus negligently and illegally carrying and shooting someone else) YOU are responsible for your actions and are to be held accountable. Here lies my problem with DWI laws and enforcement, as has already been mentioned, ho many DWI’s does it take before driving PRIVILEGES (NOT A RIGHT) are revoced and the violator held accountable?

    When a person takes the steps to get their carry license through me or a member of the group I train with, we stress that the CHL class is only a starting point. It covers the laws and a few alternatives but only basically. This was done on purpose by the DPS (state police) when they started the program to make it non prohibitive. There is a basic level of training required and a very basic level of competency required to be demonstrated to get your CHL. The emphasis of this course is when is it LEGAL to use force and deadly force and some non violent dispute resolution. We recommend training on more alternatives, awareness and avoidance and a LOT more on when is it right to shoot as opposed to legal to shoot.
    (malicious mischief in the night time) Legal but not always moral / right.

    The decision to use lethal force to defend ones self or others is a profoundly life changing decision and should never be taken lightly. Those who choose to have the tools to do this available to them should spend a good amount of time before hand thinking about the ramifications and deciding where they draw the line for them as well as what they can do to minimize their chances of having to use deadly force. They should also know that they are capable of doing this without inflicting harm to innocents or otherwise endangering others. That means training and practice.

    As Bob S. has already pointed out the rate of CHL holders being convicted of ANY crime much less negligently or feloniously using their firearm is TINY. The VPC and other rabidly anti gun rights organizations have poured lots into junk science downright false statistics calling CHL’s “Licenses to Kill”. When in fact the state DPS has published the actual numbers to show that CHL’s are orders of magnitude safer and more law abiding than not only the general population but also law enforcement officers. This is an incredible feat that gets overlooked or downright ignored. People who go through teh trouble and expense of getting a CHL are making the statement that they recognize the dangers in this orld and are taking steps to protect themselves and loved ones and are willing to protect that right as well.

    As far a junk guns go, build an idiot proof gun and the world will provide a better idiot!
    Even the most basic cheap gun is safe if safely handled. modern firearms are drop safe IF they are carried properly. Double Action / Single Action guns carried cocked are a prime example. (Ruger P series, Sig, Beretta) These MUST be decocked before holstering and carry. Carrying these with the hammer back is just asking for a negligent discharge.(NOT AN ACCIDENT) I personally have a couple so called junk guns that I use as demo props (Jennings and Bryco). Both of these guns can be dropped while loaded and not go off. Ask California. The CA legislature specifically passed their onerous drop test and qualification testing to put these manufacturers out of business. To their shock, the “cheap” guns passes the tests. It is people using them / carrying them in a manner for which they were not designed that caused the negligent discharges and injuries. Of the guns simply not functioning at all when someone attempted to fire them.

    There has been a push in anti gun rights groups and politicians for “smart gun” technology to prevent guns from being stolen and used by criminals. If this is such a good idea how come law enforcement is ALWAYS exempted? The reason is that it does not work. It is not reliable enough for law enforcement officers to trust their life to but the politicians expect that citizens should trust them for their needs (not protection).

    WOW, didn’t mean to let this go on for so long.

  18. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 9:54 am


    Texas CHL Conviction rates can be found here –

  19. Sailorcurt said,

    January 15, 2010 at 10:12 am

    As Bob S. Said, you can’t legislate responsibility.

    Responsible people are going to get training before they take on a responsibility as serious as carrying a firearm in public. They do this because they are responsible.

    Irresponsible people will not do this no matter how many laws you pass.

    I agree that training should be mandatory though. It should begin in Kindergarten with the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe program and continue unabated through high school progressing through air guns, rimfire guns, shotguns and rifles and finally handguns and self defense considerations. I’d also like to see intra and intermural shooting sports to include precision (bullseye) shooting, three position, sporting clays and practical shooting offered all the way through college.

    The best way to make sure that everyone who may come into contact with, or have a need to use, a firearm is properly trained is to properly train everyone. The best way to ensure that the training requirements are not used as an impediment to exercising the rights is to make the training accessible to everyone for little or no cost.

    While I agree to a point that “crazy” people shouldn’t be allowed to own and use guns, you have to define what constitutes “crazy”.

    And that brings up the inevitable question: if they are too “crazy” to be trusted with firearms, should they be trusted to operate a ton and a half lethal weapon in public every day? Should they be trusted with chainsaws? Axes? Baseball Bats? Gasoline and matches? Pointy sticks?

    I lean toward the camp that espouses the concept that if anyone is too dangerous to be allowed in society with any particular hazardous tool, they probably shouldn’t be allowed in society without a keeper to begin with.

    Finally, someone brought up DUIs and the fact that many convicted of this crime are given multiple chances before their license to drive is taken away.

    I find it incongruous that, in some states, a crime that includes by definition the abuse of two items: automobiles and alcohol, results in a permanent prohibition on the purchase, possession or use of neither…but does result in a permanent prohibition of the purchase, possession or use of a completely unrelated object: a firearm.

