CWP requirements?


PDA






jtward01
January 17, 2006, 12:35 AM
In Florida you only need to attend a one-day class and demonstrate that you can load and shoot a gun - any gun - safely and you qualify for a concealed weapons permit (plus the background check, of course).

I recently watched a group of about 30 "students" from a class demonstrate their firearms expertise. After about six hours of classroom instruction the instructor had them all line up and one at a time he had them load one round into a .22 caliber revolver, point it at a target about 10 feet away and fire that one shot, after which he handed them their certificate of completion which they submit to the state with their CWP application. Several of these students clearly had no gun handling experience and quite a few could not hit the 8 X 10 target from 10 feet. One woman pointed the gun at the target, closed her eyes and turned her face as far to the side as she could before pulling the trigger.

I'm all for people having the right to carry, but frankly, it was damned frightening to think that some of these people in this group would be buying and carrying handguns.

Is Florida the only state that issues these things like passing out candy? Shouldn't an applicant have to demonstrate a reasonable skill level before they're licensed to carry?

If you enjoyed reading about "CWP requirements?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Roadkill
January 17, 2006, 12:44 AM
We don't even have to take the class or test here.

rk

AFhack
January 17, 2006, 12:44 AM
If it really is that bad in FL, then I feel sorry for you guys but I can relate. In NM it's usually a two day class (4 hrs each session) and a qualification shoot.


While the qualification shoot is severely easy, it does require more than what you describe in FL.

Standing Wolf
January 17, 2006, 01:46 AM
Shouldn't an applicant have to demonstrate a reasonable skill level before they're licensed to carry?

The problem, as I perceive it, is twofold:

1. Government's purpose is to protect our rights, not license and regulate them.

2. One person's idea of "reasonable skill level" might well be another's idea of sub-minimal competence, yet another's idea of excessive finickiness.

Does government demand proof of reasonable skill levels before allowing people to exercise freedom of speech and religion? Does government demand proof of reasonable skill levels before allowing us to vote?

I'm whole-heartedly in favor of handling firearms skillfully and intelligently; I believe, however, that's my responsibility, not government's.

I have no trouble imagining some states insisting that no one can keep and bear arms until he or she has passed a 200-hour "safety" course and competed in at least four bullseye matches with an average score of 2500 out of a possible 2700 per match. Sounds ridiculous, you say? That's a difference of degree, not substance. It's all too easy for government trough-feeders to devise more and more stringent requirements for commoners to pass.

One woman pointed the gun at the target, closed her eyes and turned her face as far to the side as she could before pulling the trigger.

If she's serious about saving her life, she'll find an instructor and put in some range time; then again, maybe she's notóbut I see that as being entirely her choice.

jtward01
January 17, 2006, 05:42 AM
One woman pointed the gun at the target, closed her eyes and turned her face as far to the side as she could before pulling the trigger.



If she's serious about saving her life, she'll find an instructor and put in some range time; then again, maybe she's notóbut I see that as being entirely her choice.

Explain that to the innocent bystander she shoots while firing with her eyes closed.




Does government demand proof of reasonable skill levels before allowing people to exercise freedom of speech and religion? Does government demand proof of reasonable skill levels before allowing us to vote?

As far as I know, the practice of speech, religion and voting doesn't carry with it the possibility of taking human life.

jtward01
January 17, 2006, 05:58 AM
American Shooter TV did an episode on Tennesee's CWP requirements a couple years ago. I believe there was eight hours of class room time required, plus a fair amount of range time. I think each student fired about 200 practice rounds, then they had to score 80 percent in the black from seven yards on a qualifying round.

To me, that seems more than reasonable.

dzimmerm
January 17, 2006, 06:00 AM
You need to complete a 12 hour course with 2 of those hours including range time. My course was done over two weeks, two nights a week. It cost $125.00. After successful completion of the course which included a written exam covering basic safety and very basic state law, you received a NRA Basic Pistol Course certificate with the course instructors ID# on it.

After the course you need to give a county sheriff $45.00. You also need to provide two passport photos of your self, that cost about $14.00. They require you to fill out a form that asks for every residence you have lived at since you turned 18 years of age.

Strangely enough they did not use either of my passport photos for my CCW. They took a digital photo and manufactured the CCW license much like our drivers licenses are done.

I recevied the permit after about 10 days. I was told the time from application to issuance is determined by how long the background check takes. The more counties you have lived in the longer the background check is likely to take.

The permit is good for 4 years.

Do I think that this system is unreasaonable?

Yes, I do.

I also do not care for the "carry in plane sight while in an automoble"
"No carry in automoblie if children are in the automobile"
"Numerious other places where carry is illegal."

