- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Louisiana Enhanced Concealed Carry Permit
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:16 pm to Clames
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:16 pm to Clames
quote:
So the "government" wanted nothing of the sort, it was political maneuvering.
This is not only wrong, it makes absolutely zero sense.
Part of the platform on which Foster ran included CCW legislation. Obviously the people wanted this -- since he got elected in a landslide. (The fact that Foster and hundreds of other candidates in this state have changed their political affiliation during the past 25 years means absolutely nothing to any rational observer of politics).
The legislature passed the CCW bill, and Foster signed it. So obviously "government" wanted it. There are no other branches of government involved in enacting laws.
quote:I certainly agree with this. 100%.
True as that may be, that surely doesn't mean we have to be complacent and accepting of those restrictions.
But beyond that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make -- probably because, as you pointed out, I'm ignorant.
I doubt that you've truly "forgotten more on this topic than you and 99% or the posters here understand," I'm sure that's a figure of speech, but if were the case, I'm also sure you're working on refreshing your memory. You're too intelligent not too.
However, if you really think "the entire concept of permitted CCW was born out of laws dating back to the early 1900's that demonized the very concept of concealing a firearm/weapon on one's person ...... and "the contextual and cultural basis for all of these laws going back to at least the 1840's, "well, your understanding of this is very distorted compared to mine.
What you've posted in this regard sounds like what we hear from the Democratic party, SJW movement and the #BLM corwd. In their world, everything they disapprove of goes back to slavery, the Jim Crow era, and (OBTW) George Bush. Everything is "their" fault.
I could fall back on the old saying, "All I can do is explain this stuff. I can't understand it for you." But that wouldn't be fair and it wouldn't be polite polite. I think some of your statements and conclusions are wrong, but you've at least thought through them to arrive at your opinions. I respect that. We just disagree on some of this stuff.
I hope you have a nice day.
1
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:22 pm to Clames
quote:
You see, we are talking about a protected, individual right. Any restriction should be strongly examined and considered under the highest standards to be as absolutely narrow in scope as possible
Has this not happened? Had a court not examined concealed carry laws and determined, under strict scrutiny, that requiring concealed carry permits or prohibiting guns on school campuses or prohibiting a citizen to carry a gun in a bar are all permissible infringements?
Maybe these infringements haven't been challenged and held up by a court, but I'm betting they have.
Now, that certainly doesn't mean that you or I or anyone else has to agree with them, but to act as though it's a black and white issue is disingenuous. There are ways to enact change, and this presidential election is going to be of the most important when it comes to second amendment rights. Not because Hilary is going to push a bunch of gun control legislation through, but because of the potential drastic change to the Supreme Court in the next 4-8 years.
This post was edited on 4/3/16 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:29 pm to UpToPar
Yes, they've been upheld. Those and more.
Folks on this board, including me, would be doing ourselves a lot more good if we were actively working to defeat Hillary instead of bickering among ourselves about the state's CCW system.
If Hillary gets in office, we'll see the Supreme Court make wholesale changes in our gun rights. At that point "shall not be infringed" will mean absolutely zero.
Just my $.02 worth.
Folks on this board, including me, would be doing ourselves a lot more good if we were actively working to defeat Hillary instead of bickering among ourselves about the state's CCW system.
If Hillary gets in office, we'll see the Supreme Court make wholesale changes in our gun rights. At that point "shall not be infringed" will mean absolutely zero.
Just my $.02 worth.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:33 pm to dawg23
I absolutely agree. See my edit before I read your post.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:33 pm to dawg23
Thanks for making instructors look like Anti 2A money grubbing control freaks that think their way is the only way...
When in reality the Constitution is the only way to be truly free of oppression and taxation and the control freaks such as yourself...
No need to be eloquent when speaking to Schmidt like yourself that don't deserve the rights the constitution has afforded you...
When in reality the Constitution is the only way to be truly free of oppression and taxation and the control freaks such as yourself...
No need to be eloquent when speaking to Schmidt like yourself that don't deserve the rights the constitution has afforded you...
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:34 pm to dawg23
quote:
This is not only wrong, it makes absolutely zero sense.
It makes sense in the proper context, you thinking that the government blessed off on CCW for some altruistic purpose is what is wrong.
quote:
However, if you really think "the entire concept of permitted CCW was born out of laws dating back to the early 1900's that demonized the very concept of concealing a firearm/weapon on one's person ...... and "the contextual and cultural basis for all of these laws going back to at least the 1840's, "well, your understanding of this is very distorted compared to mine.