    It’s almost like the people writing the laws are just looking for excuses to disarm as many of their fellow citizens as possible.

  20. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Weer’d Bear – I don’t know that “peer monitoring” has any specific meaning, certainly isn’t a legal or cultural term of art. Yet. What I mean by it it what if gun owners themselves policed gun owners? i.e., kind of like how professional organization and associations police themselves. It is good for public image, makes money for the group to allow it to do good works, and gives gun related jobs to people. In other words, rather than be a lobby, be your own regulating entity.

    The “peer group” would be responsible for drafting and overseeing any requirements (rather than any legislative body) and would be responsible for any training or testing. Fees and such could be split so that the state gets just a tad and the rest goes to the group to pay for more training, etc. Group could create its own “guidelines,” could provide everything from luxury spa weapons retreat (because you make a LOT of money off of the people with money, and I am sure that there are some gun owners with tons of $$$) to free basic courses for people who need them.

  21. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Just as an FYI – some people’s comments keep going into the spam filter – even though they have been previously approved and I don’t have any additional filters up. Have no idea why. I will try to fix it when I get back to the computer, but I have to do the working now. So if you comment doesn’t go up right away, don’t panic.

  22. mike w. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 10:41 am

    These MUST be decocked before holstering and carry. Carrying these with the hammer back is just asking for a negligent discharge.(NOT AN ACCIDENT

    Speaking of that, I remember a question that came up on a gun related discussion board some time back. Someone who was obviously new to guns had just bought a classic P-Series Sig Sauer. Obviously it was traditional DA/SA, he didn’t like the long, heavy 1st trigger pull and wanted to know if he could carry it with the hammer cocked. I’m glad he came to a forum and asked the question. Had he not he would have almost certainly had an ND shortly thereafter.

    If you’re going to own & carry guns you must learn how your particular carry piece works, including any internal safeties, and in what manner it is meant to be used and carried. Given the multitide of different pistol designs there’s no practical way that a CCW course could adequately cover such things. Some folks will ask, learn, and be responsible, while others will carry old derringers loose in their pockets. I don’t know that you can really eliminate that entirely, since there’s no legislative cure for stupidity.

    Gun Geek – RE smart guns. The beauty of firearms is their relative simplicity and ease of use. They are truly egalitarian in nature. Trying to complicate simple, reliable designs with complicated technology is unneccesary and a recipe for disaster. It’s basically a hardware solution to a software problem. Accidental gun death & injury rates are VERY low, but they can always be lower.

    The way to do that is through training and education. Even something as simple as drilling the 4 rules into people’s heads is a great start, and it’s one of the reasons that I try to provide people with NO firearms experience with at least some basic knowledge. Many of the tragedies we see via the media are 100% preventable if we can expose more people to safe, responsible handling and use of firearms at the most basic level.

    SFL & MikeB – I’m unsure how exactly I’m supposed to “weed out” bad characters? I cannot, nor should I be expected to police 80 million + people. I’ll impart knowledge & help those around me when possible, but that’s it.

  23. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 10:52 am


    The “peer group” concept is also a landmine issue just to warn you. By lumping all gun owners under one umbrella it equates thugs who break the law with law abiding gun owners.

    I don’t know of a single peer group that could regulate gang members, drug cartels and your local NRA affiliated gun club members participating in shooting competitions.

    And is really needed? That is the big question, are firearm related accidents of such level that we need to increase the minimum level of competency needed to safely carry them.

    CDC Wisqars provides us with a clue. — All figures related are from 2008 and unintentional causes and rates are per 100,000 people

    Firearms – 17, 215 injuries rate of 5.66
    Machinery – 269, 756 injuries rate of 88.72
    Fire/Burn – 400,032 injuries rate of 131.56
    poisoning – 732,316 injuries rate of 240.85
    Transportation – 4,156, 759 injuries rate of 1,367

    There are nearly or more firearms in America then there are automobiles and yet look at the injury rate. People are not mishandling their firearms on a epidemic scale.

    Once again — I will repeat that I am not advocating irresponsible handling or safety regarding firearms. I am not saying that training isn’t effective.

    What I am saying is the minimum skills necessary to carry a firearm seem to be adequate.

  24. January 15, 2010 at 10:55 am

    I am very wary of “peer monitoring”.

    Democracies have a very poor track record of respecting the rights of the few.

    Allowing any group of people to strip an individual of his rights is a very short step from the oppression of the individual by the group.

    If we are to monitor the actors use of their firearm, then we already have a pretty good system in place. The police can choose to make an arrest, the DA can refer to a grand jury, the grand jury can issue charges, the court system can have a trial, and in the end, if wrong doing is suspected enough, the actor can loose his rights.

    Skipping all of those steps and allowing a group of people to issue binding decisions on an individual actors rights flies in the face of liberty.

