Guns and ammo column: Dick Metcalf thinks Illinois training is reasonable

[Harold Tuttle]

full page:
http://googlepixel.com/images/metcalf.jpg


THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE United States reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note carefully: Those last four words say "shall not be infringed." They do not say "shall not be regulated." "Well regulated" is, in fact, the initial criterion of the amendment itself.

Edited because copying/pasting the whole article violates the copyright policy.

See: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25455.0

[Perd Hapley]

[just Warren]

Someone dust off the Zumbonator!

[freakazoid]

I was going to do the single Picard facepalm, but I think at this point in time it really does deserve at least a double.

[Grebnaws]

If Dick Metcalf feels that these regulations are reasonable than I'm sure he wouldn't mind paying my $300 course fee, the non-refundable $150 application fee, the as yet unknown to me costs for fingerprinting (again, as I already have my Utah ccw), the renewal fees, the $75 address change fee, compensate me for the time already lost to take the full 16 hour course, and again for all the following 3 hour refresher courses.

The bill is absolutely prohibitive. If it was this hard to vote we all know what they'd be telling us.

[Sergeant Bob]

Yeah, no *Expletive Deleted!*

If Dick Metcalf feels that these regulations are reasonable than I'm sure he wouldn't mind paying my $300 course fee, the non-refundable $150 application fee, the as yet unknown to me costs for fingerprinting (again, as I already have my Utah ccw), the renewal fees, the $75 address change fee, compensate me for the time already lost to take the full 16 hour course, and again for all the following 3 hour refresher courses.

The bill is absolutely prohibitive. If it was this hard to vote we all know what they'd be telling us.

Indeed it is. What many fail to realize is that "Regulated" in the Constitution meant something different when it was written  than it does now. I'm pretty sure most people here would not be in favor of having having to pay for the "privilege" of free speech.

[Perd Hapley]

Indeed it is. What many fail to realize is that "Regulated" in the Constitution meant something different when it was written  than it does now. I'm pretty sure most people here would not be in favor of having having to pay for the "privilege" of free speech.

More importantly, he's reading the amendment backwards. As written (forwards), the uninfringed right to own and carry guns promotes the well-regulated militia. Also note that it's the militia that is regulated, not the guns or the gun-owners.

The language of the amendment is perfectly clear, so why must we point that out? 

[Kingcreek]

What a dick. The Illinois law is a bad piece of work and the Illinois state police have managed to make it worse. My 16 hours of training has to include 3 hours on cleaning and lubricating my gun? Seriously?
Dick metcalf ought to know better

[Kingcreek]

DT

[Harold Tuttle]

i posted the text on tfl yesterday and they deleted my post

[Tallpine]

I've seen too many examples of unsafe behavior on too many shooting ranges to believe otherwise.

What about unsafe behavior in the "bedroom" 

 

[roo_ster]

i posted the text on tfl yesterday and they deleted my post

WTH?

[Sergeant Bob]

What about unsafe behavior in the "bedroom" 

 

Yep, people are required to get training and pay the govt for a license before driving, but there are still plenty of dangerous idiots on the roads.

[erictank]

What a dick. The Illinois law is a bad piece of work and the Illinois state police have managed to make it worse. My 16 hours of training has to include 3 hours on cleaning and lubricating my gun? Seriously?
Dick metcalf ought to know better

Okay, only possible reaction to 3 hours on clean and lube - WTF?!?

[Harold Tuttle]

WTH?

prolly copyright issues as Rich is SWAT magazine

[AmbulanceDriver]

I worry this won't get as hard a reaction as Zumbo's nonsense simply because the percentage that feels strongly about concealed carry is (I believe) much smaller than the percentage that owns an AR pattern rifle.

[Perd Hapley]

i posted the text on tfl yesterday and they deleted my post

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25456.0

Maybe TFL has similar policies.

[Balog]

I worry this won't get as hard a reaction as Zumbo's nonsense simply because the percentage that feels strongly about concealed carry is (I believe) much smaller than the percentage that owns an AR pattern rifle.

