Senate Bill 304. Further Infringements.

[RA8]

They already take enough money for the permits. Make them offer an optional class for free, funded by the money they take from permit apps(without raising the price).

 

[Bill of Rights]

A bill is not "dead" until the final adjournment gavel is heard.


It may not have good chance but it is not dead.

How so? When the committees that must hear the bill to vote it to second, then third reading are not able to hear the bill because the deadline is past, it cannot be heard, which means it cannot be voted upon, which means it cannot pass to the second house, which means it cannot be voted upon there, nor go to the governor, nor become law.

With relation to bills like that, how would you define "dead" otherwise?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

If this were to pass, this would be the indicator for me that we've passed into the "gulag" as Solzhenitsyn and Ross tried to warn us of:

Forgive me, as this is quite a long quotation, but I feel it's quite appropriate, although I should hope that none of this is new information for anyone here:

""Professor Arkes, I don’t disagree with the basic principle [concerning Hobbes' philosophy on the nature of rights], but it’s not enough just to say, 'Totalitarian regimes are wrong, so don’t let the State enslave you.' That’s like saying, 'Don’t get sick.' The important question is, when do you know it’s going to become enslavement? When is the proper time to resist with force?”

"Please elaborate, Mr. Bowman."

Henry took a deep breath.

"The end result, which we want to avoid, is the concentration camp. The gulag. The gas chamber. The Spanish Inquisition. All of those things. If you are in a death camp, no one would fault you for resisting. But when you’re being herded towards the gas chamber, naked and seventy pounds below your healthy weight, it’s too late. You have no chance. On the other hand, no one would support you if you started an armed rebellion because the government posts speed limits on open roads and arrests people for speeding. So when was it not too late, but also not too early?"

"Tell us, Mr. Bowman."

"Professor Arkes, I teach a Personal Protection class off-campus, where most of the students who sign up are women. I’m seeing some strong parallels here, so please indulge me in an analogy."

"Go ahead."

"A woman’s confronted by a big, strong, stranger. She doesn’t know what he’s planning, and she’s cautious. Getting away from him is not possible. They’re in a room and he’s standing in front of the only what out, or she’s in a wheelchair—whatever. Leaving the area’s not an option. So now he starts to do things she doesn’t like. He asks her for money. She can try to talk him out of it, just like we argue for lower taxes, and maybe it will work. If it doesn’t, and she gets outvoted, she’ll probably choose to give it to him instead of getting into a fight to the death over ten dollars. You would probably choose to pay your taxes rather than have police arrive to throw you in jail. Maybe this big man demands some other things, other minor assaults on this woman’s dignity. When should she claw at his eyes or shove her ballpoint pen in his throat? When he tries to force her to kiss him? Tries to force her to let him touch her? Tries to force her to have sex with him?"

Henry took a deep breath and shrugged.

"Those are questions that each woman has to answer for herself. There is one situation, though, where I tell a woman to fight to the death. That’s when the man pulls out a pair of handcuffs and says, 'Come on, I promise I won’t hurt you, this is just so you won’t flail around and hurt either of us by accident. Come on, I just want to talk, get in the van and let me handcuff you to this eyebolt here, and I promise I won’t touch you' . . . But if she gets in the van and puts her wrists in the handcuffs, she has just given up her future ability to fight, and now it is too late . . . How do you spot the precise point where a society is standing at the back of the van and the State has the handcuffs out? ""

-- Unintended Consequences by John Ross, p. 337-8.

So, I hope everyone does write their legislators - and I hope they carbon-copy the originating sponsor of this bit of would-be legislation and let them know that this sort of attempted tyranny is not welcome and that governmental intrusion upon our lawful rights is not now, nor as history as shown is, never has been, in the best interest of the State - if the State's intended goal is its smooth, uninterrupted functioning and operation.

Well, folks, where do you think we stand? Am I taking this out-of-context and being paranoid, or do you too feel that we're being edged closer to the back of the rape-van of the State?