    We don’t have to like everyone that choose to be armed. I sure as hell don’t like everyone that exercises their 1st Amendment rights. But for either group of rights, unless the actor proves to be a specific danger to others, we should leave them alone, even if we find it personally distasteful.

    That of coarse doesn’t mean we can’t speak against them doing acts we find ridiculous.

  25. January 15, 2010 at 11:23 am


    Thanks. I’d like to see a comparison to other demographic groups before I would agree that your 160-out-0f 68,000 statistic means very much, though it certainly sounds like a good stat at first glance.

    Even better might be the claim that only 160 CHL holders out of almost 290,000 were convicted of crimes. I think this might actually be more impressive.


  26. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 11:38 am


    Absolutely right, it is more impressive –0.05517 % of the licensed population

    Looks like Howard Nemerov did some of the heavy lifting for us here

    Howard is one of the Gun Rights Examiners

    SFL – I don’t think any of us believe you are playing games with moderation. We’ve all had problems with it and understand.

    Thanks for hosting the debate here.

  27. Weer'd Beard said,

    January 15, 2010 at 11:43 am

    SFL, we already have that. Gun clubs mandate safe handling rules for club members and supply training courses. Gunnies in general are always there to help others with proper training, handling, safety, and consumer advocate issues (What’s happening here is a prime example), also if I see somebody doing something unsafe in a gun shop or gun club (Most common is trigger finger on the trigger when the gun is not on target, or muzzle sweeping I’ll politely remind them of the rules. “Would you mind watching your muzzle please?” “Could you please take your finger off the trigger?” Even if the gun is unloaded these rules should always be followed.

    Gun groups like the NRA or local groups often do things like this, offering training courses, publishing safety and practice drills in publications, doing community outreach, ect ect.

    You can’t every include EVERYBODY in one group or another, but with some of the onerous laws out there, and the long road we have to go before our rights are respected we try our best to present our best foot forward, and do all we can to shine up and correct the worst foot.

    We even have internal quibbles about weather such-and-such an issue is harmful or helpful to the cause (Open Carry, Which Political Groups best serve us, Full Auto Firearms, The training issue has some contention, what methods of carry are good or bad **seems like purse carry, Small of back carry, cross-draw, pocket carry, and shoulder carry get the most contention**)

    So I’d say it exists and exists very strongly, and possibly the only reason why you haven’t seen much of it is the limited exposure to gunnies outside your intimidate family.

  28. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Well, I guess what I was imagining was a group that actually had some sort of authority – IT makes the rules for “safe gun handling.” Rules, mind you, not laws. But illegal stuff is still illegal stuff and handled by the courts, etc. Kind of like how lawyers police themselves. That way all the state does is hand out the license and those with the “expert” knowledge handle the nuts and bolts stuff. While some of the CLE stuff is bullshit, a lot is very helpful AND you get to “network” – which I loathe, but am told a lot of “successful” attorneys like it.

    Not to mention I really REALLY hate the whole lobby set-up. Doesn’t it really suck to keep pouring money into the pockets of politicians when you could be using that money for other stuff?

    And as far as gun clubs go, is there much outreach? My concern is that a gun club is only of help to one who goes to the gun club. However, if you had a group with some power and resources (and yes, authority and responsibility) you could reach far more gun owners i.e. women in DV situations, older people, people without much in the way of resources.

    I think the posting problem is the links – any comment with more than one link goes to the spam folder. I will keep an eye on it.

  29. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Yeah, as I’ve mentioned before, the gun folk I *know* are (1) family (2) law enforcement (3) military and (4) people with guns that I wouldn’t really consider “gun folk.”

  30. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:40 pm


    This past year my gun club has hosted: 1.) a Scout activity day to help them complete their merit badges, 2.) a FFA field day, 3.) a charity shoot – on 3 different occasion for 3 different events, 4.) a youth day that saw 279 youths and adults attend, 5.) a women’s only CHL class (put on by a local women’s only club).

    This is in addition to the 4 people who teach CHL classes (for members and non-members at the club), the 2 people who teach hunter’s education classes.

    All of our regular matches (skeet, trap, falling plate, cowboy action) are open to non-members also.

    The NRA has the Eddy Eagle program and many more.

    I’ll ask what is the minimum level of skill a person needs to safely carry a firearm?
    I’ll submit that it isn’t very much. Heck for most people simply reading the owners manual is enough.

  31. Laci the Dog said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Somehow, it has been lost because the Heller decision used the nebuloous term “individual right” that the novel right enunciated was extremely limited:

    In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
    possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
    as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
    in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
    self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
    from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
    must permit him to register his handgun and must
    issue him a license to carry it in the home.

    Also, the decision said that:

    For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
    question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
    11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    Which was further explained in footnote 26 that this was not an exhautive list of “lawful regulatory measures”. DC’s registration process includes a 20 question multiple choice exam on gun safety.

    To be quite honest, DC v. Heller does not preclude a requirement that for registration of fireams or that individuals wishing to register them pass safety exams before being allowed to register the firearms.