I still think it is better than not having conceal carry at all.

dzimmerm

jtward01
January 17, 2006, 06:38 AM
I don't think the classroom, range time or testing seems unreasonable, and the fees seem on par with many other states. But listing every residence since I turned 18? Good Lord, that was 35 years ago. I can't even remember the street names for some of the places I've lived. That part does seem pretty crazy, as well as not being able to carry with kids in the car. What do they think, your kids aren't worth protecting?

Wiley
January 17, 2006, 08:57 AM
If a little training and practice is good wouldn't a requirement that an applicant attend the local police academy and be able to shoot at the same level as Rod Latham be better?

A few thousand dollars for training, a year or so for classes, the blissninnies will love it. Nobody will be able to afford to carry. Time or money.

The people who really, really need to defend themselves (in most cases the 'working poor') won't be able to.

Great idea.

Oh, and you need to advocate a requirement that the gun be custom made for carry and cost a grand or two.

Janitor
January 17, 2006, 09:23 AM
as well as not being able to carry with kids in the car. What do they think, your kids aren't worth protecting?
Of course ... the law is specifically to protect your children. Maybe you aren't aware of it, but by carrying a loaded weapon, you risk your going completely off your nut and running around shooting everyone in site. They do NOT want this to happen while your children are around and vulnerable.

It's all about the children.

Herself
January 17, 2006, 09:45 AM
In Indiana, what it takes is to be old enough and not have any felony convictions; some pending charges (like beating up your spouse) may also keep one from getting a permit. You will be fingerprinted.

There is no gun-handling test. There is no mandatory training. There are no storage requirements. The "Permit to Carry" has no photo and not much personal info; it's just a cheap little card-stock thing. My heavens, it's anarchy! Ooooooooooeeee!

Keeping and bearing arms isn't a privilige, like driving or having a ham radio station; it's a right.

Interestingly, in Indiana we don't shoot each other at a significantly higher rate than those states which do require training and/or testing to get a gun permit. And there are plenty of shooting classes available: it is not necessary to require folks to learn in order to get many of them to do so.

--Herself

JamisJockey
January 17, 2006, 12:05 PM
The founding fathers didn't need permits.

Firethorn
January 17, 2006, 12:28 PM
After the course you need to give a county sheriff $45.00. You also need to provide two passport photos of your self, that cost about $14.00. They require you to fill out a form that asks for every residence you have lived at since you turned 18 years of age.

Strangely enough they did not use either of my passport photos for my CCW. They took a digital photo and manufactured the CCW license much like our drivers licenses are done.

Probably the law mentions the requirement for the passport photos, and were used at one point, but then technology changed and they haven't removed the requirement yet. If it's in the code along with the fee, then they can't just stop asking for them.

Sounds like a hook for amending the law, and maybe fixing a few other parts.

Nitrogen
January 17, 2006, 12:34 PM
In Texas, you have to sit in a 10 hr class, and shoot 50 rounds at a B-27 target, and get a score of at least 175. (X, 9,8, =5 pts, 7=4 and anything else =3)

It's pretty easy, but people taking the qualification test along with me did fail it.

You also have to jump through a LOT of crazy hoops. It's about 4 times harder than getting a drivers license.

Call me crazy, but I think it should be harder to get a drivers license, as cars kill far more people than guns, but I don't think a CHL should be available to repeat felons either.

Pilgrim
January 17, 2006, 01:03 PM
All Florida wanted to see for my non-resident permit was a copy of my DD-214 from the Navy.

Pilgrim

petrel800
January 17, 2006, 01:20 PM
Maybe its just me, but I believe your system of requiring a class is more dangerous than the system here in GA where you are not required to take a class or show proficiency.

First off, its my right to carry. Its my right because I was born, not because the government gave me any right or privledge, but thats me preaching. And, yes, I did "sign up" for my permit, so I am part of the problem here.

Secondly, the government has now signed off on all those people saying that they are indeed safe to carry a handgun. So now these folks will think that they have taken serious firearms training, and will assume themselves safe. In my opinion, this creates a morale hazard, or otherwise the idea that they can violate safety rules because they have been certified safe. In other words, "the guns not loaded," or, "I can put my finger on the triger cause I'm not like everyone else, I was trained."

Finally, in college I was required to take an Art History class (liberal arts school) even though I was in the Math / Physics program. I did just enough to get by in that class because it had no bearing on my major other than completion. I would venture most people taking the class will just show up to complete the requirement, then people who actively seek out training. So in my opinion, most people will take very little from a class like that because they are required to be there (then add in my second point, and you have uneducated CCWs who think they are experts, because "they took a class.")

