Concealed Permit Requirements


PDA






wyocarp
July 13, 2008, 02:33 PM
I am actually totally anti government. But, since we have these permits, it seems to me that they ought to mean something. I watched a concealed carry class yesterday in Colorado as my wife and son were enrolled in the class. There were 13 people enrolled in the class. Out of the 13 people, I felt that only possibly 2 people would I trust with a weapon. My son and one of the other men knew how to handle a firearm well. My wife isn't bad, but still not to a level of competency that I would like to see. The rest of the group appeared to be new to guns and possibly handling their first gun.

I didn't feel safe while standing behind them on the firing line at the indoor range. From pointing loaded guns at people, droping magazines while firing, to leaving their fingers on the triggers, I've never been any more uncomfortable. I'm not perfect, but these people should not carry anything more than their driver's license. They were all bumbling idiots, and I think I'm being kind.

What do you think? Should people show firearm competency before actually obtaining a concealed carry permit?

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed Permit Requirements" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wyocarp
July 13, 2008, 02:40 PM
I'm sorry, but it was scary thinking about most of the people in that class being able to carry a weapon. They shouldn't have even been able to look at a weapon without supervision in my opinion. I realize I'm spoiled by living in Wyoming where I grew up shooting anywhere outside the city limit sign. But if you don't live in that environment, then you need to buy training.

Big45
July 13, 2008, 02:43 PM
I chose the "no one should have...." option, as part of that whole line of "The 2nd Amendment is my permit..." thinking.

AK103K
July 13, 2008, 02:51 PM
We dont need any more rules for something we dont need rules for in the first place.

Frog48
July 13, 2008, 02:56 PM
In a perfect world, you wouldnt need government approval in order to carry.

wyocarp
July 13, 2008, 03:27 PM
While I totally agree with the not wanting any rules for gun ownership, I don't feel good about these people representing the responsible gun population.

22-rimfire
July 13, 2008, 03:28 PM
I don't like permits much. I have one.

The primary reason I got a CCW permit was to allow me to carry a loaded handgun in my vehicle. I rarely carry on my person except at times when I am forced to be somewhere that makes me feel volunerable. It is strictly a safety thing for me; my safety or my family's.

I doubt that the majority of the people in the class are going to carry for very long. It is a bit of a hassle really. Some people think you have to have a permit to keep a handgun in their home.

Mil-Spec45
July 13, 2008, 03:30 PM
I would vote for "nobody should need one" exept that is not the case, nor probably ever will be. So if looking at it realistically as it is today, I voted for "People should have to show competency"

The bottom line is you need a permit presently. I don't think a 12 hour class is appropriate for people like me to learn "this is a primer and this is a hammer" and "keep your finger off the trigger". You should simply have to walk up to a firing line, show proper handling, and hit a target...something any gunner should find entertaining, and not have a problem with. Instead of an infringment, it might be looked upon as a day at the range with fellow enthusiasts. If it appears as though you can't handle a gun safely while being "supervised", you'll be shown the right way and asked to come back at a later time.

I think that's a good compromise.

230RN
July 13, 2008, 03:38 PM
The rest of the group appeared to be new to guns and possibly handling their first gun.

This is a good thing. Don't knock it.

They'll learn. Just like you did, growing up in Wyoming, the first time you went out of the city limits to shoot. The niceties of shooting beyond The Four Rules will come with time.

I backed a car into another car the first time I tried to parallel park.

Didn't you?

My personal feeling is that your concerns are a little overblown, but I expect flak on that position.

AK103K
July 13, 2008, 03:54 PM
I think that's a good compromise.
Compromise is only good for those who are looking for you to do what they want. They win, if only a little at first, and your on the way to loosing big.

wally
July 13, 2008, 04:29 PM
Accepting a "permit" means you've surrendered the right. A "shall issue" license means you've met some minimal level of competence and/or trustworthiness. Great pains were taken to make Texas have a CHL instead of CHP!

While in an ideal world Vermont type carry should be universal, personally, I'm not sure letting any yahoo stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public is really such a good idea.

--wally.

Texpatriate
July 13, 2008, 04:34 PM
oops. I misread the last option as "no one should have a permit" rather than "no one should have to have a permit" as stated. I chose the first option, but had I not misread the last one that would have been my choice.

