Arizona Bill Seeks to Make Permits and Background Checks Optional

PHOENIX — The Associated Press is reporting that the Arizona legislature is seeking to make Arizona the third state where it is legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Bills in the House and the Senate would also eliminate background checks and training classes for people to carry hidden guns.

“All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families,” said State Senator Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican sponsoring the bill.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Arizona-gun-laws-concealed-carry-background-checks-Russell-Pearce_1831-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

Another Alaska?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I think if they want more CCW, the permits should be made free and they should be shall issue.
Keep the background check, drop the training requirement, and just issue a card for free (or $5 to cover printing).

Although, on the other hand, Vermont and Alaska (no-permit ccw) have very low crime and firearm incidence.
If Arizona could duplicate the VT & AK crime rates with this measure... that would be great.
Statistically and historicly, this is the correct move on AZ's behalf. However, people's instincts may contradict this.
I doubt the bill passes though. The media is too ignorant to actually give an honest debate to the people.
Even with honest debate it'd still br a 50/50 chance.

Edit:
In the end, I have to size with AZ's proposed legislation.
In a free society, the onus is on the restrictions to prove thier merit.
In addition to this, other states that have the more liberal policy have lower crime rates.

Not seeing how a background check is an obstruction or a burden for CCW. Here in Washington, When you apply,the state gives 30 days for the background check to come back. If its not done by 30 days, they SHALL issue you a CCW permit.

More republican hilarity.
:eyes:


Oh, and so much for "enforcing the laws on the books." Clearly Russel here doesn't want any laws on the books. Hey Russel, this isn't 1895 anymore.

Yeeeeeee Hawwwwww!

:eyes:

Crime rates were way lower than they are now.

That you have to pass a FEDERAL background check when you purchase a firearm, REGARDLESS of state laws?

The only thing shall-issue permits do is make it a PITA to exercise the human right of self-defense and raise revenue.

As for "God-given right to carry," well, it's a Republican...what language do you expect from him? After all, how else can he get the votes of the would-be theocrats without calling on Jesus etc?

To make you happier I'll put it in different terms: "...They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...."

We do not derive our rights from the government. Nor, thankfully, from an electorate that will trade freedom for security at the drop of a hat.

also, reminders that government is on the source of our rights. The origin of our rights is forgotten by many, including myself, at times.

Government is most certainly NOT the "source of our rights".

They are supposed to be the defender of our Rights, but too often accomplish the opposite.

Ooops.

:toast:

The Constitution outlines what our natural rights are and only limits how the government can restrict those rights. IOW, the COnstitution is there to protects our rights FROM the government.



On edit...sorry I just saw you had made a typo.

Requiring a fed background check does not bother me even a little bit. I'm dubious about the cost/benefit tradeoffs of people carrying concealed weapons in the name of self defense, but I can see the argument. However, if people want to own and operate a deadly concealed weapon, I'm glad they have to get a background check. Operating guns incorrectly can get people killed. For that matter, operating them correctly can get people killed. That's what they're for. By all means, let's be choosy about who gets to own one. "Rights" come with "responsibilities."

I'm not sure where "trading freedom for security" comes into this. Notice, you still get to have your gun. Nobody is even telling you that you can't. Unless you fail the background check, I guess. Is your problem with some kind of injustice in the background check?

All I was saying is that you already have to pass a background check to legally buy a firearm. The Arizona state process on the CCW license is redundant. If you can't pass the federal background check, you're committing a very serious federal crime merely by touching a firearm or by living in the same house with one. Forget CCW licenses.

Your concern seems to be about poorly trained jackasses walking around everywhere with loaded guns shooting innocents on accident. That's a concern and a legit one. I'm an NRA and Mass. State Police certified firearms instructor and I share your worries. Some folks I know who carry... I would be happier if they didn't even OWN a gun, much less carry one. But it's their right, and my opinion on their character is my subjective opinion, therefore irrelevant to their exercising the fundamental human right of self defense.

