Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So the Utah Constitutional carry law went into effect 5 days ago....and the streets are still relatively bloodless. In fact, more people have died of the vaccine, than from carry guns.

Who'da thunk it!
 

·
King of you Monkeys
Up down
Joined
·
19,889 Posts
I drove through there 85 miles an hour. I was scared of getting shoot. How do you animals live like that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
I thought the new permitless carry law in Utah went into effect on the 15th of May 2021.

I also heard Texas is close to passing Constitutional carry for pistols as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: undeRGRound

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I thought the new permitless carry law in Utah went into effect on the 15th of May 2021.

I also heard Texas is close to passing Constitutional carry for pistols as well.
Everything I read said 5 May.
 

·
I Stand With Talon
Joined
·
6,491 Posts
I thought the new permitless carry law in Utah went into effect on the 15th of May 2021.

I also heard Texas is close to passing Constitutional carry for pistols as well.
I'm hearing rumors that Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick has attached a poison pill amendment on the bill going back to the House for final vote. Runor has it that he is doing it to cause a procedural problem of a non-germaine amendment which would cause the Dem leader to get the bill bounced and Patrick can blame the Dems for it not passing. Patrick is NO friend of the 2A nor has he ever been. If the Repubs fail to pass it this session it will be 2 years before it can come up again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,521 Posts
I'm hearing rumors that Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick has attached a poison pill amendment on the bill going back to the House for final vote. Runor has it that he is doing it to cause a procedural problem of a non-germaine amendment which would cause the Dem leader to get the bill bounced and Patrick can blame the Dems for it not passing. Patrick is NO friend of the 2A nor has he ever been. If the Repubs fail to pass it this session it will be 2 years before it can come up again.
Patrick should change his first name to Richard.

eldar
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,406 Posts
So the Utah Constitutional carry law went into effect 5 days ago....and the streets are still relatively bloodless. In fact, more people have died of the vaccine, than from carry guns.

Who'da thunk it!
I heard that there was a river of blood running down the main street of every city and the governor had to issue an emergency order for snow plows to clear away the mountains of expended brass on the city roads.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I heard that there was a river of blood running down the main street of every city and the governor had to issue an emergency order for snow plows to clear away the mountains of expended brass on the city roads.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Fact checked FALSE.
In Utah, any brass left on the streets for longer than 17 minutes would be picked up, deprimed, cleaned, and then immediately squirreled away until primers can be located, or put up for sale on Gunbroker. Those further left leaning may sell their recovered piles to recyclers.

(y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
I thought the new permitless carry law in Utah went into effect on the 15th of May 2021.

I also heard Texas is close to passing Constitutional carry for pistols as well.
The CC bill (TX HB1927) has passed both the House and Senate. It now goes back to the House for debate and consideration of proposed amendments and codification language. Then it only needs to be signed into law by Gov. Abbott. It will become Law but no date certain has been set for signing per the above.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
So the Utah Constitutional carry law went into effect 5 days ago....and the streets are still relatively bloodless. In fact, more people have died of the vaccine, than from carry guns.

Who'da thunk it!

While I support CCW. I am not a big fan of Constitutional Carry. I prefer a permitting system only for two reasons: Reciprocity with other States (because, for example once you go to Nevada, you cannot legally carry) and the training requirements. I do prefer that people are required to have a working knowledge of the whos, whats, whens and whys of carrying.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,406 Posts
While I support CCW. I am not a big fan of Constitutional Carry. I prefer a permitting system only for two reasons: Reciprocity with other States (because, for example once you go to Nevada, you cannot legally carry)
Well, most states that instituted Constitutional Carry keep their CCW system just for reciprocity. Some states that go Constitutional Carry have decided that it also applies to non-residents.

and the training requirements. I do prefer that people are required to have a working knowledge of the whos, whats, whens and whys of carrying.
I'm afraid I can't agree. I understand the allure of "mandatory training" but it is a quagmire of failures to achieve stated goals and unintended consequences. The whole idea of required training is ripe for abuse. Who gets to decide what is and is not "enough" training? I'm sure it's fine when I get to decide, but what about if Maxine Waters gets to make the rules about how much is enough?