    As I said, I pretty much rip apart the Heller decision from both sides of the issue and find it failing. J. Stevens dissent was much better from a legal standpoint.

    I also find your use of the term “penumbral” to be quite novel and will address it in my next blog post.

  32. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Bob S – that is pretty cool. I had no idea that there was so much involvement on the parts of some clubs. What is the general public visibility for gun clubs? Are some as visible as the general civil or fraternal clubs?

    As for the “minimum” level of skill? *I* have no idea. I think the general public has an idea that there is some bright-line place where the skill level is seen as objectively sufficient, but I also think they are looking to the gov to set this in place. I don’t know where that magic line is. But I think it fairly inarguable that public perception of a problem (say, need for training) is itself a problem, even if you feel/believe/have overwhelming statistical support for the opposite position.

    In other words, even though the public opinion that there should be some brightline level of training may be either false or inapt, there is still the fact that the public feels that way. You simply cannot change people’s minds on this with logic or facts, because their opinions on these issues are based on a legitimate fear/concern/worry (and I say legitimate because it is not a physical impossibility) of becoming injured by something with a statistically unlikely-to-insignificant chance of happening (depending upon your preferred source for stats).

    So MY point is why not control the problem by creating a solution? You aren’t going to change people’s minds (not really). Which means your option then is to continue fighting them, which takes time and money. So why not find a way to ameliorate their concerns in a manner that forwards your own agenda?

  33. Weer'd Beard said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Well what “authority” could they have? You can’t strip a person of their right to own guns without the law behind you.

    Clubs of course control their membership, and violation of club rules is most often met with expulsion. More in general there were things like the Jim Zumbo incident:

    Essentially a hunting writer referred to the AR-15 platform (which FYI is the most popular center-fire rifle design out there right now, and is used in everything from personal defense, to target sports, to hunting) a “Terrorist Rifle”. Gunnies everywhere were outraged at such a statement, and contacted Mr. Zumbo as well as his sponsors.

    he has since recanted and is more-or-less back in the fold, but it was a rough year for him.

    Gun makers like HS Precision, Ruger Firearms, and Smith and Wesson, (there have also been talks of Kimber Boycotts but I never heard of anybody actually doing it in and organized fashion) for their endorsement of various anti-gun laws or cooperation with shady characters. HS is still in the Doghouse as far as I know, Ruger and Smith seem to be doing much better after some corporate changes.

    Those are the large scale cases I know of, smaller ones of course exist.

    As for rules of safe handling, there are really only two standards used by most people who know a thing or two. I personally subscribe and teach Jeff Cooper’s 4 Rules:
    I know a few people who prefer the NRA 3 Rules:

    And for people with small kids the go-to-places are NRA Eddie Eagle:
    Mas Ayoob’s book “gunproof your Children”
    And Kathy Jackson’s Cornered Cat (which is just a gold mine for everybody, but HUGE for Mother’s with kids and women interesting in gun safety)

    As for Gun Club outreach, I can only speak to the local clubs I know, but Mine has a “Fun Day” which is open to the public (you pay for tickets like at a carnival and they run various gun games all day long, the wife and I go every year) They have at least one NRA Women on Target range days open to any woman looking for an introduction to shooting, and once a month they run the NRA basic Pistol safety course for people looking to get their Mass Permit.

    A club several of my friends belong to also has a chapter of the 2nd Amendment Sisters which have members shoots about once a month, and an open house women-only instructional shoot once a year. (thankfully when my wife went it turns out a friend of mine is the chapter president and she allowed me on the firing lines as an instructor rather than just chilling in the parking lot reading a book. : ]

    Still outreach of that sort is kinda hard, its not like you can open a shooting range in a shopping mall where standard foot traffic can easily see it, so Shooting ranges tend to be a bit off the beaten path where ample land still exists, and unless you’re LOOKING for a place to shoot, nobody will knock on the door with a flier saying “Hey wanna come to our fun-day at the club?”

    I’d say just about any private club is always looking to expand it’s membership, so all you need to do is look to find outreach. Or hop on the Second Amendment sisters website and look up your local chapter

    So we have a system in place, but it’s as organized as any system can be. Maybe a little more in restrictive states like mine where gunnies tend to feel a bit more of an urgent need to work together.

  34. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    *blush* Thanks Laci. I am bit of a word nerd. Was a latin/greek major undergrad, so I love fake cognates. Though, technically speaking, I think penumbral might be legit.

  35. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    …and while I know that Laci know what this means, I will clarify for other readers. You have essentially 4 tiers of rights. (1) rights that are *explicitly* included in the text of the BOR – e.g., the right to assemble. (2) rights that are necessarily included as a function of language – e.g., the right to free exercise and the right to not be subject to state religion are two distinct rights. (3) rights that are necessary in order for the specific right to have substantive meaning – e.g. the right to free speech necessarily includes the right to be free from compelled speech. And (4) rights that fall under the penumbra (umbrella) of a specifically enumerated right – e.g., privacy rights.

