Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
One of the bills has a 90% accuracy shooting requirement. The Army’s current standard to qualify with the M9 is 23 out of 40 and this politician wants to impose a 90% accuracy requirement before purchasing a gun?

Again uneducated politicians making policy. This 90% requirement does nothing to prevent crime or make gun owners more responsible. All it does is make sure you are a good shot, it does not make you more responsible. By the way since when does the 2A have a proficiency requirement? I mean you can’t make the stuff up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,371 Posts
If they are going to impose a qualification requirement on a a protected civil right then there should be an intelligence, common sense and IQ requirement for free speech and voting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2edgesword

·
Sifting Through the Ruins
Joined
·
7,992 Posts
If they are going to impose a qualification requirement on a a protected civil right then there should be an intelligence, common sense and IQ requirement for free speech and voting.
Or at least for holding elected office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou G

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
Do you happen to know if the proposed course will be a newly created course by a non weapons expert (politicians) or will an existing NRA Course with live fire be sufficient? Will there be an exception for veterans? How prohibitively expensive could this be thereby discrimination against folks with financial means?

Things politicians do not think about…..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,208 Posts
...By the way since when does the 2A have a proficiency requirement? I mean you can’t make the stuff up.
Why doesn't it? How can a "well regulated militia" be effective without some soft of proficiency? A literalist could easily make a fair argument for example that 2A does not apply to the blind (I would take issue with this argument, but that's a different story).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
I see your point and a better trained gun owner is the best kind of gun owner. The problem is legislation that only restricts a law abiding citizen from owning firearm as and do not reduce crime.
Also I am not really concerned with the well regulated militia right argument right now- today I am more concerned with the individual’s right to bear arms beyond the confines of the homestead. Hopefully the Cortlett decision will settle this in the favor of lawful gun owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,528 Posts
I see your point and a better trained gun owner is the best kind of gun owner. The problem is legislation that only restricts a law abiding citizen from owning firearm as and do not reduce crime.
Also I am not really concerned with the well regulated militia right argument right now- today I am more concerned with the individual’s right to bear arms beyond the confines of the homestead. Hopefully the Cortlett decision will settle this in the favor of lawful gun owners.
I would expect more calls to service with people not properly concealing the firearm or menacing with a civilian with a full carry license. I would definitely take any training course that goes over Article 35 and have roll play scenarios that will involve the use of DPF and dealing with Law Enforcement.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
144 Posts
Conceptually I agree 100% - been in the Army for 22 years and am required to qualify every year and engaged in pre deployment small arms training. I am amazed at the number of folks who have firearms and have never attended a training.

I am all for properly trained individuals- what I am against is politicians with no firearms training and experience imposing conditions that make no sense under the notion that they are reducing gun violence when in fact all the restrictions on lawful gun ownership do not reduce crime. Every time I think how can we have more restrictions in NY some politician comes up with a new idea.

I hope that all the new gun owners in NY voluntarily seek training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
It's not meant to reduce crime, it's meant to get them votes "for doing something," even when it does nothing to reduce crime. The sheep will gobble it up, not realizing police and military aren't even held to such a standard. i.e. The previously mentioned military 23/40 hits and if I remember correctly, NYPD requires 78 percent hits.

That being said, I encourage people to train as frequently as they can. The worst time to figure out your gun is when you're trying to save your own life.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
Why doesn't it? How can a "well regulated militia" be effective without some soft of proficiency? A literalist could easily make a fair argument for example that 2A does not apply to the blind (I would take issue with this argument, but that's a different story).
The term "well regulated," as it was used in the parlance of the day, did not mean proficiency in shooting, only that the militia i.e., the general male population, between 16 and 45, was regularly assembled, for confirmation of existence and firearms ownership. No criteria were established, for firearms proficiency. It was accepted that each person knew how to use his firearm.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
Why doesn't it? How can a "well regulated militia" be effective without some soft of proficiency? A literalist could easily make a fair argument for example that 2A does not apply to the blind (I would take issue with this argument, but that's a different story).
Because the well regulated militia clause referenced isn't a limiting clause as far as exercising the right to keep and bear arms is concerned. So says the Supreme Court finding the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Assemblyman Demond Meeks will explain his bill requiring a 5 hour gun safety class for anyone who wants to buy a firearm or ammunition on WCNY today at 11:00am. Stream at: SGPlayer
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top