Minnesota Age Limit for Handgun-Carry Permit is Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Rules

[noonereal]

So it's developed lately. Have you seen someone about it?

Nasty post. Very MAGA you must be very proud to be recognized as MAGA.

You know what, don't ever speak to me again.

 

[RF667799]

Nasty post. Very MAGA you must be very proud to be recognized as MAGA.

You know what, don't ever speak to me again.

Not even a little?

 

[Rich2018]

Nasty post. Very MAGA you must be very proud to be recognized as MAGA.

You know what, don't ever speak to me again.

His very own chapter don't you know.

 

[RF667799]

His very own chapter don't you know.

Hi Rich. He said he didn't want to talk TO me. It remains to be seen if he wants to join you in talking ABOUT me.

 

[JMB1911A1]

So it's developed lately. Have you seen someone about it?

Adult onset hoplophobia is usually incurable.

 

[Rich2018]

Adult onset hoplophobia is usually incurable.

Fear of Hoplites

 

[RF667799]

Fear of Hoplites

Hahahaha! Another hilarious zinger! I'm dyin' here.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Again, the problem isn’t an adult of sound mind having the right to carry.

It is any adult of sound mind but lacking the required skills. What makes me a person who has the right to define what those skill are? Good question. Someone who has those skills so I can identify them, lived with the result of those not having those skills and and cleaned up after their messes.

No one should carry unless they know how to be safe to themselves and others in doing so. That requires knowing their weapon well. The decision making and physical abilty to be able to fire it under duress. Retain it so it’s not taken from them and used on themselves or others. Full comprehension of federal and state law on use of force. Plus the requirement of mitigating through insurance from liability for making mistakes so the harmed can be make themselves as whole as possible.

It’s nothing I don’t do myself. I’ve been carrying for 40+ years.

If an 18 year old can do that then so be it.

 

[RF667799]

Again, the problem isn’t an adult of sound mind having the right to carry.

It is any adult of sound mind but lacking the required skills. What makes me a person who has the right to define what those skill are? Good question. Someone who has those skills so I can identify them, lived with the result of those not having those skills and and cleaned up after their messes.

No one should carry unless they know how to be safe to themselves and others in doing so. That requires knowing their weapon well. The decision making and physical abilty to be able to fire it under duress. Retain it so it’s not taken from them and used on themselves or others. Full comprehension of federal and state law on use of force. Plus the requirement of mitigating through insurance from liability for making mistakes so the harmed can be make themselves as whole as possible.

It’s nothing I don’t do myself. I’ve been carrying for 40+ years.

If an 18 year old can do that then so be it.

You have the right to claim all those skills that give you the authority to determine how others might exercise their rights as privileges.

Anyone else has the right to reject your claimed authority.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You have the right to claim all those skills that give you the authority to determine how others might exercise their rights as privileges.

Anyone else has the right to reject your claimed authority.

Certainly.

I’d argue though that common sense should dictate in the end and that what I am suggesting is within the lines of common sense and WILL greatly reduce harm committed against those who carry and others with the arms they carry.

Unsafe people have increased risk of unsafe ends, and increase the risk of unsafe ends to others. That is a factual statement based on common sense values.

 

[CLAX1911]

Again, the problem isn’t an adult of sound mind having the right to carry.

It is any adult of sound mind but lacking the required skills. What makes me a person who has the right to define what those skill are? Good question. Someone who has those skills so I can identify them, lived with the result of those not having those skills and and cleaned up after their messes.

Skills to carry something?

No one should carry unless they know how to be safe to themselves and others in doing so.

that's very simple to the point where I would say it's not really a skill I would say attitude matters more.

That requires knowing their weapon well. The decision making and physical abilty to be able to fire it under duress.

well nobody knows how they're going to react under duress until they're actually under duress

Retain it so it’s not taken from them and used on themselves or others. Full comprehension of federal and state law on use of force.

this is the place where I think we're the most lacking on understanding. You go to the gun range and everybody's standing in the isosceles of Weaver position firing a pistols the reality is under duress you're probably shooting from the hip and you're probably too close and you're probably not going to have time to aim. Whatever security I had enough people that served in the military that told me about properly using a pistol defensively. The idea is to hold it as close to your body as possible so you can fight them with more than just the strength in your hand to keep that pistol.