Without trying to be a jerk but still being blunt, the whole idea of "required training" somehow making everything better and people generally more effective is not supported by the evidence. Pick your favorite study tracking Defensive Gun Uses (DGU); Mauser, Kleck, Hart, CDC, any of the annual National Crime Victim Survey's and look at the percentage of time that the gun is actually discharged in a DGU. It's somewhere around 1 out of 10 times. So 90% of the time in a DGU, the trigger is not pulled. Let me ask you a question. How much "training" is required to not be able to shoot? None, that's how much. Heck, the gun could be freaking unloaded and still rack up the DGU. ;)

And even "training" doesn't guarantee skill. I've been training and teaching fighting for more than 30 years. I've seen people who were "trained" that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen people who had been good who let their skills degrade. I've seen people with natural talent. And if you want to get into firearms specifically (yes, I'm certified there too), if the claim is that "training" makes a big difference, I'd point you to the numerous instances of "trained military" and "trained police" who are unskilled and/or incompetent, despite (somehow) passing their training and marksmanship requirements on the range. I'm sure you know some, right? :)

Like I said, I understand the allure. But every time we let the government have the power to license a skill set and set training standards we get things like Beauty College, Licensed Beauticians, and the Ohio State Board of Cosmetology. Do you really want the same idiots who decided it takes 200 hours of training in order trim toenails, 450 hours of training to style hair, or 1,500 hours of training to be a "Cosmetologist"* to set the hours for exercising your right to self defense? I know I don't.

Reference for training:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
King of you Monkeys
Up down
Joined
·
19,889 Posts
Well, most states that instituted Constitutional Carry keep their CCW system just for reciprocity. Some states that go Constitutional Carry have decided that it also applies to non-residents.

I'm afraid I can't agree. I understand the allure of "mandatory training" but it is a quagmire of failures to achieve stated goals and unintended consequences. The whole idea of required training is ripe for abuse. Who gets to decide what is and is not "enough" training? I'm sure it's fine when I get to decide, but what about if Maxine Waters gets to make the rules about how much is enough?

Without trying to be a jerk but still being blunt, the whole idea of "required training" somehow making everything better and people generally more effective is not supported by the evidence. Pick your favorite study tracking Defensive Gun Uses (DGU); Mauser, Kleck, Hart, CDC, any of the annual National Crime Victim Survey's and look at the percentage of time that the gun is actually discharged in a DGU. It's somewhere around 1 out of 10 times. So 90% of the time in a DGU, the trigger is not pulled. Let me ask you a question. How much "training" is required to not be able to shoot? None, that's how much. Heck, the gun could be freaking unloaded and still rack up the DGU. ;)

And even "training" doesn't guarantee skill. I've been training and teaching fighting for more than 30 years. I've seen people who were "trained" that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen people who had been good who let their skills degrade. I've seen people with natural talent. And if you want to get into firearms specifically (yes, I'm certified there too), if the claim is that "training" makes a big difference, I'd point you to the numerous instances of "trained military" and "trained police" who are unskilled and/or incompetent, despite (somehow) passing their training and marksmanship requirements on the range. I'm sure you know some, right? :)

Like I said, I understand the allure. But every time we let the government have the power to license a skill set and set training standards we get things like Beauty College, Licensed Beauticians, and the Ohio State Board of Cosmetology. Do you really want the same idiots who decided it takes 200 hours of training in order trim toenails, 450 hours of training to style hair, or 1,500 hours of training to be a "Cosmetologist"* to set the hours for exercising your right to self defense? I know I don't.