  36. Weer'd Beard said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Oh and you might see the phenomenon showing up here from a post related to your first gunnie one:

    Some comments are from the kerfuffle, but most are talking about pocket carry, and junky guns that aren’t drop safe. (Consensus, carry a drop-safe gun, if you pocket carry use a pocket holster and some nice pants)

    I personally pocket carry on some days, I use a S&W642 (drop safe thanks to a cross-block safety) in an Uncle Mike’s pocket holster. Tho DeSantis is having a sale over at Midway USA…..

  37. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    I need to check that thread out; just need to make sure I have my extra-thick-skin on. What do people-in-the-know generally think about purse carry? As I have mentioned elsewhere, this doesn’t seem the best way to carry, though I understand that there may not be other options.

    Nice pants? As long as they aren’t pleated front khakis…

  38. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:18 pm


    There are more ways to solve the problem then by implementing what the public perceives as the solution

    I see a huge issue with even volunteer standards of education — they soon become the percieved required minimum – how did the state get involved in licensing people to give haircuts and shaves for example?

    Then instead of being taught, in school, at public ranges, police ranges, etc — the minimum and encouraged to get more training — the people do exactly the opposite.

    The don’t get training and carry anyways — which perpetuates the cycle because eventually there will be an accidental or negligent discharge.

    Instead, let’s talk to the public, let’s not call for more training, or state that training is necessary.

    Let’s push for responsible gun ownership and carrying. Simply that.
    Hammer anyone who breaks the law, Hammer those who have a negligent discharge that injures others.

    Let’s show the people that the statistics reflect reality. This isn’t a problem.

  39. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    A lot of good info there. But ouch. I really wish people understood that, all other stuff aside, I have not argued/am not arguing in favor of any regulation on the training issue. That aside, I do like the way she handles folk. And there really is a wealth of information there.

  40. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Bob S – but I don’t think you would be implementing what the public perceives as the solution. Or, at worst, you would be doing so on your own terms. As far as state oversight of licenses, a lot of this comes out of the old ‘guild’ manner of doing things. It allows a group to protect its own and keep *actual* control out of government hands. Yes, the gov tells you to do something, but the gov hands over all rulemaking authority, etc, to you.

    And while I agree that shining light on responsible gun ownership and visibly punishing the irresponsible, I just don’t think that people – all or most of them, anyway – are going to be won over by numbers. I think that change comes slowly, and that sometimes you have to find a better route to get there. People aren’t logical, and certainly aren’t logical when it comes to opinions that are rooted in emotion and concerns for safety.

  41. Weer'd Beard said,

    January 15, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Heh, “Nice Pants” simply means pants that can hold up your gun in the pocket. I generally wear ratty jeans that may wife rolls her eyes at. But they fit well and have sturdy pockets so my gun is nice and secure. The fashion police might be out for me, but the gunnie police ain’t got nuttin’ on Weer’d Beard!

    As for Purse carry, it’s ok so long as the purse uses a holster of some sort, and the purse NEVER LEAVES YOUR BODY. While a purse is on your body you can control it. Leave it at your desk at work and anybody can rummage through it. Forget it at the grocery store and you’re looking for serious trouble, have a purse-snatcher grab it and now you not only lost your method of defense, but you just gave a criminal a gun.

    I mention my friend with the SAS, I asked my wife after he class if she mentioned how she carries. Wife said no. I told her that my friend is never without a gun (not that she needs a reason but she happens to have a disabled son, and was sexually assaulted) wife then mentioned she never took her purse off the whole day. I’d say that was a good guess.

    Woman’s clothes are generally harder for various forms of carry just because most of the traditional holster styles were invented for the military and for men. There are a ton of innovations coming out, and I suspect a LOT more will be coming out now that shooting and CCW is approaching the 50/50 ratio of men and women.

    On-body is preferred tho as it allows you to control the gun for the whole time you’re wearing it.

    Look through cornered cat, she talks a LOT about different carry methods. Generally the idea is to look at the different methods of carry, and then find one that best suits how you dress.

    Because I usually wear jeans, no belt, and a zip-front sweat shirt, or button-down chamois or flannel, I chose pocket carry and shoulder carry.

    I could choose a different method, but it would require buying different clothes, so these are the best for me. Wife prefers Appendix carry IWB. Works well for her…not for me.

    She also prefers revolvers, while I prefer Semi-autos. There is no one-size-fits-all in the gun world.

  42. mike w. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    What I am saying is the minimum skills necessary to carry a firearm seem to be adequate.

    There’s also the issue of “minimum skills” being both individually and situationally specific. If the “minimum” is codified and required by law then there will be some people whose rights will be infringed upon.

    As someone who CCW’s / OC’s, I do not need the same skill set as a police officer (for example I don’t need training on door breaching with firearms) and I’m not expected to run towards and confront violent, volatile situations nor apprehend criminals.