As far as law goes I don't think you need full comprehension that's law school stuff. But you need to know what governs this and how you are expected to behave. It doesn't take a lot a lot of the times you can find state-based guides. But these things are your duty to learn I don't think it should be any kind of requirement

Plus the requirement of mitigating through insurance from liability for making mistakes so the harmed can be make themselves as whole as possible.

It’s nothing I don’t do myself. I’ve been carrying for 40+ years.

If an 18 year old can do that then so be it.

I think if you have to sign up for the draft you should be entitled to all the rights you've sworn yourself to defend. If you want to parse them out then they should raise the age of signing up for the draft. If you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to be an adult in your country.

 

[Rich2018]

Skills to carry something?

Are you OK with people carrying something without the necessary skills to use it ?

 

[CLAX1911]

Are you OK with people carrying something without the necessary skills to use it ?

It's not up to any government to determine what those skills are and it's up to the person carrying to have those themselves.

I don't like the idea of government interference you should know this by now.

 

[Rich2018]

It's not up to any government to determine what those skills are and it's up to the person carrying to have those themselves.

I don't like the idea of government interference you should know this by now.

So who should determine (and test) the "necessary" skills ?

 

[CLAX1911]

So who should determine (and test) the "necessary" skills ?

Nobody. It's up to the owner. You don't create should tests for rights.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Skills to carry something?

Yes.

that's very simple to the point where I would say it's not really a skill I would say attitude matters more.

Attitude is not without meaning but it’s born in the knowing of what’s involved to inspire actual, instead of pretend, confidence in your native abilities.

well nobody knows how they're going to react under duress until they're actually under duress

That is not true. I’ve lived that so I know. I was trained, then tested under fire. Like anything else the training establishes base lines in mental and muscle memory. It was my training that saved my life when two guns were pointed at me with my single weapon and I prevailed.

this is the place where I think we're the most lacking on understanding. You go to the gun range and everybody's standing in the isosceles of Weaver position firing a pistols the reality is under duress you're probably shooting from the hip and you're probably too close and you're probably not going to have time to aim.

Range training is preliminary. If I had my way if you want to carry you’d have minimal theory in duress training and practical Hogan’s alley, or better yet simulated live fire exercise.

You’d live the adrenaline, the loss of fine motor skills, the need to react instinctively base on what’s already in your head (your training) instead of trying to learn as it’s taking place.

Yes, it’s a bit but if you want to be able to carry a gun among folks it’s not a lot to ask that you actually know what’s what with it.

We dint even train our law enforces up to spec. I had my academy training but I realized it wasn’t sufficient. That’s why I got more from ATF and Caliber Press. It’s why I’m alive today, survived the armchair quarterbacking afterward, and moved on with my life. It’s why I could do it again tomorrow if I absolutely had to (though I’d prefer not to).

Carrying a gun in public is a marshal art. It requires the respect of training like any skill that enables the taking of life. The “no belt”, I can just strap this thing on and head out in public nonsense is ludicrous.

Whatever security I had enough people that served in the military that told me about properly using a pistol defensively.

Telling is quaint. Learning is different. They teach in the military. They don’t tell. It’s not civilian skills. What you need to carry as a civilian among other civilians isn’t the same thing.

The idea is to hold it as close to your body as possible so you can fight them with more than just the strength in your hand to keep that pistol.

That is certainly part of it. Not nearly all of it. Not even close.

As far as law goes I don't think you need full comprehension that's law school stuff.

Sorry, but nonsense. Your very life depends on full knowledge of the law. You will be judged after an event. Scrutinized to millimeters of the facts in evidence. First criminally, then civilly. Fail either and even if you live you may wish you had died. Then there is the damage it will do to your family and the quality of their lives.

But you need to know what governs this and how you are expected to behave. It doesn't take a lot a lot of the times you can find state-based guides. But these things are your duty to learn I don't think it should be any kind of requirement

Obviously we differ. Obviously I’ve lived it. I would politely suggest that gives me a slight upper hand in suggesting what’s better suited.

I think if you have to sign up for the draft you should be entitled to all the rights you've sworn yourself to defend.