Here's the problem:

Background checks only tell you whether or not the person has been adjudicated mentally ill or has been convicted of a crime. They don't tell you anything about the mentality of the person, their maturity, the level of training they have, or more important than having training, whether they will USE that training. (You'd be astonished how many "trained policemen" have negligent discharges of their firearms. By and large, the most unsafe and poor shooters I know are cops).

That's all a background check does. So as to your safety concerns, which I share, a background check does bupkis.

I'm 100% with you on responsibilities. But I want you to reach out with your imagination a little bit and differentiate the term "Right" from "Privilege."

You have a RIGHT to vote. You have a PRIVILEGE of driving a vehicle on a public road. One can be revoked for any number of reasons, often with little or no due process. (Try to get a lawyer to fight your traffic ticket). The other, your right to vote, can't be interfered with at all absent commission of a felony with full rights of counsel, due process etc. (And after you've served your sentence, in many states you STILL can't vote).

You have concerns about people misusing their rights of self-defense.
I have concerns about newspaper writers who deliberately lie to gin up popular sentiment for a war fought under false pretenses that kills hundreds of thousands. I also have concerns about people who can barely read, with an IQ of 90, voting in thugs like Dick Cheney and and that fool Sheriff in Arizona (Arpajo)?

I hope we would both agree that requiring you to pass a special class and being forced to obtain a special permit to vote or write a newspaper article would be a horribly bad idea, even though those rights are abused every day in ways that do terrible damage. -Rush Limbaugh anyone?

All I'm saying is that your right to peacefully petition your government, to speak your mind, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure etc. is no more important than your right of self defense. I would ask that before instituting permits, requiring classes or other well-intentioned measures as a barrier to the exercise of one constitutionally guaranteed human right, you ask yourself how that right is somehow less sacred than the others, which you might not be willing to endure any such interference with.

Respectfully,

Bill

One does NOT have to have an NICS check to buy ANY handgun in the state of AZ.
Only to buy from a licensed dealer.

I agree that doing away with certification and fees isn't an issue. But an NICS check would be nice.
I think shall issue policy and no fee (or unburdensome fee) is not an infringement of any rights.
A card issued is a common sense measure - even if it's free and requires no certification.
It lets others, especially officers, that encounter a person with a concealed weapon that:
A) He is carrying this weapon in compliance with the law
B) This person is not a convicted felon or other has not committed other serious offences.

Voting is a right yet there are requirements to vote (registration).
They merely want to know that yes, you are ligable to vote and that you live in that district.
Having a card with an NICS check is no different than being qualified to vote in your district.

an administrative process to exercise your Civil Rights.

Odd that you don't have to do that for other rights....

And Vermont seems to do just fine assuming that people are legal until they actually do something wrong.

Having to demonstrate innocence before exercising a Right is one aspect of "prior restraint" and I will not agree to it.

NICS checks are, more or less, instant and printing a card with picture probably requires 15 minutes maximum. There is no obstacle presented (for someone who is permitted to own firearms). The only obstacle present is for those who are unqualified to posses a fiream... in which case their 2A rights have already been curtailed so no infringement for them exists either. In short: if there is no obstacle there is no infringement.

When you have a scenario where rights can be forfeited, such as in our legal system, there MUST be a way to ensure those liberties are exercised by those still qualified and the method must be as non-restrictive as possible. For example other rights that can be forfeited, such as voting, DO require registration to ensure you are not a felon and you are a resident of the voting district. Such actions are accepted as constitutional and not restrictive of rights endowed to citizens.

I would also add that being caught carrying a firearm without some sort of validation should not be grounds for criminal arrest or seizure. This makes sense as not having a such a card is not reason to believe one is not qualified to posses a firearm. Instead we should treat it like auto insurance where, if stopped without validation of insurance, you have a grace period to verify you are indeed not prohibited from carrying a firearm.

and that is not how our system is supposed to work.