    I’m not going to be using my CCW piece @ 25 yards away (or 15 for that matter) Since I’m carrying for self-defense it would be nearly impossible to raise such a defense if I shot someone from 50+ feet away unless they fired upon me from such a distance.

    What do people-in-the-know generally think about purse carry?

    Id strongly advise against it unless you have no other carry option. When you carry weapon security is of the utmost importance. Having the gun in something that is both off your body AND an attractive target for theives is generally unwise. Also, it’s going to be exceedingly difficult to get a gun out of your purse unless it’s virtually the only thing you have in there. You must also consider that in a purse the gun is going to be moving / rolling around, so it could catch on other things in the purse and cause the trigger to be pulled. Lastly. In a holster the gun is in the same spot at all times, which aids greatly in ones ability to draw. The grip of your gun is unlikely to be in the same exact spot whenever you might need it if you’re purse carrying.

    Purse carry is quite obviously not my forte, but you might want to shoot an email to roberta or breda as they might have some real-world advice.

  43. mike w. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Well, I guess what I was imagining was a group that actually had some sort of authority – IT makes the rules for “safe gun handling.” Rules, mind you, not laws

    What would be the point?

    We already have the 4 rules, and the people who are stupid and irresponsible are not going to join said group.

  44. mike w. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Laci – 19th century courts made rulings opposed to concealed carry for several reasons. One was racial. They wanted to preserve laws that kept blacks disarmed and “in their place.” The other was the very nature of concealing weapons. It was considered untrustworthy to conceal a firearm, something you would only do if you were a criminal up to no good. Now, because people are afraid of guns that attitude has shifted to one where we usually conceal because it causes less alarm among those who fear the sight of firearms.

    Also, the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right, just like all the rest. There’s no such thing as “collective rights” No such rights exist.

  45. Sailorcurt said,

    January 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    I (and probably several of the other people who’ve commented here as well) am an NRA certified instructor. The NRA is pretty much the “peer recognized” training standard for basic safety and handling of firearms.

    Of course there are competitors, some states have their own specific training requirements, and there are plenty of places that offer more advanced training, but for the basics, the NRA training programs pretty much set the standard…and they are ubiquitous.

    The club that I’m a member of does regular training sessions that are open to the public, just like Bob’s and probably most other shooting clubs out there.

    I posted on my blog about three evolutions that I was involved in just in the past few months, two for the boy scouts and one NRA “Women On Target” class.

    We’ve got a basic pistol class scheduled for next weekend that I may be involved with depending on whether my wife has surgery next Friday or not and we’re starting a 4H “swamp shooters” monthly competition regimen next month.

    I’d be willing to bet that there are shooting clubs in your area that offer the similar opportunities if you look.

    The problem isn’t the availability of opportunities to get training and instruction, the problem is how do we get the word about them out?

    Most shooting clubs have very small budgets and can’t afford a lot of advertising. The media is basically our enemy. In general, the only time they show any interest in the offerings of the shooting community is when they sense an opportunity to run a hit piece or as a lead-in to an anti-gun rant.

    The point is that the information is out there, there already are peer-produced standards that have been tested by time and experience. And, as I said before, responsible people will take advantage of them whether there’s a mandate or not…and irresponsible people will eschew those opportunities equally regardless of any mandates.

    And as the consistent downward trend of gun related accident statistics in this country indicate, more and more people choose to do the responsible thing every year.

  46. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    What is an appendix carry IWB?

    Sailorcurt – that was kind of my point, I guess, that maybe a way to win the discussion is to head it off and change the course of it. How much power does the NRA have in local organizations? My sense is that it is set up kind of like AARP.

    My question was how would it work if the NRA went from being like the AARP (which is essentially a lobby combined with a special interest group with a dash of business) to more like the ABA (which is a lobby, a rulemaking group, a quasi-regulatory board, a special interest group, AND a business). Seems like you get to a point where you’ve got to look at WHERE your money is going (I am guessing primarily nationwide and state-specific lobby efforts) and maybe consider that you would get more “change” for your buck keeping it grassroots and local.

    Our bar associations police their own. It is easier to file a Bar complaint that to file a civil malpractice suit against an attorney. Some states membership in the Bar is mandatory, some it is not. But regardless if you practice in that state, you have to abide by Bar rules.

    That might be way too heavy handed with gun ownership, but it’s a thought.

  47. Laci the Dog said,

    January 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    To say a right is individual is hollow, what is the scope and nature of that right?

  48. Bob S. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 3:59 pm


    Laughing a little bite about the image of Mark the Meth Head being called in front of Gun Bar Association to answer for why he isn’t using a pocket holster.

    Or Herbie the Urban thug being ‘disciplined’ by a board because when he was running from his latest armed robbery, his carry piece fell from his waist band (criminals for the most part do not use holsters) and accidentally shattered someone’s window.

    As Sailor Curt said…all the information is out there, all the training programs are out there — when they are needed people can take them.

