Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
With my last blog I was pretty sure I'd found the biggest hornets' nest in the world and hit it with a big bat. To date, the number of comments received has been record setting (for me). SO, this time I figured I'd take on another politically challenging topic: The 2nd Amendment.
Now before someone accuses me of being something I'm not (in response to my post) let me be perfectly clear: I'm pro-2nd Amendment. I don't favor many gun control laws. I'm quite happy that so many states are passing "shall issue" laws and then adding on "Stand your ground" laws (sometimes referred to as "castle doctrine").
The reason I bring up the 2nd Amendment is because the Supreme Court just recently heard a case that may have a huge impact on how our country views said amendment with the
Heller v. D.C. case. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first case the Supreme Court has heard involving the 2nd Amendment since 1939.
Prior court hearings / trials in this case have resulted in D.C.'s gun laws being stricken as unconstitutional. For many years now it has been illegal to possess - even in your home - a functioning firearm and handguns had been completely banned. Obviously, anyone who can read Uniform Crime Reporting statistics can see that gun control has
not reduced violent crime in D.C..
So, why bring this up? I'm hoping to get some mixed feedback from law enforcement professionals and civilians alike. I'm a cop; have been (if you count my Army MP time) for about 26 years now. I couldn't care less if the law abiding public has and carries firearms. As a general rule I think they should all be trained a specific way and the licensing / carry permit process should have training requirements roughly equivalent to those of the police.
Here's my suggestion (as if anyone asked):
In my perfect world you would have to be 18 to purchase a gun... any kind of handgun, rifle or shotgun. I say 18 because I firmly believe that if, at 18, a man or woman can go and give their life to protect and defend our country, they should have their right to own a firearm recognized. What TYPE of firearm shouldn't be restricted so as not to include handguns.
Upon paying a 50% deposit for said weapon and completing the requisite paperwork, the person would need to stand by long enough for the state to perform a criminal history check. I KNOW this can be done in two or three minutes or less, but I would willingly accept as much as a ten day (ten DAYS, not WORK DAYS) waiting period to allow the check to be completed.
Once the purchase was approved the person would have to pay the balance and schedule him (or her) self for the basic firearms training program. Said program should be equal to the training police officers and deputies receive. Around here that would be a minimum of 35 hours of training with FIVE required qualification courses fired at the end of it. However, in my perfect world, that person's graduation certificate would be their permit to carry that weapon concealed.
One thing that I think should be included in that training is how to respond to police when pulled over while carrying or transporting a loaded weapon. I believe that drivers should be
required to surrender their driver's license, registration, proof of insurance AND CARRY PERMIT to any officer that pulls them over. Why? So there are no misunderstandings that end with someone getting shot or killed. If I get pulled over I most assuredly surrender all those items to the officer. Why? Because I don't want to get shot for speeding!
So, there's my rant. It's not a long one. Some will agree. Some will disagree. I ask that both groups respond with any variations or criticisms (or whatever)...
Stay Safe!