TallPine
July 13, 2008, 04:36 PM
While in an ideal world Vermont type carry should be universal, personally, I'm not sure letting any yahoo stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public is really such a good idea.


Except the law doesn't really stop anybody if thats what they want to do.

I'm guessing more people would be more familiar with firearms if not for all the gun control laws.

Robert Hairless
July 13, 2008, 05:34 PM
What do you think? Should people show firearm competency before actually obtaining a concealed carry permit?

You have admirably high standards for allowing people the means to defend their own lives.

But there are other rights where we really need to have people show competency before we let them exercise those rights.

At the top of my own list is the right to free speech. Don't you get annoyed when people make dumb or offensive statements? Everyone should be required to show competency before opening their mouths. It's not that I'm opposed to free speech, and I don't think you are either.

In fact I support it absolutely--just not excessively or with abandon. Of course I should have the right to say what's on my mind, but I see no reason why you should be allowed to abuse my patience with your nonsense.

We need to live by this venerable statement: "I might not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death my right to tell you to shut up and stop spouting drivel."

Aguila Blanca
July 13, 2008, 07:36 PM
What do you think? Should people show firearm competency before actually obtaining a concealed carry permit?
Where in the 2nd Amendment is there any mention of "permit"?

Either you believe in and support the 2nd Amendment ... or you don't. Permits/licenses have no place in a discussion of a constitutionally-guaranteed civil right.

The bottom line is you need a permit presently.
No, you need a permit. Actually, since you live in Ohio, you do NOT need a permit to open carry, and that was affirmed a few years ago by the Ohio Supreme Court. Citizens of Arizona, Washington, and several other states don't need a permit to open carry. Citizens of (and visitors in) Vermont and Alaska don't need a permit for either open or concealed carry. The statistics don't support any contention that those states are inherently more dangerous as a result of legal carry than states such as Texas that require a qualification target before issuing or renewing a carry permit.

gbran
July 13, 2008, 08:47 PM
VT & AK do just fine without requiring CCW permits.

Mil-Spec45
July 13, 2008, 09:06 PM
No, you need a permit. Actually, since you live in Ohio, you do NOT need a permit to open carry, and that was affirmed a few years ago by the Ohio Supreme Court.

The topic of this post is concealed carry, not open. I don't know where the majority of people on TheHighRoad stand on the open carry vs concealed carry debate...but it's not arguable to me. Open carry is ridiculous as a regular means of carry in my opinion. Concealed gives you the element of suprise and doesn't make it any more appealing to the bad guy to make you target #1. So let me rephrase: you need a permit to legally concealed carry in almost all states, period. If you want to take your chance breaking the law without one, then that's your decision.

I'm also smart enough to realize that despite what fantasy world some people want to live in thinking the law will change overnight (or even at all) that will give us 100% unrestricted gun rights, we don't; the fact is we probably never will. That's why I say "competency" over "class" is a compromise...because that's exactly what it is...not a further diminishing or losing of our rights. That would make it easier for us, not harder. Even the 1st amendment has restrictions, you know that.

Mr White
July 13, 2008, 09:13 PM
I believe that people should have to show some level of basic competency to obtain a CCP. I see too many yingyangs at the range and hear too many stories of idiots with guns that I don't think requiring owners to show tht they can at least handle and shoot a gun before they can carry one in public is asking too much.

mejeepnut
July 13, 2008, 09:21 PM
I voted people should have to take a class because it was the closest one to my way of thinking.I think when kids are in school there should be a firearms safety course.Every kid in school should have to take it and pass it,kind of like gym class or health class.It should teach them proper handling of firearms.It should teach them the hows and whys of the basic types of firearm actions and the hows and whys of the basic types of ammunition.

CAPTAIN MIKE
July 13, 2008, 09:49 PM
As a CCW instructor, I see quite a range of people applying for their permits and also a number who are in the process of renewing their permits. As you might expect, there are a number who are familiar with their firearm(s) and the full capabilities of those firearms. However a surprising number of folks who go through the class had "no clue" until they began a course of training for their Concealed Carry permit.