 

[GeneralCarver]

Hell yes we are. Look, the 2nd Amendment has been violated by any and every gun control act. Yes, I am going there, I am saying anyone should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons. If you can afford it, you can own it.

why? Guys, the 2nd amendment was never about hunting, target shooting, or even carrying a handgun for personal protection. It was about war. It was about allowing people to own small arms so that they could operate in militias for their State to defend their rights or their State if under attack. Not allowing people to own small arms like the military has is greatly impairing our population's ability to defend ourselves from foreign invaders and tyrannical government.

The 2nd Amendment is also violated in that we no longer have a well regulated militia. No the National Guard is not the militia people. The National Guard is Government funded and trained. We need a return to the militia system of old. Before the 1913 National Guard act. All that was just a Federal Hijack of our States' defensive force structure.

Stay aware and active and prepared. We have a great many domestic threats to our rights and I'm not just talking gun ownership. We got to each stay informed and make efforts to inform other people. But also be prepared for the worst. And you know what I mean.

 

[Viper393]

That nasty old witch Sipes is retiring and NOT running for re-election so even if this bill is still active I don't think it will go anywhere. Ron Grimes(R) is running against Chuck Freiberger(D) for her old seat and I wouldn't vote for either one.

 

[rmabrey]

Trust me this bill is dead......this thread is 9 months old

 

[WillBrayJr]

I know I'm going to get Flamed and Neg Repped for this but here goes.

I believe mandated Safety Classes would be beneficial but that goes for owning/using any item that can cause injury or death. I've seen a few idiots at Ranges wave loaded firearms at people and care less.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I know I'm going to get Flamed and Neg Repped for this but here goes.

I believe mandated Safety Classes would be beneficial but that goes for owning/using any item that can cause injury or death. I've seen a few idiots at Ranges wave loaded firearms at people and care less.

Okay, say we do it your way. How do you get around the fact that the .gov when then be infringing a right?

The old standard of, "Okay, if we did that, do we have to take a test to be able to exert our 1st Amendment right?"

The less freedom, the more security.
The less security, the more freedom.

I like freedom with a touch of security.

ETA: I am a big proponent of encouraging good training for most everyone owning a firearm. I don't want to require it for anyone.

 

[WillBrayJr]

If something is potentially lethal safety and training courses should be must. As I've said before that just doesn't apply to firearms. Safety and training helps reduce the risk of someone getting hurt. Even if vehicles were in the Constitution I'd still safety and training is a must.

 

[Rookie]

Wars have been started over words. Training should be mandatory before exercising your 1st amendment right. Do you agree?

 

[WillBrayJr]

Wars have been started over words. Training should be mandatory before exercising your 1st amendment right. Do you agree?

Already answered the question, but I'll answer it AGAIN. Before you start slinging the Lead, yes safety and training should be mandatory. If for nothing else you won't shoot your eye out from not knowing which end is dangerous.

 

[Rookie]

Nevermind...

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Sorry, Will. Neither neg rep nor flames from me, but I completely disagree with you. I don't want any of my rights infringed at any time.

No tests, no limits, no "for the common good" hurdles to jump. For me, those things turn whatever action into a privilege, negating it as a right.

Cheers,

Spook

 

[WillBrayJr]

Sorry, Will. Neither neg rep nor flames from me, but I completely disagree with you. I don't want any of my rights infringed at any time.

No tests, no limits, no "for the common good" hurdles to jump. For me, those things turn whatever action into a privileged, negating it as a right.

Cheers,

Spook

I really don't see firearm rights being infringed on by a safety class of some kind. There's no harm in disagreeing about the issue.

I'm not saying it as an infringement. I can care less about someone owning a firearm. A free safety instruction booklet or video with a purchase of a firearm would probably be a good idea.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I really don't see firearm rights being infringed on by a safety class of some kind. There's no harm in disagreeing about the issue.

