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

[MechAg94]

Here, lemme answer his four questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?  

Yes, yes, and yes.   It's a whole other can of worms, but basically if you can't be trusted to be a good member of society, you shouldn't have been released from jail anyway.

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

Yes

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

Yes

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

No, because I'm not the government, dumbass

Even if you agree with felons not owning guns, that is just a red hering question.  There 10,000 infringements of one kind or another well beyond that that need to be repealed. 

[lee n. field]

Methinks Mr. Metcalf does not understand how tired some of us are with this crap.

[Harold Tuttle]

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2013-11-10-part-a

[RocketMan]

From Hornady's statement:

The supreme court ruled that all of the rights granted by the constitution can be regulated or restricted in certain ways.

Sure is nice to know that the Constitution grants our rights.  

Someone has no clue.

[Perd Hapley]

The supreme court ruled that all of the rights granted by the constitution can be regulated or restricted in certain ways.

Sigh. If a right can be regulated, it ain't a right, is it? Morons.

You have a right to own and carry firearms. If you kill someone and go to prison, you've chosen not to exercise your right to own and carry firearms. You still have the right, but you've surrendered your ability to exercise it.

And so on.

[lee n. field]

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2013-11-10-part-a

queued up to listen

[fifth_column]

Metcalf should read the dictionary again.

Regulation is not "by definition" infringement? It sure is by any definitions I've found for the two words. I want to know what dictionary he's using.

Something I learned today is that the SCOTUS changed the legal definition of "regulate" to include "prohibition" in 1942. 

[MechAg94]

Methinks Mr. Metcalf does not understand how tired some of us are with this crap.

I think that is part of this.  On Gun Talk, he kept saying he was trying to start a dialog or something like that.  However, we are so tired of hearing rhetoric like that from gun grabber organizations trying to score political points.  Also, the online discussion on these topics is on-going all the time to the point that people have been there and done that and already decided.  He could have picked any gun forum and tested some of this language to better word his discussion in the magazine. 

I guess I need to re-read what he wrote.  I am forgetting after getting caught up in the New Mexico story. 

[AmbulanceDriver]

I don't buy the "dialog" bullcrap.   I think he's trying to use that as a cover for having the whole world come down on him like a ton of bricks.

He flat out said, "I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is an infringement in and of itself.  But that's just me."

That's not "starting a dialog."  That's flat out giving the enemy a freebie to use against us in any attempt to get the onerous requirements ramped down.  So don't be surprised when the population that thinks it's bullcrap calls it for what it is.

[Hawkmoon]

Sigh. If a right can be regulated, it ain't a right, is it? Morons.

Also, if you have to pay a fee and get a license (or permit) to exercise a right ... is it really a "right"?

[Hawkmoon]

Something I learned today is that the SCOTUS changed the legal definition of "regulate" to include "prohibition" in 1942. 

In what context? What case? Does that case even bleed over to affect a provision of the Constitution? And, besides -- the only reference to regulation in the Second Amendment is as an adjective for the militia. I hope we can all agree that the prefatory clause doesn't translate to "A well-prohibited militia being necessary for a free state, ..."

[Hawkmoon]

He flat out said, "I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is an infringement in and of itself.  But that's just me."

That's not starting a dialogue, that's elitism. The line you quoted was from his conclusion. Earlier in his column he wrote this:

This year, my Illinois homeland became the 50th state to enact a CCW statute. It's a "shall issue" law, but it requires 16 hours of training to qualify for a license. Many say that's excessive -- an inherent infringement. I don't. But I'd like it to be good training.

So, according to Mr. Metcalf, not only is 16 hours of training not excessive, unless it's "good" training it may not even be enough. Who gets to decide whether or not a course is good enough? Dick Metcalf, I suppose. We obviously can't fall back on the NRA -- after all, their Basic Pistol course (which is accepted by a huge preponderance of those states requiring training) is only a single-day, 8-hour class. Ergo (according to Mr. Metcalf), no matter how good the NRA class might be, it's not enough. Flesh it out to fill up two days (how?) and it still might not be "good" enough to satisfy Metcalf's criteria -- whatever they are.

Metcalf grabbed the tiger by the tail -- he shouldn't complain about getting scratched. His position is essentially indefensible, and he should have been smart enough to know that before submitting it for publication. Now he can't admit that he was wrong -- he's just circling his wagon.

[MechAg94]

I don't buy the "dialog" bullcrap.   I think he's trying to use that as a cover for having the whole world come down on him like a ton of bricks.

He flat out said, "I don't think that requiring 16 hours of training to qualify for a concealed carry license is an infringement in and of itself.  But that's just me."

That's not "starting a dialog."  That's flat out giving the enemy a freebie to use against us in any attempt to get the onerous requirements ramped down.  So don't be surprised when the population that thinks it's bullcrap calls it for what it is.

I can understand that statement a bit in context of Illinois and being very unlikely to get anything better considering the political climate.  Tied in with some of the other stuff, it paints him as being willing to compromise too much. 

[Bigjake]

I think that is part of this.  On Gun Talk, he kept saying he was trying to start a dialog or something like that.

No need to re-read.  He's just full of *expletive deleted*it, and desperately backpedaling.

[SteveS]

In what context? What case? Does that case even bleed over to affect a provision of the Constitution? And, besides -- the only reference to regulation in the Second Amendment is as an adjective for the militia. I hope we can all agree that the prefatory clause doesn't translate to "A well-prohibited militia being necessary for a free state, ..."

Good point.  The reality is that regulate, in the context of the 2nd, is not really disputed by the majority of legal scholars.  Even the anti-gun scholars will concede that the FF's didn't mean regulate=lots o' rules.

