What if guns and ammo were free?

[s_stabeler]

I guess you'd apply the same treatment to double-barreled weapons that "double" (recoil of one barrel shakes the hammer off the sear on the other, so it fires too). Also, have some common-sense limits. Weapon malfunctions on the range? Get it fixed before using it again. You're on a 5-figure hunting trip to Alaska, sighting it in after transport, and it malfunctions? Load it with one round at a time (can't go automatic in that condition, since there's no second round to chamber and fire) for the duration of the trip, and get it fixed when you get home. After all, with a simple precaution, there's no need to throw away an expensive trip.

the double gun I would treat as a semi-auto, to be honest. As for the hunting trip? depends on the situation. If there is a gunsmith near where you are staying, I would expect you to get the gun fixed. If you are out in the wilderness? then yeah, you're right.

But considering that for the few who DO need to shoot outside of training, their lives (and the lives of innocent bystanders) depend on their ability to shoot accurately, there needs to be a STRICT standard of competence they have to meet at all times. Base it on the model of random drug testing - by the "luck of the draw" (say on an average of once every 2 years), a cop reporting for duty will, instead of being sent to their normal assignment, be sent for a firearms qualification test. Fail it and they're suspended until they can pass it. Avoids the issue of officers only taking range time immediately before a test that they KNOW is coming, to bring themselves up to minimum standards for the purposes of the test - they'd need to keep themselves at minimum standards (or better) all the time.

My point is that you need to decide what level of training you require in your police officers- and I happen to agree.

[HYHYBT]

What they seem to need isn't so much more practice handling and firing the gun, but better training in discerning whether they need to shoot at all or not.

[wolfie]

My point is that you need to decide what level of training you require in your police officers- and I happen to agree.

Tying this in with another issue, from what I've heard most jurisdictions that allow concealed carry permits require the permit holder to demonstrate a certain standard of competence (in many cases, including "shoot/don't shoot" scenarios) to obtain the permit. Since some jurisdictions set a "high bar" to make it harder to get a CCP, I'd say it would be logical to tie the 2 standards together - a higher level government (i.e. the Feds) could require that, while individual states are allowed to set their own standards of competence, police officers and CCP holders must be tested to the SAME standard, including periodic requalification.

[s_stabeler]

agian- I agree, with the provisio that the training for both include training on when NOT to shoot.

[Gravekeeper]

Someone's already dealt with the issue of people living within the 1000 foot "ring" around a school (legal on private property), but how are they supposed to get the gun from the store to their home, or from their home to the range or hunting field? After all, they need to go off their own property. Also, what about people "just passing through", when the school is adjacent to the main road?

Hey, I agreed about the distance. That said, I really can't see the police bothering to be that anal about it. If you're just passing by the school, you're in and out of the zone inside of 30 seconds tops. How would they even know, and why would they even bother? That's the letter of the law, not the spirit. So to speak.

[Andara Bledin]

If you don't get stopped, it won't matter. But when people whose flights are diverted who have firearms legally in their checked luggage are going to prison because their flight landed in a place where it's not legal to carry and something happened to cause them to have to pick up their luggage in said location. Even when the only intent is to get right back on another plane and leave the state.

[HYHYBT]

I'm having a hard time picturing an airport where you would pass within 1000 feet of a school while carrying your bags from claim to checkin.

[Andara Bledin]

That scheme is unlikely, but there are airports where it is legal to have your bags checked on the plane, but the moment they are released into your own possession, you've committed a felony, even though if you're in that situation, the only alternative is often to leave your bag unclaimed entirely, particularly as most airlines won't allow bag check except on the day of the flight.

[s_stabeler]

both problems can be fixed the same way: exempt the transport of firearms where the firearm is stored in a way that it would be legal to check it in on a plane ( unloaded, in a locked box, ammo in a second locked box) because then, it's easy enough to take your gun to the range, but you are unlikely to be shooting up the nearby school. And if your gun was actually legal to check onto the plane, no felony would be comitted.

[Cia]

My brother, his brothers-in-law and his son would be estatic, my hubby wouldn't be to far behind and my daughter and I would be coming up last. Unlimited amount of .45 shells would make going out plinking a whole lot more fun.