What you've posted in this regard sounds like what we hear from the Democratic party, SJW movement and the #BLM corwd. In their world, everything they disapprove of goes back to slavery, the Jim Crow era, and (OBTW) George Bush. Everything is "their" fault.
My understanding is just more complete than yours. What I've posted goes back to the earliest concepts of concealed weapons laws in the US. Laws that originally focused on the types of knives and pocket guns that some parts of society saw as only useful to those of disreputable character. Laws that the NRA originally supported too. I'm not placing blame, I'm looking at the historical context of an incredibly complex issue that still shows up in our courts, legislatures, and political discussions over 150 years later. Your resigned attitude for these laws was also discussed as far back as the 1950's, that those opposed to gun restrictions would eventually accept them out of some misguided pragmatism rather than challenge the prevailing theories of why those laws were passed to begin with.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:38 pm to dawg23
quote:
This "sentiment" gets posted here frequently. I really wish that just once, someone on this board would post one single piece of evidence in Louisiana that supports this.
Well, when I said current governments, I was referring to "governments" as a whole. Given the current national administration's policies, I don't even see how this comment is up for debate.
quote:
It's easy for people to sit back and criticize the process. Even better would have been to get involved in the process.
I don't know of anyone that is realistically arguing for "no restrictions" but certainly the process to obtain a CC permit is flawed. You never address my point about how onerous the process is, and it is indeed far more difficult than even obtaining a federal security clearance, Secret level.
I am certain members of law enforcement had input into the process, and you are right, if voters don't like the current situation, we will change it.
As it stands now, "shall issue" is a joke in Louisiana, but we will shortly change that.
I am simply arguing against the current process as it stands now to acquire a CC permit and it is clear that many like-minded people agree with me, here and in neighboring states.
As I said earlier, I would imagine our current process was the result of a lot people (too many) getting input into the law. Voters (myself included )didn't pay attention to the details so when, years later, we went to get a permit we were stunned by the level of horsehit one had to go through to get the thing. And to be fair, I'm not talking about the required class, but all the historical paperwork that is required; divorce papers, military discharge forms, the lengthy application, it is ridiculous.
quote:
Most people report getting their permit in 8-10 business days
This a relatively new development, as I am sure you are aware and it is a dramatic improvement. That said, a week is too long for someone with no issues.
A simple background check, similar to one that is run when buying a firearm, is more than sufficient.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:44 pm to Pepperidge
quote:
Thanks for making instructors look like Anti 2A money grubbing control freaks that think their way is the only way...
Think about it like this; the concealed carry class schedule is laid out by law as a minimum requirement. You and everyone else knows that a couple hours in a classroom, and a few minutes shooting at a piece of paper is not even remotely close to sufficient training for someone to defend themselves in a stressful situation. It's just not enough, and it never will be.
Instructor Dawg knows this as well. He's far from stupid. He's fully aware that his instruction is little more than a formality. How much you want to bet his classes meet the mandatory minimum requirements but not a step further? He will shout from his soapbox about how non of us go to committee meetings or some other bullshite but he's the pot calling the kettle black because he's not doing shite about it either. It's hard to read this bullshite sometimes.
I'm of the camp that believes basic gun handling should be mandatory and taught in every single school in america, along with sex ed but I digress.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:54 pm to Barf
I thought the whole reason for the class was to learn the regulations and laws that govern conceal carry...not how to actually use a a gun or defend yourself.
This post was edited on 4/3/16 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:55 pm to Barf
quote:
He's fully aware that his instruction is little more than a formality
Well, having taken his class, let me comment.
He does a very good job stressing that his class is absolutely not a firearm-handling class or a defensive training class. He does a very good job talking about how the law views a person carrying concealed and what the ramifications are of carrying a firearm and more importantly, what you face, legal system-wise, should you have to use it.
IIRC he goes an hour or so beyond what the minimum class requirements are, in terms of length of time. He also gives quite a few resources in the material for legal guidance and insurance for people who concealed carry.
It's a fine class.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 2:59 pm to VetteGuy
But he took your money and admitted it was only the minimum requirement. To me, that is an issue. Not a Dawg issue but a flaw in the system.
quote:
insurance for people who concealed carry.