[Hawkmoon]

I can understand that statement a bit in context of Illinois and being very unlikely to get anything better considering the political climate.  Tied in with some of the other stuff, it paints him as being willing to compromise too much. 

I can certainly understand that someone from Illinois would be happy to have any avenue to legal concealed carry over nothing at all ... however, to argue that 16 hours of training (but remember, it should be good training) isn't an infringement is ludicrous. If he had said "I don't like it but it's the best we could do so we'll live with it," I doubt anybody would have taken issue with him. Instead, he put on his elitist hat and wrote condescendingly at those of us who understand the Second Amendment better than he is ever likely to.

He wasn't trying to start a dialogue. He was lecturing us. Bad move, when you start the lecture with a major factual error.

[lee n. field]

I can certainly understand that someone from Illinois would be happy to have any avenue to legal concealed carry over nothing at all ... however, to argue that 16 hours of training (but remember, it should be good training) isn't an infringement is ludicrous. If he had said "I don't like it but it's the best we could do so we'll live with it," I doubt anybody would have taken issue with him. Instead, he put on his elitist hat and wrote condescendingly at those of us who understand the Second Amendment better than he is ever likely to.

He wasn't trying to start a dialogue. He was lecturing us. Bad move, when you start the lecture with a major factual error.

It should be put in monetary terms.  Someone starting from nothing will spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 to for a time limited permit to exercise a constitutionally recognized right. 

[Perd Hapley]

It should be put in monetary terms.  Someone starting from nothing will spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 to for a time limited permit to exercise a constitutionally recognized right. 

That's just for fees, or does it include qualification ammo? I presume you're not counting guns or holsters.

[Nick1911]

It should be put in monetary terms.  Someone starting from nothing will spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 to for a time limited permit to exercise a constitutionally recognized right. 

Plus 16 hours of time.

Sounds good.  When can we start applying it to voting rights to see who's really willing to put some skin in the game?

[lee n. field]

That's just for fees, or does it include qualification ammo? I presume you're not counting guns or holsters.

$150 for the permit.  More if you opt for fingerprinting to speed up the process.  Plus my estimate of the cost of the 16 hours of training, which seems to be what I'm seeing out there.  Does not include cost of ammo, gun, holster, accoutrements and accessories.

[Hawkmoon]

$150 for the permit.  More if you opt for fingerprinting to speed up the process.  Plus my estimate of the cost of the 16 hours of training, which seems to be what I'm seeing out there.  Does not include cost of ammo, gun, holster, accoutrements and accessories.

Most NRA instructors around here charge $150 for the one-day Basic Pistol class. In the past that used to include ammo for the live fire portion, but since the protocol for the live fire has been increased from "Shoot one magazine of cylinder and keep it on the paper" to a minimum of fifty rounds, some instructors are now charging for ammo and/or asking students to bring their own.

$300 for 16 hours sounds about right.

But that's not saying that 16 hours sounds about right.

[Scout26]

Just so everyone understands, Lee N. Field's $450 is probably on the low side.

Most classes* are right at $300 for the 16 hours.  
$150 for the application fee.
$20-30 in ammo (you have to shoot 30 rounds plus figure some for practice before so call it 50 rounds)
Fingerprinting is going to run $25-$50 unless you do the paper route are willing to wait the extra 30 days.

So your looking right at $500 to exercise a right.   Imagine the hue and cry there would be if we required this of people prior to voting (and your voting permit is only good for 5 years).  Look at what has happened as some have simply asked people to show an ID at the polls.  



*-The class consists of the NRA Basic Pistol class, 8 hours on Illinois law, live fire of 10 rds at 3, 10 rds at 7 and 10 rds at 10 yrds with 70% or 21 hits on the target and it also must include 3 hours of care and maintenance of your heater.   A DD214 gets you out of the 8 hour NRA class, while Hunter Ed, Utah, Florida and couple of other CCW classes buy you out of 4 hours of class.  But everyone has to endure 8 hours of Illinois law and the live fire.  

[Perd Hapley]

I will feel safer on the mean streets of Alton, knowing that anyone packing a gun knows how to maintain, clean and lubricate the weapon.

[fifth_column]

In what context? What case? Does that case even bleed over to affect a provision of the Constitution? And, besides -- the only reference to regulation in the Second Amendment is as an adjective for the militia. I hope we can all agree that the prefatory clause doesn't translate to "A well-prohibited militia being necessary for a free state, ..."

I am going from a letter written by Gary Marbut: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/11/MontanaLetter22.pdf.  Mr. Marbut is the author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.  In the letter he states the SCOTUS, in Wickard v. Filburn, changed the definitions of "regulate", "commerce", and "among."  He's referring to the Interstate Commerce Clause, so I don't know if it bleeds over or not.

[Hawkmoon]

I am going from a letter written by Gary Marbut: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/11/MontanaLetter22.pdf.  Mr. Marbut is the author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.  In the letter he states the SCOTUS, in Wickard v. Filburn, changed the definitions of "regulate", "commerce", and "among."  He's referring to the Interstate Commerce Clause, so I don't know if it bleeds over or not.

So he's talking about the ability of the Congress to "regulate" interstate commerce, and the ruling is that "regulate" can include "prohibit." That's not the same thing at all as the different avenues of definition for "regulate" as in "control" (enact regulations to limit an activity) vs. "regulate" as used in the Second Amendment, where it means "trained, practiced, coordinated, made uniform, ..."

That letter was NOT written by an attorney, and it is a masterpiece of an example of how NOT to draft an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

I don't see any bleed-over at all.