Reference for training:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
This ^^^100%

What other amendments require training or checks so the average person can exercise those rights?? None.
A rule of thumb for me is basically 2 types of people favor restrictions liberals and military/LEO that dont like to share the same level of rights. Its a them vs me situation. They say they fight for the constitution and the American people but do they if its okay for them and not the average person. I'm not saying this fits you but I've see it everyday

Training does help people and I encourage it. But on that note. We've all seen people all trained up and still a shit show. Like Kirk points out. Even so called skilled individuals can be a shit show. The horror stories most of us have are proof of that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,679 Posts
I heard that there was a river of blood running down the main street of every city and the governor had to issue an emergency order for snow plows to clear away the mountains of expended brass on the city roads.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
You're gone the wrong direction. You're thinking of NYC. Mayor swears blind that they need more gun laws cuz the murder rate is up. It has nothing to do with massive police cuts, it's all the fault of too many guns on the street.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,232 Posts
You're gone the wrong direction. You're thinking of NYC. Mayor swears blind that they need more gun laws cuz the murder rate is up. It has nothing to do with massive police cuts, it's all the fault of too many guns on the street.
Retired black dem cop is running for mayor there. He says he'll be packing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
While I support CCW. I am not a big fan of Constitutional Carry. I prefer a permitting system only for two reasons: Reciprocity with other States (because, for example once you go to Nevada, you cannot legally carry) and the training requirements. I do prefer that people are required to have a working knowledge of the whos, whats, whens and whys of carrying.
I agree on reciprocity....but I’d rather that Constitutional be that.
I disagree on the training. It’s a freedom thing. You’re free to carry, and you are 100% responsible for what you do with that.

And if he wins, he darn well better support all people being able to pack, without undue cost/time impediments, or he's just another self-entitled leftist.
He’s a Dem....so maybe. But he DID say Trump was right in a few things.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
663 Posts
If there's to be mandated training/testing to exercise 2A rights, there should be the same for 1A - that's become a lot more dangerous these days.

And if someone doesn't know what 3A is, they don't get any.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,406 Posts
If there's to be mandated training/testing to exercise 2A rights, there should be the same for 1A - that's become a lot more dangerous these days.

And if someone doesn't know what 3A is, they don't get any.
AAA?


;)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: histed and SDProf

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
Well, most states that instituted Constitutional Carry keep their CCW system just for reciprocity. Some states that go Constitutional Carry have decided that it also applies to non-residents.

I'm afraid I can't agree. I understand the allure of "mandatory training" but it is a quagmire of failures to achieve stated goals and unintended consequences. The whole idea of required training is ripe for abuse. Who gets to decide what is and is not "enough" training? I'm sure it's fine when I get to decide, but what about if Maxine Waters gets to make the rules about how much is enough?

Without trying to be a jerk but still being blunt, the whole idea of "required training" somehow making everything better and people generally more effective is not supported by the evidence. Pick your favorite study tracking Defensive Gun Uses (DGU); Mauser, Kleck, Hart, CDC, any of the annual National Crime Victim Survey's and look at the percentage of time that the gun is actually discharged in a DGU. It's somewhere around 1 out of 10 times. So 90% of the time in a DGU, the trigger is not pulled. Let me ask you a question. How much "training" is required to not be able to shoot? None, that's how much. Heck, the gun could be freaking unloaded and still rack up the DGU. ;)

And even "training" doesn't guarantee skill. I've been training and teaching fighting for more than 30 years. I've seen people who were "trained" that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen people who had been good who let their skills degrade. I've seen people with natural talent. And if you want to get into firearms specifically (yes, I'm certified there too), if the claim is that "training" makes a big difference, I'd point you to the numerous instances of "trained military" and "trained police" who are unskilled and/or incompetent, despite (somehow) passing their training and marksmanship requirements on the range. I'm sure you know some, right? :)

Like I said, I understand the allure. But every time we let the government have the power to license a skill set and set training standards we get things like Beauty College, Licensed Beauticians, and the Ohio State Board of Cosmetology. Do you really want the same idiots who decided it takes 200 hours of training in order trim toenails, 450 hours of training to style hair, or 1,500 hours of training to be a "Cosmetologist"* to set the hours for exercising your right to self defense? I know I don't.