While I'm against having a burden of competency that is "too high" for the average person, I would be against having a complete lack of competency allowed - for the simple reason that the most basic level of firearm safety and marksmanship plus some level of situational awareness would go a long way from preventing tragic outcomes that might be avoided with some basic level training.

Now that being said, we should also recognize that just because a person has their CCW permit doesn't mean they regularly practice. It also doesn't mean that we can assume they have sought further firearms competency by attending FrontSight.com, PFCtraninng.com, Thunder Ranch, or any of the other excellent firearms training facilities available in the USA.

So it is that I often encourage students who go throught the basic CCW permit course to seek out and attend further training that will enhance their skill levels and make it more likely that if the Shinola Hits the Fan, and they are in a life-or-death struggle with full adrenaline dump and the tachypsychia effect in full throttle, they will be able to retain enough skills to save their own life and/or perhaps the life of a loved one or another innocent in the face of a killer.

We in the firearms community often take too much for granted. When I see a person dressed and carrying themselves in such a manner that it seems to me they are "too tactical", I naturally wonder if they have true skill-at-arms or whether they are a poser wearing the clothes and acountrements and merely 'talking the talk'. Be that as it may, we owe it to ourselves and to others who carry to seek out better and more training, and yes to regularly practice those skills on the range. I for one love the IDPA because of that. I also like USPSA but feel that their 'gamesmanship' offers the serious self-defense practitioner less than what might otherwise be given.

All things being equal, skill-at-arms is worth the training, the time and the effort you make to improve. To quote the Boy Scout Motto: "Be Prepared".

gbran
July 13, 2008, 09:55 PM
As a CCW instructor, I see quite a range of people applying for their permits and also a number who are in the process of renewing their permits. As you might expect, there are a number who are familiar with their firearm(s) and the full capabilities of those firearms. However a surprising number of folks who go through the class had "no clue" until they began a course of training for their Concealed Carry permit.


I've had my ccw for 8 years now and have to renew every two. There are usually 25-30 people in the renewal classes I attend. Many of them were in my previous classes. Some of these repeats can't shoot any better than they did in years past. I suspect they only practice every two years.

wyocarp
July 13, 2008, 11:57 PM
I expected that many would come down on me kind of hard for wanting people to show competency before obtaining a permit. I guess I am of the opinion that everyone should be allowed to own any gun they want and to carry it openly. I guess I also advocate being able to buy any gun I would like in any state that I find it for sale in.

I also feel that we could have a permit for concealed carry and that permit would allow the carry of a firearm anywhere in the United States with the understanding that those with the permit have shown they are competent to use the weapon and have passed background checks to prove that they have at least had a decent past.

kevkan06
July 14, 2008, 12:05 AM
can a Ruger New Model Blackhawk .357 w/ 4 5/8" barrel be used to take the Concealed Carry test in S.C.?

SG1
July 14, 2008, 12:08 AM
I thought the whole point in taking the "class" was to show some minimal level of weapon competency before applying for the license?

230RN
July 14, 2008, 02:58 AM
With all due respect, does this sound self-contradictory to you?

Or is it just me?

I believe that people should have to show some level of basic competency to obtain a CCP. I see too many yingyangs at the range and hear too many stories of idiots with guns that I don't think requiring owners to show tht they can at least handle and shoot a gun before they can carry one in public is asking too much.
__________________
What part of 'shall not be infringed' are they having trouble with?

A cigar to you, TallPine, for:

I'm guessing more people would be more familiar with firearms if not for all the gun control laws.

[BELL RING]

'Cept you forgot the blasphemous condemnatory adjective before the words "gun control laws."

Soybomb
July 14, 2008, 04:52 AM
I think its human nature to want to be the "only one professional enough in the room." A lot of gun owners are gun control supporters, which I find infuriating and depressing. One one front I spend a significant portion of my time fighting anti's while back at home the other supposedly pro-gun people are giving away rights and failing to use the same basic critical thinking skills I try to pound into the heads of the antis. For all the "molon labe" talk I have to read on the internet I sure wish people would stop giving their rights away a little bit at a time.