This post was edited on 4/3/16 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 4/3/16 at 3:03 pm to dawg23
quote:
I'll have a lot more respect for those who post their little gun rants once they report attending committee hearings, or even just writing letters, and presenting their arguments to the lawmakers.
I would have a lot more respect for you if you didn't only do what was required of you during a CCW class. Just for record, going an hour over, or passing out information to help people spend more money are not what I would consider going beyond your requirements.
It's on the same level of people who bitch and moan about not paying enough taxes but make no effort to give more money to the IRS.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 3:07 pm to Barf
I dunno.
If it were me....I would only want the minimum requirements.
Its a conceal carry permit class not an intro to firearms class. I grew up with guns, I don't need a day long class on how to handle a gun.
I don't understand what you are angry about?
If it were me....I would only want the minimum requirements.
Its a conceal carry permit class not an intro to firearms class. I grew up with guns, I don't need a day long class on how to handle a gun.
I don't understand what you are angry about?
Posted on 4/3/16 at 3:10 pm to theenemy
I don't get it either. It's not like he's advertising a full course on firearms safety and use. Some people want the minimum because they don't need a course on gun safety.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 3:18 pm to theenemy
quote:
I don't understand what you are angry about?
The process exiting in the first place is the problem. There is no logical reason for the CCW process to exist other than to deter people from carrying.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 3:43 pm to Barf
Where I disagree with him is that he feels a class should be required, and I don't.
For now, a class is required and AFAIK, they are all bout the same.
The insurance was for legal bills, should you get in a jam. It was cheap enough, and he wasn't selling it, just letting us know such a thing existed.
For now, a class is required and AFAIK, they are all bout the same.
The insurance was for legal bills, should you get in a jam. It was cheap enough, and he wasn't selling it, just letting us know such a thing existed.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 3:48 pm to Barf
quote:
There is no logical reason for the CCW process to exist other than to deter people from carrying.
I tend to agree, especially in Louisiana.
Politicians know that if you make a thing difficult enough, people will say "eff it, I've got other crap to do".
As is evident, the tide is turning.
Would you be opposed to a background check, like the one you have to do when you buy a gun from a dealer?
Posted on 4/3/16 at 4:10 pm to Barf
quote:
You and everyone else knows that a couple hours in a classroom, and a few minutes shooting at a piece of paper is not even remotely close to sufficient training for someone to defend themselves in a stressful situation. It's just not enough, and it never will be.
Yet the vast majority of DGU's occur with people who only have that minimal training if any at all. Too many people watch too many videos and read too many forum posts by firearms trainers and think that some high level of training is required to use a firearm in self-defense. That has never been true. I'm all for training and practice but it's not reasonable to assume it's a prerequisite to responsible DGU.
Posted on 4/3/16 at 4:17 pm to Barf
quote:Good to know there are clairvoyant members here.
Instructor Dawg knows this as well. He's far from stupid. He's fully aware that his instruction is little more than a formality. How much you want to bet his classes meet the mandatory minimum requirements but not a step further? He will shout from his soapbox about how non of us go to committee meetings or some other bullshite but he's the pot calling the kettle black because he's not doing shite about it either. It's hard to read this bullshite sometimes.
Since I don't have the psychic powers you seem to possess, I'll just ask -- how many handgun training classes, including CCW classes, have you ever taken, in your entire life ?
Posted on 4/3/16 at 4:22 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Has this not happened? Had a court not examined concealed carry laws and determined, under strict scrutiny, that requiring concealed carry permits or prohibiting guns on school campuses or prohibiting a citizen to carry a gun in a bar are all permissible infringements?
No, not even close. Louisiana's changes to its constitution are relatively recent events. There have been few if any substantial legal challenges using strict scrutiny. It will be years yet before such challenges will be made, just like it's taken years for the effects of Heller and McDonald to start rippling through State and Federal courts.
quote:
If Hillary gets in office, we'll see the Supreme Court make wholesale changes in our gun rights. At that point "shall not be infringed" will mean absolutely zero.
The same Supreme Court that went 8-0 upholding Heller in sending Ceatano v MA back to the lower court? Defeating Hillary is one thing but it's more important to make legislative gains at the State and local levels. As I've stated earlier, the current legislative landscape we are trying to reshape was decades in the making. Going the other way really only started in 2004, it's a very long road ahead.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News