Reference for training:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Well, most states that instituted Constitutional Carry keep their CCW system just for reciprocity. Some states that go Constitutional Carry have decided that it also applies to non-residents.

I'm afraid I can't agree. I understand the allure of "mandatory training" but it is a quagmire of failures to achieve stated goals and unintended consequences. The whole idea of required training is ripe for abuse. Who gets to decide what is and is not "enough" training? I'm sure it's fine when I get to decide, but what about if Maxine Waters gets to make the rules about how much is enough?

Without trying to be a jerk but still being blunt, the whole idea of "required training" somehow making everything better and people generally more effective is not supported by the evidence. Pick your favorite study tracking Defensive Gun Uses (DGU); Mauser, Kleck, Hart, CDC, any of the annual National Crime Victim Survey's and look at the percentage of time that the gun is actually discharged in a DGU. It's somewhere around 1 out of 10 times. So 90% of the time in a DGU, the trigger is not pulled. Let me ask you a question. How much "training" is required to not be able to shoot? None, that's how much. Heck, the gun could be freaking unloaded and still rack up the DGU. ;)

And even "training" doesn't guarantee skill. I've been training and teaching fighting for more than 30 years. I've seen people who were "trained" that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen people who had been good who let their skills degrade. I've seen people with natural talent. And if you want to get into firearms specifically (yes, I'm certified there too), if the claim is that "training" makes a big difference, I'd point you to the numerous instances of "trained military" and "trained police" who are unskilled and/or incompetent, despite (somehow) passing their training and marksmanship requirements on the range. I'm sure you know some, right? :)

Like I said, I understand the allure. But every time we let the government have the power to license a skill set and set training standards we get things like Beauty College, Licensed Beauticians, and the Ohio State Board of Cosmetology. Do you really want the same idiots who decided it takes 200 hours of training in order trim toenails, 450 hours of training to style hair, or 1,500 hours of training to be a "Cosmetologist"* to set the hours for exercising your right to self defense? I know I don't.

Reference for training:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Purely legal. What constitutes "self defense", whats gonna get you locked up, where you can and cannot carry, what you can and cannot carry. Then some kind of "safety" class.

We have the same kind of requirements for driving, which more people use and is more dangerous than any weapon that I've seen used.

Who comes up with the requirements? You, your local PD/Sheriffs Depts/State Troopers/The NRA, get a list together of what they'd like to see in a "safety course" then have your Legislators vote on it.

Can there be abuses, yes. However we don't just have nothing because the "system" could be abused.

My opinion and opinions, are like butt holes...everyone has one and they all stink.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
I agree on reciprocity....but I’d rather that Constitutional be that.
I disagree on the training. It’s a freedom thing. You’re free to carry, and you are 100% responsible for what you do with that.



He’s a Dem....so maybe. But he DID say Trump was right in a few things.
Personally, I'd prefer a "National Constitutional Carry". I only want a "safety and legal brief". Not a pass/fail, go/no-go course. I just want people to get checked off that they understand their responsibilities. It is a freedom thing. I just want to keep people out of jail. Not like my in laws. They thought that they could shoot at someone trespassing on their property (luckily missed). When I informed them that it was NOT legal to just rip rounds off in a residential area...their answer..."I didn't know that". Didn't know that they were breaking the law carrying their pistol into a church, couldn't drink in a bar with it in their pocket or roll into a Govt Building armed. I just wanna keep people out of jail, the hospital or the cemetery.

What would have happened to them if they had hit that kid trespassing (hit the dirt, they cant shoot straight THANK GOD). Forgot that he'd been drinking before the incident too.

Yep, I want safety classes because of them.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top