Ultimately I'd answer your question just like I'd answer the question of an anti. You say you would trust only maybe 2 of 13 people in that entire class with concealed weapons. What you think or feel or imagine they might do doesn't mean anything, you need to bring some evidence. If the carry training is so inadequate in your state, can you demonstrate the bad things done by the 85% of permit holders (based on your observed sample) that you deem unfit to carry firearms? Can you show me any evidence of safety problems in states that either require no training or testing, or the states that don't even require a permit to carry? We have a huge data set available and you need to use it, not just guess.

When the anti's say "there will be blood in the streets if we allow concealed carry" we're quick to throw up that mountain of evidence of states that already allow carry to prove that there will not. When you say "there will be blood in the streets if we don't have permits with tests and training" shouldn't you be looking at the states that don't to see if your fears are founded? We already know what will happen because its happening in multiple places and has been for years, there is no need to play make believe.

Jwebb
July 14, 2008, 07:31 AM
I actually agree with the must take a class to obtain a permit, but highly believe in the open carry law which we currently have over 20,000 petition signatures for in Texas hoping it will pass. Most people look at the sense that people should not be allowed to carry handguns in the "open" legally because it will in the end cause more violence and killings, yet arent there still people out there today carrying hanguns without permits? There will always be the responsible people and the irresponsible people with firearms either way you slice it in my opinion.

dogrunner
July 14, 2008, 10:40 AM
Safe handling and familiarization OUGHT to be taught in high school..........just like drivers ed! Still you are not going to suceed in making everyone a safe and competent weapon handler...just as DE doesn't make everyone a safe and competent driver.

It DOES expose them to the concepts tho and that itself holds value, there is utterly no excuse for any adult to be so grossly ignorant of an everyday article in our society, be it a gun or a vehicle.

In reality, those 'quickie' qualification course given by the various jurisdictions DO NOT assure anyone of the day to day competance of the prospective licensee. They are not basic safety courses, they are NOT designed (regardless of the stated intent) for any purpose other than to generate some record of SUPPOSED training. I have personally witnessed more realistic and thoughtful basic firearms handling when a boy scout than exhibited in the mandated courses for at least two States.....Fella's, the truth is that there IS NO receipe that renders the kind of assurance some on this board seem to desire and I remain to be convinced that there's any value to what I've seen demanded by any jurisdiction prior to licensure.

22-rimfire
July 14, 2008, 11:20 AM
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty ignorant about a lot of things that many would consider everyday stuff. Unfortunately, I don't think a firearm is an everyday article in our society taken as a whole. I can recall struggling to open the hood of my truck on more than one occasion. Many don't know how to check the oil in a car let alone change a tire. The list is endless.

never_retreat
July 14, 2008, 11:33 AM
I voted for No one should have to have a permit.
But I think it should be just marked on your drivers license whether you can or can not own a firearm. Simple

TallPine
July 14, 2008, 11:36 AM
A cigar to you, TallPine

Thanks, but I don't smoke :)


I have a question for those of you all who think training needs to be required by the govt:

Do I suddenly become less safe with a concealed firearm when I step across the city limits?

Or do I suddenly become less safe with a firearm when my shirt or vest covers it?

brighamr
July 14, 2008, 11:50 AM
I'm glad the continental militia didn't require permits... we might still be wearing white wigs and stockings.

jqbagley
July 14, 2008, 03:38 PM
Crap. I voted for the first one with seeing the last option. No one should need a permit to bear arms, concealed or not.

Prince Yamato
July 14, 2008, 03:45 PM
I like the Texas take on this. You don't need a permit to purchase, but you need a permit (and the requisite competency test) to carry concealed unless you have an immediate need (ie, you're life is being immediately threatened).

There's more to carrying than just shooting proficiency, there's also knowing the law. People need to know that you can't just aimlessly fire at a threat. There are consequences for hitting innocent people. People also need to be aware of things like brandishing a firearm, the fact that the CCW permit does not make them an officer of the law, etc. I know that very few people fail the shooting proficiency part of the Texas CCW test, but still there are a few that do. Back to shooting proficiency; if you see how easy the test is, you would understand why people like that should be denied a permit. They will pose a greater danger to themselves and others.

Still, if there was a situation that warranted it, I wouldn't wish to deny someone the right to protect themselves.

ctdonath
July 14, 2008, 03:46 PM
Why does the question address "concealed" only? Is there some difference in competencies between open & concealed carry that I am unaware of?