In my opinion, this requirement does more harm then good. Instead of idiots (which we all know are out there, unfortunately), you have government required certified idiots (which are probably more dangerous).

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

ball3006
January 17, 2006, 01:29 PM
is a good idea. In Texas, all of the laws and rules are covered and you have to be able to at least hit what you are shooting at. The first class I took was scary watching some folks handle their gun and shooting. The school I go to now to renew my license, is first rate and you use their guns at their range. I don't believe licenses should just be handed out to joe bubba and bubbette without some kind of training........you all have reported these kind of folks shooting at your range regularly.......chris3

Janitor
January 17, 2006, 01:45 PM
don't believe licenses should just be handed out to joe bubba and bubbette without some kind of training.
Agreed.

Joe bubba & bubbette shouldn't need a license at all. This is all covered in the Constitution.
-

Herself
January 17, 2006, 01:48 PM
The founding fathers didn't need permits.

Good point. Neither should any of us!

However, residents of Utah do, and requirements include training by a State-certified instructor. Utah permits are issued by Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification, which is a bit off-putting even if it is just a branch of the State cops. :) You're also required to ID yourself to police when dealing with them, raising the odds of "interesting" experiences should a permit-holder get a traffic ticket.

In Indiana, there's just about no "peacable journey" law. If don't have a permit and you're carrying a handgun in your car, you'd better be going to or from a gun store or gun show, or be taking it to a gunsmith. (This is somewhat trumped by Federal law, if you are complying with the requirements therein).

No State is perfect, firearms-wise. Not even Vermont.

--H

DirksterG30
January 17, 2006, 02:09 PM
No class in PA either. Submit your application with the money, wait for the background check, and you're in. In Allegheny county, I got my permit in 30 minutes.

Car Knocker
January 17, 2006, 02:51 PM
Explain that to the innocent bystander she shoots while firing with her eyes closed.

Is there any evidence at all that a concealed carry proficiency test prevents innocent bystanders from being shot? Or would it just make you "feel better" knowing someone pased a test?

M2 Carbine
January 17, 2006, 03:11 PM
"Is Florida the only state that issues these things like passing out candy? Shouldn't an applicant have to demonstrate a reasonable skill level before they're licensed to carry?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer is NO.
Remember the "shall not be infringed" part?


But I agree that people should be RESPONSIBLE enough to get the necessary skill and training needed to safely carry.
Hell, I invite low gun skilled people to my place all the time to help them practice and they are too damned lazy to show up, even when the ammo is free.:mad:

If it was up to me the requirements for a CHL would be harder. For instance you would have to show proof of a reasonable amount of range time. Many people don't shoot at all in the years before their next renewal.


But then I remember the "shall not be infringed" part and say the heck with it.:(

El Tejon
January 17, 2006, 03:20 PM
Religion has killed hundreds of thousands of times more people than firearms and no one has to take a test to attend the House of Worship of their choice, not until Supreme Leader Hillary tell us to in January '09.:D I see no authority for the government to mandate any sort of training requirement. In fact it is specifically disallowed.:)

jtward, governmentally-mandated training is a fraud. It is a barrier to entry (like poll taxes for voting) to disallow the exercise of civil right by those with smaller incomes. It creates a parasitic class of individuals who exist to service the statutory requirement and have a vested interest in pushing mandated training and expanding it and making it more expensive.

Like Herself, I live in Indiana. We pay $25 and have a license to carry for 4 years. No classes, no training, no governmental testing. Somehow, in all the decades that Indiana has had its current carry scheme, decades before Florida and even decades before Texas where carrying a gun was invented, we avoid blood in the streets, yet there is no testing and we even carry guns into bars *gasp!*.

Further, the studies I am aware of show no public policy benefit to mandating training. Even if there was a benefit, it is trumped by my constitutional right to bear arms which disallows governmental interference.:) Rights trump policy.

El Tejon
January 17, 2006, 03:24 PM
jtward, the answer to your concern lies in the changing of the culture. We in the gun culture must make training "cool" or the "in thing" to do.

Internal controls are better than external. If your wife nags you to quit smoking or lose weight or exercise, you won't do it until you want to do these things internally.

We at THR have been vocal proponents of training. We at THR have been vocal critics of putting our rights in the hands of state workers.

Repeat after me, I had so much fun at gun camp; you should go to.:D

Otherguy Overby
January 17, 2006, 03:33 PM
Sheesh, you guys with your measly little one and two day courses.

The course I took to meet requirements took 18 months and one day. At the end of this course I received an "Expert" rating. I sent the course certificate off to Florida with the other requirements and several months later got my Florida CCW permit. Of course I never picked up a pistol during my course, but that's another story... ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "CWP requirements?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!