    As a lawyer, what would you write up as the minimum needed skill/knowledge or ability to safely carry a firearm?

    Couldn’t that be passed by anyone reading a little bit at the library, in their home, practicing for a while at home?

    I like the idea of peer reviewed system if it wouldn’t be abused. Insurance companies offering discounts to those who attend…..but isn’t it likely that insurance companies would require those training classes in order to write a policy for anyone with a firearm in the home?

    From Say Uncle’s site – this guy says it very well:
    1. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:
    January 15th, 2010 at 4:27 pm I’ve got no problems with mandating a certain level of knowledge for those people *selling* those services as a business. That’s just basic fraud protection for consumers.

    You want peer-reviewed criteria for your employees to sell services as a doctor, fine.
    You want peer-reviewed criteria for your employees to sell services as am electrician, fine.
    You want peer-reviewed criteria for your employees to sell services as a mechanic, fine.

    But we should not need a peer reviewed certification
    to take tylenol, add a light fixture to our own home, or change our own brakes. It may be a good idea to be knowledgable about how to do those things safely. But that is very different from needing permission from the gov’t (even if the guidelines are written by a peer-group) to do them.

    So if you want peer-reviewed criteria for the employees of your armed security guard business, I’ve got no real problem with that. But to protect myself and my own family? Sorry, but I don’t need permission from you nor anybody else.

  49. southern female lawyer said,

    January 15, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Carry on folks – I’ve got to do some lawyerin’ then on to mama/cook duties. i will dig all trapped comments out of the spam filter later this evening.

  50. mike w. said,

    January 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    In case anyone is wondering who this “Laci The Dog” is. I would refer you to this post.

    Each quote is from Laci herself, and you’ll notice they link back to the vile, murderous ramblings at her site.

    She should be ridiculed, not taken seriously in any way, shape or form.

  51. January 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    […] a long apology (which some find “hollow”) as well as a post clarifying her position on training for prospective concealed carry permit holders.   None of this is any of my business, really, but I nevertheless have two thoughts on this […]

  52. Holocryptic said,

    January 15, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Appendix IWB (Inside Waist Band) – there’s photos here of what it would look like: The firearm is forward of the hips towards the stomach.

    There are two types of waist band carry, Inside and Outside. IWB means its inside your pants, against your skin/underwear. OWB is obviously outside your pants, in what you would consider a more traditional holster (like a LEO)

    IWB is preferred for concealed carry, whereas OWB is more for open carry (though with the right clothes you can conceal an OWB nicely).

    There are more ways to carry than just this, and a google search will yield a ton of results.

  53. Weer'd Beard said,

    January 15, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    A wide range of holsters are covered here (With a female model which should be helpful)

  54. Sailorcurt said,

    January 16, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Hey, thanks for that Mike W. I thought her name sounded familiar but I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt as she was at least trying to sound reasonable.

    After reading the excerpts that you linked to, I must return to the age old question:

    Why are anti-gunners so violent?

  55. Steve said,

    January 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    I read what Laci has to say and here is what I learned:
    US v Miller, or at least Laci’s reading of it is the first and last word on the second amendment and stare decisis makes it inviolable.
    “Right of the people” in the first and fourth amendment applies to me, an individual but in the second it applies to something else entirely although I was not able to find the reason why they ratified “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” when they actually meant something completely different.
    Scalia is a dummy.
    Laci has a dog. I like dogs too.

  56. Laci the Dog said,

    January 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Steve, you may have read what I wrote, but you didn’t understand a word of it.

    Not inviolable, but you need a significant reason to change precedent. Unless, of course, you don’t luike judicial certainty. Look up the concept of “rule of law”.

    BTW, Steve, are you aware that the proper procedure for changing the constitution is through the legislature and it is described in the document itself. Or were you asleep in civics class when they mentioned that? Do you need a furrener to remind you of that arcane point of the US legal system?

    Also, legislative acts are usually presumptively Constitutional. Unless, again, you don’t mind unelected people deciding which laws are valid.

    I give you a D

    You have an extra credit chance to prove you might understand what I am talking about by answering my essay question.

  57. Laci the Dog said,

    January 16, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Also, stare decisis is what keeps the legal system from being totally arbitrary, Steve, unless you don’t mind judges deciding issues on their whims.

    As I said, I give you a grade of D for your comprehension of my writings.

    Try the essay question and try not to make too much of a fool of yourself in responding to that.

  58. Mike w said,

    January 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Unfortunately for Laci Miller actually supports the Individuals rights interpretation.