But Guns and Ammo readers are hopefully more interested in guns per se than the Field and Stream (or Outdoor Life or wherever the hell Zumbo worked) readers.

[Harold Tuttle]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1551033_Dick_Metcalf_article_in_Guns_And_Ammo_Approving_Second_Amendment_restrictions_.html&page=7&anc=43728884#i43728884

Hornady has now stepped on their weenie

Originally Posted By wolfdog45:
I just received this email from Hornady Manufacturing, Inc [mailto:webmaster@hornady.com]
They are standing behind Dick Metcalf and are saying that we the paying customers are mistaken and are taking Dick Metcalfs column out of context.
Read the email below.

"
Well Dick Metcalf is no more anti-gun than Wayne LaPierre. His words are being taken
out of the context of the whole article , the thrust of which is that regulation may
mean infringement to some people. The supreme court ruled that all of the rights
granted by the constitution can be regulated or restricted in certain ways. It is
naïve for some supposed pro-gun rights individuals to take the position there can be
absolutely no infringement of the 2nd Amendment, whatsoever. Of course there can, we
don't legally allow felons or the mentally ill to have access nor do we allow
law-abiding citizens access to nuclear bombs. So, there is infringement. And always
was and always will be. The question of degree enters into it and Dick Metcalf will
fight as strenuously as anyone for the right of law-abiding citizens the unfettered
right to access to firearms.
If you are not buying anything from any company that advertises in Guns and Ammo,
and its sister pubs, Petersen's Hunting and Shooting Times I guess you've decided to
give up hunting and shooting altogether because EVERYBODY in this industry
advertises there at some time.
If you have issues with what he said write him or the magazine and ask him to
explain his position more clearly so you can understand it."

[Tallpine]

It is
naïve for some supposed pro-gun rights individuals to take the position there can be
absolutely no infringement of the 2nd Amendment, whatsoever. 

There is no exception clause in the Constitution.

Of course there can, we
don't legally allow felons or the mentally ill to have access

Yeah, only for the last forty something years.

[Perd Hapley]

It is naïve for some supposed pro-gun rights individuals to take the position there can be
absolutely no infringement of the 2nd Amendment, whatsoever. Of course there can, we
don't legally allow felons or the mentally ill to have access nor do we allow
law-abiding citizens access to nuclear bombs. So, there is infringement.

   What a bunch of morons. Maybe they shouldn't bother trying to interpret the Constitution.

[vaskidmark]

I was going to do the single Picard facepalm, but I think at this point in time it really does deserve at least a double.

More like this face palm



And yes, "Fire up the Zumboni" is about accurate.

There are so many ways what I think Metcalf was trying to say could have been said.  But what bothers me is that nobody in the magazine's editorial or copy departments did not call a time out and say that this might need a bit more polishing before it goes to print.  That and the fact that even Hornaday's attempt to say that after the fact is wishy-washy.  Better do do a rewrite with line-outs strike-throughs and revisions, or even a straight replacement with a cleaner, clearer exposition of what he wanted to get across, which seems to be that he does not see the Illinois training requirement to be not an infringement, not a regulation of a right but merely not an onerous requirement akin to taking driver's ed.

Then we could discuss and debate the pros and cons of mandatory training and if it is to exist what the minimum should be.

stay safe.

[AJ Dual]

Reading between the lines I took it all to mean, "I like RKBA and CCW for people I approve of who are educated enough to navigate the bureaucracy, of sufficient means to pay the fees, and with employment with suitably flexible non-clock-punching hours to take the classes."

i.e. "I think only the middle class on up should have RKBA and CCW, but of course I can't come right out and say so..."

[SteveS]

While it is likely that there are a tiny fraction of the current rules that would be constitutional, this is not what he was saying.  He was arguing in support of training requirements, which are not constitutional.  He also clearly does not understand the meaning of the word "regulated", in the context of the 2nd amendment.  After what happened to the editor at Recoil, you would think that gun magazine writers would be more careful. 

[Balog]

Anyone have a list of G&A advertisers I can inform that they won't be gettibg my business if they continue?