Many/most states allow unlicensed open carry. Doesn't that show there isn't a problem with unlicensed carry - open or concealed?

ROVERMAN
July 14, 2008, 04:10 PM
Yes I do. I was alarmed at the number of students in my class that had difficulty hitting a B27 at 7 meters. In my opinion newcomers to owning handguns should have to take and pass a basic competency handgun course as a qualifier to taking the CCH course. But on the other hand I have seen many people that have owned them for years that alarm me when I am at the range too.

CallMeIshmael
July 14, 2008, 04:21 PM
Quote:
"We dont need any more rules for something we dont need rules for in the first place."

Should have thought of that myself. Good thinking!

AK103K
July 14, 2008, 06:53 PM
For those who think we need to require a "test" to get your permit. Should we also go back to taking a test at the polls to vote?

Soybomb
July 14, 2008, 07:54 PM
There's more to carrying than just shooting proficiency, there's also knowing the law. People need to know that you can't just aimlessly fire at a threat. There are consequences for hitting innocent people. People also need to be aware of things like brandishing a firearm, the fact that the CCW permit does not make them an officer of the law, etc. I know that very few people fail the shooting proficiency part of the Texas CCW test, but still there are a few that do. Back to shooting proficiency; if you see how easy the test is, you would understand why people like that should be denied a permit. They will pose a greater danger to themselves and others.
So then we need to have mandatory testing for all gun ownership right? We can't have people firing their guns off wildly in their homes in self defense without knowing the laws.

AK103K
July 14, 2008, 08:13 PM
I think the biggest point missed here is, you are responsible for your actions and have to suffer the consequences if you screw up. It was never the intent of the founding fathers to have government tell us what to do, or at least, thats how I was always taught. You have the right to do as you wish, as long as by doing so, you dont violate anyone else's rights. Well, that was until federal, state, and local government interferences.

To me a drivers license, is just as bad as a pistol permit, or any other permit for whatever reason, and nothing more than people control. All of this is truly about control, and nothing more. Every time you rush out to get a permit or license, you just reinforce the fact your willing to give up a right, and give them the power over you to enforce their rules.

It just amazes me, that what we are told and what really goes on, are two totally different things, but no one seems to notice. What, are y'all askeer'd they might hide the beer and take football off the boob tube? :)

230RN
July 14, 2008, 08:30 PM
Let's remember the difference between a right to be revoked, and a privilege to be granted.

The latter presumes "guilt," so to speak, in advance.

(By the way, I posted before taking the poll and when I then tried to click on a poll answer it gave me an "already voted" message. So count one more for "No one should have to have a permit.")

Smith
July 14, 2008, 08:31 PM
I mis-read the last choice as "nobody should be allowed to have a permit" and was shocked at how many people chose it! Lol!

Aguila Blanca
July 14, 2008, 08:42 PM
I am shocked at the number of people who posted in this thread who consider themselves to be 2nd Amendment advocates, yet who voted AND POSTED in favor of infringing the Constitutional right to keep and "bear" arms.

As the saying goes, people, "What part of 'Shall not be infringed' do you not understand"?

I am incredibly disheartened by the results of this poll Incredibly!

starshooter231
July 14, 2008, 09:12 PM
I agree that the 2A is your permit. However I think all public schools should be required to offer a firearms safety course for all students age X and older.

Prince Yamato
July 14, 2008, 10:56 PM
However I think all public schools should be required to offer a firearms safety course for all students age X and older.

I agree with this too, however, in lieu of this, I favor the CCW class (and by extension, CCW permit).

So then we need to have mandatory testing for all gun ownership right?

No. That is not the extension of my logic. Carrying a loaded weapon in public carries a greater responsibility with it than merely having a loaded weapon at home. At some basic level though, I would like to know that the person preparing to use the weapon in a public area has a basic level of proficiency.

Honestly, you see those people at the range that can't hit the target two feet in front of them? Do you want to be standing next to that "target" when they have to defend themselves in public? I'm not saying I expect everyone to be an expert shooter, but I would expect people to be able to hit center of mass from 7-10 feet. There's some people who are so bad, they can't even do that.

A CCW class is not an infringement. It's a pain in the neck at worst.