Yes, I'm a bit of an idealist that way.

We *do* have a concept of requiring "training" to vote: it is embodied by the minimum voting age. It's purpose is to ensure some minimum level of experience (in "life") before we allow young humans to participate in this dangerous franchise. And it seems we both agree that democracy is a dangerous power tool.

Additionally, any foreigners who wish to become citizens of the U.S. and thereby get to vote also have to pass a basic civics training class for citizenship. If somebody proposed such a class for those of us born here, I would... listen. As long as it was the same for everybody, would it be unfair? It used to be that a basic high school education served this purpose pretty well, but that seems to have broken down over time.

Adopting regulations about what training one needs to purchase a firearm does not take away the right to self defense. I think you are correct to argue that it might make it not an "absolute" right, in the sense that not everybody gets to own every possible tool of self defense. But that's already true. To take an extreme example: I don't get to build my own atom bomb in the name of self defense. And I'm pretty sure that is a good idea. Somewhere there are always lines to be drawn, and regulations to establish.

Getting more philosophical: What makes a "right?" Mostly, an idea becomes a "right" if we write it down in the Constitution and say it is, and agree amongst ourselves that we're going to enforce it for each other. After all, the right to bear arms is the second Amendment. In other words, it wasn't even in the original Constitution. We changed our mind about it! We changed our minds and granted black people and women the right to vote. We changed our minds!

I propose to you that "rights" are never absolute things. In fact, I believe it is a big mistake to think of "rights" as inalienable, as if they were granted by the Universe. They are things we either decide to provide to each other, or not. And they can change over time. The change can be for the better, or for the worse. What is "better" or "worse" may not be constant either. When the 2nd Amendment was adopted, there were fewer people living in North America than there are now living in NYC. And the most advanced firearms were muzzle-loading. Many, many circumstances have changed.

"Mostly, an idea becomes a "right" if we write it down in the Constitution and say it is, and agree amongst ourselves that we're going to enforce it for each other. After all, the right to bear arms is the second Amendment. In other words, it wasn't even in the original Constitution."

Rights aren't granted by the constitution- if they were, the 9th and 10th amendments would make no sense whatsoever. Regarding the second amendment specifically, check US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.")

Rather the constitution and most especially the bill of rights protects certain of our rights. They do not limit the scope of those rights, merely the scope of the protections of those rights.

freedom for security was in relation to who grants rights. We can all be thankful that our free speech rights aren't subject to over-rule by Pat Robertson. Many people would strip us of our rights as soon as they get scared, whether it's crime or terrorism. The same mentality that encourages water-boarding will happily surrender every other right. The same hysterical anti-crime fear (despite the lowest crime rate in 40 years) will happily surrender the right to keep and bear arms. Make sense now?

Do you not realize....

That you have to pass a FEDERAL background check when you purchase a firearm, REGARDLESS of state laws?

Only if you buy from a dealer. Private sell is not required in most states.

For example, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady campaign, is a Republican.

loaded gun in public open or concealed have passed a proficiency test & have passed a test on the laws of permitted use in self-defense and carrying.

The classes should be kept afforable as should the licensing fee.

And I come from a shall issue state where the license is only $25 and there are no training requirements and where open carry is permitted without a license. But being involved in competition handgun shooting I'm amazed by people who come out with handguns that jam, ill-fitting belts, holsters, mag pouches, can't shoot accurately, etc.

We make people pass a test to drive a vehicle, IMHO it should be the same to carry a firearm.

At the time only leos and private detectives with a firearms permit could legally carry concealed in my state (we have since passed shall issue). I qualified at the same time and place local leos did...we were in separate sections of the same range with only a glass petition. Many of the officers were quite proficient, but an unbelievable amount were, imho, dangerously inept on the range...and these are cops who have been carrying on the street for at least a year as they were requalifying. I did see one officer fail who actually completely missed his own target with over half of his rounds, this probably wouldn't have caused him to fail...it was missing by so far he hit the neighboring officers target with several of his misses which couldn't be overlooked..

"We make people pass a test to drive a vehicle, IMHO it should be the same to carry a firearm."

Driving a vehicle on a public highway is a privilege granted by government. Your constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to keep and bear arms is not a privilege. It's a right.
The devil is always in the details.

If you (You sound a reasonable person) were always in charge, the test was available without delay and the cost was negligible, I'd be nearly in agreement with you.
But in a democratic society, any right you subject to the whim of the legislature ceases to be a right. Now it all depends on who is in power and how the political winds are blowing at the moment.

In Mass, where I live and teach firearms safety, Boston has such a law. First you have to take a state-mandated class.

Average cost? $125.

Then you have to pass a background check which will automatically disqualify you from even OWNING a firearm if you've ever been convicted (even as a juvenile) of ANY drug crime, a DUI, EVER. any felony (consistent with Fed. Law) and of course EVER had a protection order filed against you unless you've successfully paid a lawyer to have the order vacated. that application is $100.

So right there you've eliminated a huge percentage of the population which has never done anything to hurt anyone in their lives. (Protection orders are almost passe these days if you've ever been through a divorce).

NOW the fun begins. First, in addition to all that, you have to provide three references who will "vouch for you," along with a note from your doctor and your employer. (Good luck getting a doctor to certify in writing that you're mentally stable. Most docs won't do it for liability reasons alone, regardless of your mental health history.)

NOW you can make an appointment to, sometime in the next few months at the police department's convenience and with an additional fee, go be tested on the Mass. State Police firing range. and God help you if it's a bad day, you're shaky and shoot badly because of the testing circumstances etc.

Are you still with me?

This is what happens when we submit a fundamental human right to the whim of a legislative body.

1. The poor, who have more need than I EVER am likely to have, are eliminated from CCW rights automatically because the cost is too high.

2. Politicians make up new rules as they go. (the list of various town's "additions" to the state laws are so numerous you'd have to consult with a lawyer before you could speak to them all) which means inherently arbitrary standards, which is fundamentally undemocratic.

3. Politicians can make up new laws/regulation any time they want which effectively have the design and effect of intimidating would-be new gun owners from even applying.


No. I'm sorry but I've seen the results of your well-intentioned yet utterly unconstitutional idea. The only thing that happens is that fundamental rights are put at the whim of whatever political wind is blowing at the time.

Fundamental rights do no change with geography. Nor do they depend upon anyone's approval. Gun control always, invariably leads to undemocratic, regressive policies which punish the poor and dispossessed. *I* will be just fine. I can hire a lawyer and sue the city/state if I need to. The poor cannot.

As a matter of equity if nothing else, gun control is fundamentally undemocratic.

States like CA who try to ban cheap handguns. States that have created high fees to get an LTCF. Firearms instructors who make their classes expensive in states where that is required to get an LTCF. And most states passing LCTF laws in the past decade+ are the ones who mandated this.

Funny it's my somewhat Blue state of PA who's had a carry law for quite awhile with only a $25 fee and no classes required - of course we are continually fighting Philadelphia trying to emulate NYC. I'd bet we are among the most reasonable in cost - my bet is most Red states have a lot higher fee, especially those states where laws have passed within last decade+.

A number of Red states who passed LTCF laws are the ones who require expensive training and licensing fees. NRA and gun owners in those states - want to make it affordable to the poor - then offer the classes for a reduced fee and lobby your state to bring down the licensing fee.

Texas:

Here's What We Cover In Our Classes
10 hour required instruction (5 hours recertify)


Range qualification


Review of paperwork


Photographs


Completion of fingerprints


Notarization of documents


The fee for the first time class is $125.00 and includes the instruction, range fee, photographs, fingerprints, and notarization of affidavits. We have DPS packets available at class.

The recertification class fee is $75.00 which pays for the 4 hours of instruction, range fee, photographs, fingerprints and notarization.

Private or group classes can be arranged by calling our office. The following can give you up to date information on eligibility, training and requirements:

http://chl-texas.com/

I know Florida requires training which costs in the neighborhood of $65+.

Ohio:

1. Make sure you meet the basic requirements before applying for an Ohio Concealed Handgun License:

•You must be at least 21 years of age.
•You must be an Ohio resident for at least 45 days.
•You must be a resident of the county of application (or an adjacent county) for at least 30 days.
2. Find a qualified CCW instructor and complete the required 12-hour course to obtain your Certificate of Competency.

•Your Certificate of Competency must be no more than 3 years old to qualify.
•You may also present documentation that proves you are an active or reserve member of the U.S. Military, you have been honorably discharged from the U.S. Military, or you a retired law enforcement officer and have experience handling handguns that is equivalent to the training requirements.
3. Read the Attorney General's pamphlet on Ohio's concealed carry laws. You should get a printed copy during your training course.

4. Locate the sheriff's office in your county (or an adjacent county) and pick up an application for an Ohio Concealed Handgun License. OR locate the sheriff's Web site and download the application (if available).

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-ccw-application-checklist

In the abstract, I support that idea, but as MisterBill45 says, the devil is in the details. See, to my understanding, it's never happened that a member of the executive branch of government has tried to impose a de facto ban on driving by making it practically impossible to get a driver's license (except for certain select people), whereas this most definitely has happened with firearms licensing systems.

When people whinge about how the NRA (not to mention other gun rights organizations) are so uncompromisingly opposed to even "reasonable, common-sense measures," it's because in the past, such measures have all too often been exploited to impose de facto--though not de jure--gun bans, or would-be banners have announced their intentions to do so in advance.

who passed carry laws in the last decade or so do require classes & proficiency tests? I doubt in getting the states & localities who are left without carry laws to pass said laws that you will do so without such education standards. And indeed I think it is a small price to pay for the privilege. And yeah I think the law still considers that a privilege that can be legislated.

I haven't seen the NRA fighting against education & testing standards for a carry license in the bit of monitoring I've done as other states have passed carry laws. In fact it has proven to be a boon to NRA and other firearms instructors.

The gun lobby is strong enough now I doubt there will be a return to more draconian laws except perhaps in a few areas like NY, NJ, CA, MA, etc.

I think it would take a SCOTUS decision before the laws against licensing and standards could be struck down where legislated by state governments. And I doubt we will see such a case in the SCOTUS for awhile.

I would like to see the SCOTUS strike down thus upholding the 2nd amendment is states/localities banning the owning of firearms or having firearms within a residence. Also would like to see more protection for gun owners transporting a firearm through states/localities that are not gun-friendly.

I don't know that carrying a gun in public will ever be ruled protected by 2nd amendment. Seems to me a states/locality's privilege to ban in interest of public safety dates back to the 1800's. I think carrying a firearm in public can still be seen under law as a privilege that can be legislated by states as they now view the privilege of issuing a driver's license.

I would like to see all states honor LTCF's just like they do out-of-state driver's license.

Guns are deadly tools. I have no problem with a state mandating that to carry a gun you must show understanding of the laws and show proficiency as long as the LCTF is made shall issue and kept to an affordable fee.

Many states now mandate hunter education because there were too many hunting accidents with firearms. Hunting has thus become a much safer sport as a result.

It's IMHO in gun owners interest to make sure people getting carry licenses or openly carrying firearms know the laws and carry responsibly. Every time a LTCF holder breaks the law or otherwise behaves irresponsibly with a gun it gives LTCF holders a black-eye.

10hr class room Covering the Laws it applies to CHL
•Concealed Handgun License (CHL) Requirements and Restrictions.
•What is legal and illegal to carry.
•Where concealed handguns are prohibited.
•Alternatives to using force and/or deadly force.
•Basic knowledge of the use of force.
•Firearm safety.
•Weapon storage and locking devices.
•Weapon handling and child safety.
•Range safety.
•Basic marksmanship.
•Handgun use.
•Handgun evaluation.
•Review and Final Exam
There is also a proficiency test.
CHL SHOOTING TEST
3 yards, 20 rounds
•1 shot, 2 seconds, 5 times
•2 shots, 3 seconds, 5 times
•5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time
7 yards, 20 rounds
•5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time
•2 shots, 4 seconds, 1 time
•3 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
•1 shot, 3 seconds, 5 times
•5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time
15 yards, 10 rounds
•2 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time
•3 shots, 9 seconds, 1 time
•5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time

Fingerprints, photos ( generally provided as part of the class)
Costs are $80-$120 for the class, $60-$100 foe renewal
$140 to the state for first time application
$70 for renewal
License is good for 4 years

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

for the most part. Up to firearms owners in Texas to get their legislature to change if they don't like it. Looking at the shooting part of the test shouldn't be that hard to pass.

Up in my state of PA firearms instructors are making a good living doing certification for non-resident Florida and Utah LTCFs cause they will add a few more states we can legally carry including our neighbor of Ohio.

Good site here to compare the fees and requirements each state requires. Seems to me that a number of red states are fairly expensive and require quite a bit of training.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Does the Texas CHL system, a shall issue system, meet your standards for a "safe" system of CHL issue. By the way, Ann Richerds (D) vetoed the first CHL bill. It cost her the next election.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

so I can't answer. Funny thing I was watching American Guardian on TV last night - a program produced by the NRA. The opening of the show says "All Armed Citizens, whether military, law enforcement or civilian share one common responsibility, to be professionally trained."

http://www.outdoorchannel.com/Shows/AmericanGuardian.aspx

That's my opinion - carrying a gun is a responsibility as well as a right. IMHO someone who wants a carry license should have to show they have taken the responsibility by training or at least having the proficiency of knowledge to safely carry that gun.

I'm not saying that this need to be the case to buy a gun just to carry in public.

I don't think the NRA has a problem with training requirements & proficiency tests for carry.

Protection for Employees with guns secured in their vehicles.

Concealed carry in state colleges and universities.

Open Carry

After each advance in gun rights, we need to take some time to let the population adjust and see that blood-in-the-wherever didn't happen.

I want the right to keep my gun in my vehicle at work.

I wish back in the days when as a night commuter student first at a community college & then at an urban college where I had to park in a parking garage I would've had the right to carry in to the school for my safety going to and from my vehicle late in the night.

Open carry - probably something I would rarely do but nice to have the right. BTW we do have that right in my state of PA.

As the statistics sadly demonstrate.

to get in a car & drive? Or drive a bus/truck without showing they can. Or the ability to strip license from those who continually DUI or flagrantly violate traffic safety laws.

I drive 50 miles a day - seems fairly safe to me. Could be better but without some standards of who can drive IMHO be a helluva lot worse.

and set tests and requirements, just like the DMV, then ok.

Looks to me like in these states that require training for the most part they license private firearms facilities. The NRA and the industry ought to have the $$$$$'s to make sure the training is convenient. Bet the trainers are making a decent living off the requirements.

I'd say it's up to gun owners & citizens interested in gun right to lobby their governor & legislature to make it more convenient.

Probably one reason it isn't is firearms owners & those who want LCTF's are far fewer than people who want driver's licenses.

Carrying a gun is a right, protected by the Constitution.

I feel that if a state wanted to control CCW, then they have NO right to prohibit OPEN CARRY.

So far carrying a gun is considered to be a privilege no matter the 2nd amendment. That is the reality of it at the moment and states/localities still make the rules on that.

It does look like with Heller and perhaps MacDonald at least states/localities may be struck down on prohibiting gun ownership. That's certainly a big first step.

IMHO we're a long ways from a 2nd amendment ruling on open and/or concealed carry as a right and not a privilege at the federal level.