Not denying anyone any rights. You know what comes with rights? Responsibility. That’s what I’m suggesting. Bring responsible.

If you want to parse them out then they should raise the age of signing up for the draft. If you're old enough to die for your country you're old enough to be an adult in your country.

I didn’t say an 18 year old couldn't carry. I’ve been the training officer of police age 21 and younger. Not many, but they exist. I had to purchase their service gun for one of them because they couldn’t purchase at the time but from private sale.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes.


Attitude is not without meaning but it’s born in the knowing of what’s involved to inspire actual, instead of pretend, confidence in your native abilities.



That is not true. I’ve lived that so I know. I was trained, then tested under fire. Like anything else the training establishes base lines in mental and muscle memory. It was my training that saved my life when two guns were pointed at me with my single weapon and I prevailed.



Range training is preliminary. If I had my way if you want to carry you’d have minimal theory in duress training and practical Hogan’s alley, or better yet simulated live fire exercise.

You’d live the adrenaline, the loss of fine motor skills, the need to react instinctively base on what’s already in your head (your training) instead of trying to learn as it’s taking place.

Yes, it’s a bit but if you want to be able to carry a gun among folks it’s not a lot to ask that you actually know what’s what with it.

We dint even train our law enforces up to spec. I had my academy training but I realized it wasn’t sufficient. That’s why I got more from ATF and Caliber Press. It’s why I’m alive today, survived the armchair quarterbacking afterward, and moved on with my life. It’s why I could do it again tomorrow if I absolutely had to (though I’d prefer not to).

Carrying a gun in public is a marshal art. It requires the respect of training like any skill that enables the taking of life. The “no belt”, I can just strap this thing on and head out in public nonsense is ludicrous.




Telling is quaint. Learning is different. They teach in the military. They don’t tell. It’s not civilian skills. What you need to carry as a civilian among other civilians isn’t the same thing.




That is certainly part of it. Not nearly all of it. Not even close.




Sorry, but nonsense. Your very life depends on full knowledge of the law. You will be judged after an event. Scrutinized to millimeters of the facts in evidence. First criminally, then civilly. Fail either and even if you live you may wish you had died. Then there is the damage it will do to your family and the quality of their lives.




Obviously we differ. Obviously I’ve lived it. I would politely suggest that gives me a slight upper hand in suggesting what’s better suited.



Not denying anyone any rights. You know what comes with rights? Responsibility. That’s what I’m suggesting. Bring responsible.



I didn’t say an 18 year old couldn't carry. I’ve been the training officer of police age 21 and younger. Not many, but they exist. I had to purchase their service gun for one of them because they couldn’t purchase at the time but from private sale.

Whatever live fire training you went through it's training they're not actively trying to kill you so it's might get your adrenaline up a little bit but if you're like me you know they're not going to kill you.

So I would even go as far as to say that training does not prepare you for something you can only experience by doing it.

Also putting these training barriers in the way off of right which no the right has that is an effort to restrict rights you accountable to yourself all you want but that's what it is.

And if you can be conscripted to go be shut to death in another country you should have all of the rights. The government needs to quit demanding people sign up for the draft or quit being criminal and denying people rights for two years of their life.

 

[RF667799]

Certainly.

I’d argue though that common sense should dictate in the end and that what I am suggesting is within the lines of common sense and WILL greatly reduce harm committed against those who carry and others with the arms they carry.

Unsafe people have increased risk of unsafe ends, and increase the risk of unsafe ends to others. That is a factual statement based on common sense values.

You want to place obstacles in the way of people exercising their Constitutional rights and civil liberties, on the basis of some Gun-Fu next level Ninja skills you claim to possess.

Not buying.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Whatever live fire training you went through it's training they're not actively trying to kill you so it's might get your adrenaline up a little bit but if you're like me you know they're not going to kill you.

Sure you know, but if it’s done right and you approach it wanting to learn it’s conducted in such ways as to be quite effective. Is it the real thing? No, of course not but it dies what it’s suppose to do, establish the basis that with continued practice produces the mental and muscle memory do that if the real thing happens you react based on your training, at that speed, with that precision.

So I would even go as far as to say that training does not prepare you for something you can only experience by doing it.