I'm not saying it as an infringement. I can care less about someone owning a firearm. A free safety instruction booklet or video with a purchase of a firearm would probably be a good idea.

If the .gov tells me:

• You have to wait until...
• You have to pay...
• You have to take a test...
• You have to prove...
• You have to have paperwork...
• You have to show...

Then it isn't a right. Any delay, any restrictions, any conditions - it's a privilege.

The safety booklet, the video idea? Yep, love 'em!

I do realize that not requiring a restriction or some restrictions on a person purchasing a firearm could be dangerous. I have a wife, I have two children, I have blood family and in-laws. We try to ensure as safe an environment as we can when we go out in public, but we (me and my family) can't guarantee absolute safety. I love my freedom. My family and I are willing to trade some potential safety (less criminals who won't obey the law anyway, hence a "criminal") for liberty.

Spook

 

[rimfire_crazed]

I really don't see firearm rights being infringed on by a safety class of some kind. There's no harm in disagreeing about the issue.

I'm not saying it as an infringement. I can care less about someone owning a firearm. A free safety instruction booklet or video with a purchase of a firearm would probably be a good idea.

You obviously have not purchased a new firearm in the last several years. Every single new piece I've bought has come with a firearms safety brochure - or it's been part of the owner's manual.

 

[WillBrayJr]

Haven't been in a firearm dedicated shop in over 5 years. The closest would be Dunham's across the street.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I really don't see firearm rights being infringed on by a safety class of some kind.

The trap is that you are confusing "common sense" for legislation.

Will, think of it this way, any "class" would be a barrier to entry for a prospective purchaser/carrier.

Once this device is in place it will only be a one way ratchet to restrict freedom. Those who do not like civil rights will make the training/safety class more expensive, less convenient and more difficult.

If we want to encourage training as a matter of public policy, then give people an incentive to do it. I propose making the costs of training (travel, ammo, tuition, inter alia) deductible above the line. So, the more you train, the smaller your AGI becomes.

 

[Eddie]

Wars have been started over words. Training should be mandatory before exercising your 1st amendment right. Do you agree?

Wars have been started over religion. While we are at it let's create a mandatory course on theology before a person can buy a permit to go to church.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This bill is indeed dead. Bills introduced in one session of the state legislature do not carry over to the next, and Ms. Sipes is indeed stepping down. In the primary race in District 46, the Democrat candidate received over 6300 votes. The Republican candidates split over 7400. From a post upthread, it doesn't look like either is particularly good, but neither has any information on Vote-Smart.

If something is potentially lethal safety and training courses should be must. As I've said before that just doesn't apply to firearms. Safety and training helps reduce the risk of someone getting hurt. Even if vehicles were in the Constitution I'd still safety and training is a must.

While working in the ED, I've seen people come in, having mixed two household chemicals in the effort to more effectively clean something. This resulted in the creation of a deadly gas. Must we pass a government mandated safety training class to purchase cleaning products?
I read a story in grade school of a woman who killed her husband with a frozen leg of lamb. When the police arrived, the meal she was preparing for her husband's return from work was just coming out of the oven. She served the murder weapon to them so it would not go to waste. Is there a need for a mandatory safety training class for lamb, ovens, or freezers?
I have seen news stories of people killed with hammers. Who is creating the mandatory hammer safety training class?
David picked up a stone, placed it in a leather sling, smote Goliath and slew him. Was a mandatory safety training class ever created (or should there be) for rocks and leather slings?
Cain rose up in the field and slew Abel, his brother. No weapon is recorded; is there a bare-hands mandatory safety training class?

The point is that anything can be potentially lethal. It's not the object but the intent of the person using it. Absolutely I support the idea of people voluntarily being trained in the safe use of those things they have that can cause harm. In no way do I trust the government or those in it to even create such training correctly, let alone administer it properly.

Kirk had and has the right idea. Incentivize it. That is, a twofold approach of making it financially beneficial to seek training and at the same time, making it "cool" to have a long training resume.

Blessings,
Bill