...that some sort of carry, be it open or concealed, is in fact a right. But it's important to keep in mind that we don't derive our rights from laws or even from the Constitution, and I think it can easily be argued that any person has the natural right to equip themselves with the means to reasonably defend themselves should the need arise.

Have fun arguing it up to the SCOTUS.

You can argue 2nd amendment but the hard facts at the moment is it's still a privilege as stands under state/local laws now.

BTW, I'll be glad to contribute to your defense fund.

That is the genius of Gura. He is able to isolate the issue before the court so that there isn't a pile of other stuff to be sorted through.

I didn't disagree with you that as of now many state laws do not recognize it as a right but a privilege. I was speaking on a more philosophical level in that state laws do not necessarily govern what is and is not in fact a right or a privilege. If a state law restricts or even totally withholds that which is your right, it doesn't STOP being your right, but rather is a right that has been denied to you. This points to the general fallibility of humans, IMHO.

And I do appreciate your offer of support in any future 2nd Amendment legal issues I may find myself in. :)

:toast:

And I could see this being fought for years in the courts. Till then the states and localties still can make it a privilege.

The reality is that many states and localities place restrictions on our rights, be they right or wrong. As I stated before, simply because a right is denied to you does not mean it ceases to be your right.

With that being said, we're basically arguing semantics at this point, but I do think it's important that the issue be framed in this manner.

the Heller opinion is very clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms--to carry guns "in case of confrontation."

If they are consistent and they don't duck the case, they will say the same thing soon in the body of a finding, as opposed to in dicta.

I can see that as the next brick in the wall to be placed.

My interpretation of crib notes in Gura's playbook-
1. 2nd amendment is an individual right (keep arms)- Check - Heller
2. 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states (keep arms) - almost checked - McDonald
3. 2nd amendment also includes bear arms - pending - Heller II?

You DO have a human right to self defense AND THE MEANS to that defense, which usually means a gun.

Literacy tests, something that has obvious value in determining your ability to vote, were rightly declared unconstitutional. You're essentially asking for literacy tests for the right to self defense.

I'm a firearms instructor ok? I have gone through gun safety with lots of new shooters. Ya know what my first line of EVERY class is?

"Gun safety has a lot of components, but they all come down to one thing: Don't be an idiot. I can teach you all the right things, but if you're too stupid to practice them, it won't matter. And all the important gun-safety rules can be learned in less than 5 minutes if you simply LISTEN."

The rest of the 4 hours (8 for basic pistol) is all a matter of hands-on instruction, history, firearms law Q&A.

I'm all for training. If it were up to me I'd have FREE courses, paid for by the government for anyone who wanted them. But requiring them before you can own a gun inevitably leads to the denial of a fundamental human right. It happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. Just because the political winds are blowing in my direction today doesn't mean they always will. The bottom line is that this is a RIGHT not a privilege.

You/government doesn't get to decide if I'm good/smart/educated enough to practice a human right.

But the devil is in the details. The training must be reasonable for the situation, similar to that required for a driver's license.

of states requiring training before issuance of a LTCF. I tried not to count the May Issue "it will be a cold day in hell till we give you a permit" states or the couple who don't issue licenses at all.

My rough count is 27 states require applicants to show training and/or proficiency. Most of what we consider the red states require such training including to my surprise what I would consider the states that are the lore of the Wild West.

I doubt that short of a sweeping SCOTUS ruling that Concealed Carry and in some states Open Carry will seen in reality not philosophically as a 2nd amendment right any time soon.

Be a nice diversion between shoveling snow, cleaning house, watching DVD's till the Super Bowl starts.

.. I came up with 10 states that did not require training.

My 'funny observation' was that the 'may issue' (aka 'shall infringe') states seem to require less training than 'shall issue' states.

re your last sentence- how does one 'bear' arms, if not open or concealed? Historically prohibitions on concealed carry were considered constitutional only because a person could carry openly.