  59. Steve said,

    January 16, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    You’re sad devotion to that ancient religion…sorry wrong speech.
    Your first resort when challenged is to resort to ad hominem attacks.
    I think I understand you perfectly.
    Your theory of the second amendment is totally discredited and accepted by…actually, no one. Not one taker on the supreme court even.
    Therefore the problem is of course that everyone including presumably the entire supreme court is too stooopid to understand your writings and not that you are a fanatic tilting at windmills.
    The plain meaning of the 2A could not be any clearer. Your writings demonstrate that you are clever and articulate when you want to be but you can’t change reality with a fog of words. How many hundreds of hours have you devoted to trying to prove that up is down anyway?
    If you really are a foreigner, then as a non citizen, you are not invested in this country, don’t have the vote and are frankly not entitled to any say in how we in the land of the free conduct our business. Perhaps it would be best if you switched your efforts to diminishing the civil rights of your own countrymen.

  60. Steve said,

    January 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Oh and cute dog.

  61. southern female lawyer said,

    January 16, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    “Laughing a little bite about the image of Mark the Meth Head being called in front of Gun Bar Association to answer for why he isn’t using a pocket holster.”

    Yeah, me too. And now I am envisioning a panel of folks in robes and whatnot. Probably wouldn’t work…

  62. southern female lawyer said,

    January 16, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    And thanks to all for the helpful links – esp. those on women and kids. Very helpful stuff.

  63. mike w. said,

    January 17, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    SFL – I think that comment really shows why an association like you proposed wouldnt work. The people who are going to be irresponsible are not going to be involved in the association, so it’s not going to positively impact the very people you are worried about.

    Besides, when all is said and done you are ultimately concerned about what is a non-existent, statistically insignificant problem.

    You’re not advocating any such group for swimming pool owners even though they statistically are more of a threat.

  64. Bob S. said,

    January 18, 2010 at 8:18 am


    Thanks for the great debate. I would like to do one last thing.

    Encourage you to run with your idea that people should be well trained. I think we agree requiring people to be well trained is a bad idea but most responsible citizens who carry seek out some level of education/training.

    Be the person that provides it or develops the instruction agenda to provide it.
    Look at the NRA Basic handgun/firearm classes, sponsor them, get the ABA to sponsor them. Heck, convince judges to make them part of the sentences for negligent or reckless behavior with firearms.

    Consider developing a program that you can distribute to gun clubs. We have a 3 hour orientation class for all new members, We certainly could include a video or short course on safety basics (in addition to or replacing what we already do).

    In the end, I think we both want responsible citizens exercising their rights.

  65. southern female lawyer said,

    January 18, 2010 at 9:59 am

    No problem Bob S – happy to be able to host it and happy we could have it. i do think, even though we didn’t solve the world’s problems, that maybe we came up with the beginnings of some good ideas. Or at least a new way to think about these issues. I know several attorneys that might be interested in putting something like this together.

    Mike w, as I have said a couple of times, I don’t think this is a problem that can be fixed with statistics. If what you are dealing with is the public perception of guns, people with guns, and guns in public, most of them will not be mollified by a look at the actual statistics and probabilities. As we have said before, there is a big difference between a physical impossibility and a statistical improbability.

    And as a matter of practicality, when a minority is protecting a right, it must necessarily wage a significant portion of that battle in the arena of public perception. Even though this isn’t right, and even thought I personally think the intent of the Constitution (among other things) is to protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority, it is still unfortunately so.

  66. Steve said,

    January 18, 2010 at 10:47 am

    I noticed that Laci responded to me on her own blog that doesn’t allow comments. Lots of name calling.
    I’ll take that as an admission of defeat. And cowardice.
    Laci, I know that your dog is Laci but since you don’t have the guts to put your own name on your post or any of your other writings, you have left me with no choice but to identify you as Laci.
    Laci, If you think that you have such a strong argument, why don’t you print it out, sign your name to it and submit it to a law review for publication? Or better yet, why don’t you stop trying to bully us amateurs and go tangle with this guy:
    That’s David E. Young. I know that because he puts his name and photo (not his dog’s) at the top of the blog. He also allows comments but I doubt you have the stones to debate him or sign your own name because you are nothing but a bully.
    SFL, I just want to let you know that I’m not going to respond to Laci again just in case you are concerned about this getting out of hand. It’s not appropriate to use your forum for that and she’s just a nasty piece of work. Who needs that in their life?

  67. Bob S. said,

    January 18, 2010 at 10:47 am


    Thanks for considering it.

    As for as the statistics, I think you are right IF we left it at the statistics. We, being the stubborn folks we are, generally can’t leave it at just presenting the statistics.

    We try to relate real life examples of the numbers, we ask people to examine their biases (we all have them), we engage in debate (sometimes heated) because we know out of conflict comes resolution.

    One of the things I enjoy about the use of statistics is trying to put the numbers into context. Most people have no idea how many firearms out there — almost 9 for every 10 people in America.

    Or that nearly 300,000 people in Texas have Concealed Handgun Licenses – equal to the combined population of Knoxville and Clarksville yet there were only 160 convictions of CHL holders in Texas in 2007.

    Let us know if you develop a course. I’ll promote it on my blog and see what we can do at our club.

  68. website said,

    August 19, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Great post indeed. My mother has been searching for this update.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: