[9mm Hi-Power]

Would it be morally horrible or unconstitution to have anyone to that wants to express their rights to bear arms pass a competency test? .

Exactly my point, so firearms owners should be screened and prove competency as well. More than current practice for sure.

What is your criteria as to whether or not someone is "...competent..." to "...bear arms..." ? What all would comprise a competency test/screening review ? Who makes the final decision - solo or committee ? And their qualifications ? Are the decision makers appointed and if so who appoints them ? Should there be an appeal process to their decision? Are " How many and what kind of firearms do you currently own ?" or " What kind of firearm/firearms are you planning to buy ", legitimate questions for a proposed competency test/screening procedure ? Just curious how you see all this unfolding.

9mm Hi-Power

 

[RHRoss]

Exactly my point, so firearms owners should be screened as well. More than current practice.

They are “screened “ it’s called a background check, screw trying to come up with more restrictions, there’s to many now, harden soft targets, allow permit less carry nationwide, if ya don’t wanna carry or own firearms then don’t. Go back to like the old west, everyone Carrying and looking out for themselves

 

[sureshot006]

yea I know some has limitedly but the one example I recall was the marine who shot up an unprotected admin building in Florida I believe (soft target). The point Im getting at is that structure, discipline, competency testing and proper training, along with deterrents and hardening vulnerable targets are a better focus than a simple action that people can see like restricting mags. Iimiting mags has the appearance of doing something but I dont think its any if much bang for your buck to prevent or reduce casualties in mass shootings.

Good luck with militarizing elementary schools.

 

[RHRoss]

Good luck with militarizing elementary schools.

It’s called school resource officer and EVERY school in the country should have them!!!

 

[Sharkbait11]

What is your criteria as to whether or not someone is "...competent..." to "...bear arms..." ? What all would comprise a competency test ? Who makes the final decision - solo or committee ? And their qualifications ? Are the decision makers appointed and if so who appoints them ? Should there be an appeal process to their decision? Just curious how you see this. Thanks in advance.

9mm Hi-Power

Obviously it would need a well thought out program setup for it. Who screens for the military and how do they weed out the whackos? Same sort of system or abstracts from that process could be used. We use a system over here. You take a 3 day course then have to pass a written test. Then you do a practical test. If you fail either, its determined you haven't proven yourself capable of owning firearms. It wouldn't be horrible to have more stringent screening processes, it doesn't stop the illegal procurement but it would help prevent some of the legal purchases.

Regulate certain individuals not the entire population.

I know a guy who has previous charges and a mental disorder and knew him all my life. I agree with the govenment for not allowing him to possess firearms, he tried but his doctor wouldn't sign off on it probably cause he knew whats best for him. He tried to fight it and lost, it sucks for him but I dont believe he is fit to own a gun and he legally can't. He can still get one illegally but at least the legal route was blocked for him.

 

[Sharkbait11]

Good luck with militarizing elementary schools.

who said militarize? just make it more difficult for could be shooters to gain access. More rigid controls in place so situations like Uvalde where the paid security was not on site cannot happen. As I've said before if the schools were as well protected as the banks, (they're not militarized just very rigid in following proper process and procedures) there would be much more deterrents. If we protected children like the banks protect their money I bet the cowards would be forced to pick another target or at least alot of them would fail sooner in their plans. Much better than mag restrictions would achieve. Cameras, locked doors, stringent proceedures etc at the national level, audited frequently and enforced with strict punishment. No need to militarize just protect the kids and vulnerable.

 

[RHRoss]

Obviously it would need a well thought out program setup for it. Who screens for the military and how do they weed out the whackos? Same sort of system or abstracts from that process could be used. We use a system over here. You take a 3 day course then have to pass a written test. Then you do a practical test. If you fail either, its determined you haven't proven yourself capable of owning firearms. It wouldn't be horrible to have more stringent screening processes, it doesn't stop the illegal procurement but it would help prevent some of the legal purchases.

Regulate certain individuals not the entire population.

I know a guy who has previous charges and a mental disorder and knew him all my life. I agree with the govenment for not allowing him to possess firearms, he tried but his doctor wouldn't sign off on it probably cause he knew whats best for him. He tried to fight it and lost, it sucks for him but I dont believe he is fit to own a gun and he legally can't. He can still get one illegally but at least the legal route was blocked for him.

Obviously it would need a well thought out program setup for it. Who screens for the military and how do they weed out the whackos? Same sort of system or abstracts from that process could be used. We use a system over here. You take a 3 day course then have to pass a written test. Then you do a practical test. If you fail either, its determined you haven't proven yourself capable of owning firearms. It wouldn't be horrible to have more stringent screening processes, it doesn't stop the illegal procurement but it would help prevent some of the legal purchases.

Regulate certain individuals not the entire population.

I know a guy who has previous charges and a mental disorder and knew him all my life. I agree with the govenment for not allowing him to possess firearms, he tried but his doctor wouldn't sign off on it probably cause he knew whats best for him. He tried to fight it and lost, it sucks for him but I dont believe he is fit to own a gun and he legally can't. He can still get one illegally but at least the legal route was blocked for him.

Shark, Things are very different in Canada than in the US, and for good reason

 

[9mm Hi-Power]

You take a 3 day course then have to pass a written test. Then you do a practical test. If you fail either, its determined you haven't proven yourself capable of owning firearms.

Is this for every type of firearm - shotgun, rifle and/or handgun ? Is the course without charge ? What compromises the "...practical test..." ? Again - what are the qualifications of those making the final decisions and how do they arrive in that position ?

9mm Hi-Power

 

[Sharkbait11]

Shark, Things are very different in Canada than in the US, and for good reason

Absolutely, I wish we had a 2a over here. This banning and restrictions thing is a very slippery slope, Ive experienced it first hand. BUT if it comes down to infringing on your rights or coming up with a better plan than quick grabs like mag restrictions or platform bans, would you be for it? Something needs to change and pretty certain it will, I just hope its not going to impact legal owners like they do over here. I truly believe the restrictions over here are a sham. Keep fighting for your rights fellas, Im gonna move on from this topic for the time being lol.

 

[Sharkbait11]

Is this for every type of firearm - shotgun, rifle and/or handgun ? Is the course without charge ? What compromises the "...practical test..." ? Again - what are the qualifications of those making the final decisions and how do they arrive in that position ?

9mm Hi-Power

Yes every type of firearm. Not sure the exact quals to be an instructor or sign off but I know there is something rather than no qualifications.

If you had to chose between giving up any of your guns or pinning all your mags to 5 rounds including your beauty hi powers or saying starting tomorrow all new gun owners have to pass a competency test, which would you prefer. Grandfather in those who currently own, and make it a requirement for any new gun owners. Hey just some of my off the cusp ideas, not necessarily the best or vetted for errors but its thought provoking and doesn't infringe on current legal owners. Maybe Im wrong, just an opinion lol. Cheers Im out for now.

 

[sureshot006]

who said militarize? just make it more difficult for could be shooters to gain access. More rigid controls in place so situations like Uvalde where the paid security was not on site cannot happen. As I've said before if the schools were as well protected as the banks, (they're not militarized just very rigid in following proper process and procedures) there would be much more deterrents. If we protected children like the banks protect their money I bet the cowards would be forced to pick another target or at least alot of them would fail sooner in their plans. Much better than mag restrictions would achieve. Cameras, locked doors, stringent proceedures etc at the national level, audited frequently and enforced with strict punishment. No need to militarize just protect the kids and vulnerable.

I'm sorry I've been trying to interpret long posts while fixing a complex controls issue. I think I may have hit my multitasking limit.

 

[sureshot006]

I will say that banning a mag size is incredibly quicker and simpler than hardening schools. Not that they would be equal effectiveness anyway. I'm not saying we shouldn't improve on that. Just that it's not likely to be any time soon unfortunately.

 

[DirtySteve]

It’s called school resource officer and EVERY school in the country should have them!!!

Uvalde had 5. A police chief and 4 officers on staff and it was a small school district. Oxford school had a deputy from oakland county sherriff dept on staff during the shooting.

How many officers does every school need to stop this?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

 

[RHRoss]

Uvalde had 5. A police chief and 4 officers on staff and it was a small school district. Oxford school had a deputy from oakland county sherriff dept on staff during the shooting.

How many officers does every school need to stop this?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

One, that is actually on site when needed and willing to do the job.Uvalde was a cluster fu—, with poor leadership and In Oxford the officer wasn’t on school property at the time the incident occurred

 

[RHRoss]

This bull crap of defunding police and going after every cop for every thing is ridiculous, and the people that started it and support it should pay a price, we should be supporting police, giving them plenty of funding, they have a tough job, they deal with the worst kind of people and situations all shift every shift, we need more of them and they need to be fully supported!!!!Letting these criminals go with no bail, or no charges, not enforcing law, it’s ridiculous, and these really dumb ass people in charge,(governors, mayors, Congress people, etc..) wonder why crime is up, they are all idiots and should pay for stupidity.

 

[DirtySteve]

One, that is actually on site when needed and willing to do the job.Uvalde was a cluster fu—, with poor leadership and In Oxford the officer wasn’t on school property at the time the incident occurred

The oakland county sheriff was on duty at oxford and he was the officer that aprehended ethan along with another deputy that was there within 3 mins. The deputy on staff was commended for his swift action. Having him there on staff certainly helped limit the damage but it sure didnt deter a 15 yr old kid from carrying out the crime.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

 

[sureshot006]

The oakland county sheriff was on duty at oxford and he was the officer that aprehended ethan along with another deputy that was there within 3 mins. The deputy on staff was commended for his swift action. Having him there on staff certainly helped limit the damage but it sure didnt deter a 15 yr old kid from carrying out the crime.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

Sometimes limiting is all you'll do. That should be one of the goals.

 

[RHRoss]

The oakland county sheriff was on duty at oxford and he was the officer that aprehended ethan along with another deputy that was there within 3 mins. The deputy on staff was commended for his swift action. Having him there on staff certainly helped limit the damage but it sure didnt deter a 15 yr old kid from carrying out the crime.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app

There is absolutely no possible way to stop someone from committing crimes, they plan it and are intent on doing it. No gun restrictions short of confiscating them ALL will change it

 

[sureshot006]

There is absolutely no possible way to stop someone from committing crimes, they plan it and are intent on doing it. No gun restrictions short of confiscating them ALL will change it

I dont believe that for one second. Stop it before they make a move. Prevent the decision. Make it difficult. Make them get what they think they need from a dark alley illegally rather than running to Dunhams on lunch break.

You won't stop them all but you'll stop some.

 

[Big Frank 25]

Amazing the number of those that can't live without mega-round weapons. Many limits in life to follow. Some follow, some don't. ProMag Saiga 12-Gauge 20-round Drum Magazine (gunmagwarehouse.com) 00 Buck in a crowd? Can't even imagine!

We are own worst enemy. If gun owners got behind some reasonable type of control The general public might see us differently. Age limits and max number of rounds is a small start.

My neighbor can't even knit the jury pool for Jury Duty!