You’d be wrong in that. In serious circumstances it can be the difference between success and failure.

Also putting these training barriers in the way off of right which no the right has that is an effort to restrict rights you accountable to yourself all you want but that's what it is.

A right does not infringe on others. When it dies conflict of whose rights prevail take place. Your right to exercise carrying a gun in public doesn’t negate others right to not be at the increased risk your gun puts them in if you don’t know how to use it or keep it safely on you.

And if you can be conscripted to go be shut to death in another country you should have all of the rights. The government needs to quit demanding people sign up for the draft or quit being criminal and denying people rights for two years of their life.

Not my argument. I’m talking at all, not the difference between 18 and 21. No one, to my thinking, should be carrying a gun unless they are safe with it. In its concealment, in its containment, in its use under duress.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You want to place obstacles in the way of people exercising their Constitutional rights and civil liberties, on the basis of some Gun-Fu next level Ninja skills you claim to possess.

Not buying.

They are “gun-fu next level ninja” level even at my training. It’s an analogy to get the point across. If you wanted to go there maybe I’m a brown belt, I could help teach a class level. Not full blown instructor.

I’m suggesting there are MINIMUM skills one should have to carry a gun in public. Not just put in on and head out. You're not even safe for you, let alone everyone around you, at that level. If you think differently you’re a problem waiting to occur.

 

[RF667799]

They are “gun-fu next level ninja” level even at my training. It’s an analogy to get the point across. If you wanted to go there maybe I’m a brown belt, I could help teach a class level. Not full blown instructor.

I’m suggesting there are MINIMUM skills one should have to carry a gun in public. Not just put in on and head out. You're not even safe for you, let alone everyone around you, at that level. If you think differently you’re a problem waiting to occur.

It sounded like you were using your skills as common sense example. Your skills are minimal, you say.

 

[CLAX1911]

Sure you know, but if it’s done right and you approach it wanting to learn it’s conducted in such ways as to be quite effective. Is it the real thing? No, of course not but it dies what it’s suppose to do, establish the basis that with continued practice produces the mental and muscle memory do that if the real thing happens you react based on your training, at that speed, with that precision.



You’d be wrong in that. In serious circumstances it can be the difference between success and failure.



A right does not infringe on others. When it dies conflict of whose rights prevail take place. Your right to exercise carrying a gun in public doesn’t negate others right to not be at the increased risk your gun puts them in if you don’t know how to use it or keep it safely on you.



Not my argument. I’m talking at all, not the difference between 18 and 21. No one, to my thinking, should be carrying a gun unless they are safe with it. In its concealment, in its containment, in its use under duress.

Still don't think you should have jump through any hoops to have rights. Placing these tasks in the way are specifically designed to debt peoples rights.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

It sounded like you were using your skills as common sense example. Your skills are minimal, you say.

My skills are advanced compared to “Joe or Jane Average”. An average law enforcer is advanced to an “out of the box” civilian. Mine are more advanced than the average law enforcer. They likely are not as advanced as the average instructor in the techniques that teach them as their profession and work with them on the regular
because if that.

All of which has to do with training each has had, or not had.

Does that clear that up?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Still don't think you should have jump through any hoops to have rights. Placing these tasks in the way are specifically designed to debt peoples rights.

Your right to swing your fist ends where the other guys nose begins.

In this case that translates to your right to carry your gun ends where it places others at additional safety risk.

If you want to exercise a right you have responsibility that comes with it. I don’t know where some folks lose the connection between those two things. They aren’t separate. They are forever married to each other.

Rights = Responsibilities. You want to carry a gun? You think it’s your right? Then know how to retain it on your person. Conceal it properly. Use it effectively under duress. What the law is that allows you to use it.

Those are the responsibilities married to your desire to exercise that right.

 

[RF667799]

My skills are advanced compared to “Joe or Jane Average”. An average law enforcer is advanced to an “out of the box” civilian. Mine are more advanced than the average law enforcer. They likely are not as advanced as the average instructor in the techniques that teach them as their profession and work with them on the regular
because if that.

All of which has to do with training each has had, or not had.

Does that clear that up?

I dunno...Are you saying yours are the minimum standard?