Folks, I'm not enthralled by the idea of a permit. They're expensive (at least in Texas) and a pain to get (11 hour class in Texas). But the class isn't worthless. And FWIW, I don't believe in restricting where people can carry. But, when people do carry, I at least want a minimum assurance that they can competently handle their tool.

Prince Yamato
July 14, 2008, 11:16 PM
However I think all public schools should be required to offer a firearms safety course for all students age X and older.

I agree with this too, however, in lieu of this, I favor the CCW class (and by extension, permit).

So then we need to have mandatory testing for all gun ownership right?

No. That is not the extension of my logic. Carrying a loaded weapon in public carries a greater responsibility with it than merely having a loaded weapon at home. At some basic level though, I would like to know that the person preparing to use the weapon in a public area has a basic level of proficiency.

Honestly, you see those people at the range that can't hit the target two feet in front of them? Do you want to be standing next to that "target" when they have to defend themselves in public?

I realize this is a very touchy issue.

Harve Curry
July 14, 2008, 11:18 PM
I didn't vote because the poll didn't offer the option of just carrying.

Sorry, I misread misunderstood that. I went back and voted #5.

Aguila Blanca
July 15, 2008, 12:02 AM
I didn't vote because the poll didn't offer the option of just carrying.
Option #5 "No one should have to have a permit"

saspic
July 15, 2008, 12:16 AM
I voted you shouldn't need to have it, but I like the Alaska model where it is optional. Not required, but for those who want the nod from the government, it's available.
I would still get one because it looks good if you are stopped by the police or if you ever have to shoot someone (heavens forbid).

Can't we make politicians take a test on American history and civil liberties? If they fail, let's send them to Army basic training. :evil:

jrfoxx
July 15, 2008, 12:49 AM
as has been mentioned, there are 2 states that require NO permit to carry concealed, and thus, require no training.There are then even more states that allow open carry with no permit, and no training, and even more that allow open and/or concealed only with a permit, but getting the permit requires no training. So, given the number of states that list includes, where is the evidence that there is a higher rate of gun accidents realted to carry, bad shoots related to carry, brandishing problems, etc, as compared to states that require training? If there is such a difference, then there should be plenty of evidence to back it up, given the number of people we are talking about right?

I have never seen any of this evidence presented by anyone who has propsed a need for mandatory training, no matter how many times they are asked to do so.

So, those who say mandatory training makes a difference, and is needed, lets see the state by state evidence that shows this.Should be easy to find, as there are a fair number of states with no training requirement to draw from.

Soybomb
July 15, 2008, 01:10 AM
No. That is not the extension of my logic. Carrying a loaded weapon in public carries a greater responsibility with it than merely having a loaded weapon at home. At some basic level though, I would like to know that the person preparing to use the weapon in a public area has a basic level of proficiency.
Now wait a minute in your first post you essentially said you thought it was important to both protect non-involved parties around the shooting and to be sure that people knew the law regarding shootings. How do those not apply in my home? If you need to spoon feed me the law for concealed carry, why don't you need to spoon feed the law for defending myself at home? If you're worried about the guy next to a person getting shot at, aren't you just as worried about the neighbors in the apartment 4 sheets of dry wall over?

Honestly, you see those people at the range that can't hit the target two feet in front of them? Do you want to be standing next to that "target" when they have to defend themselves in public? I'm not saying I expect everyone to be an expert shooter, but I would expect people to be able to hit center of mass from 7-10 feet. There's some people who are so bad, they can't even do that.
Way back in the day I thought concealed carry was a bad idea no matter what. I couldn't imagine that the general public could be trusted to carry use guns safely. I went looking for statistics to support my position and found that my guess was just wrong. What I worried about happening just didn't happen. Does what you worry about happening actually happen?

A CCW class is not an infringement. It's a pain in the neck at worst.
I suppose this comes down to opinions but I disagree strongly. To most of us a couple hundred bucks for training classes, background checks, an afternoon off work to visit the sheriff's office, etc are no big deal. Some people, often the people who live in areas with high crime rates, might find the costs and hoops very prohibitive. Again I ask, what problem is there in alaska and vermont that we need to fix by having permits?

Folks, I'm not enthralled by the idea of a permit.
You'll forgive me if I take that as a half-hearted statement given that you're supporting them.

. They're expensive (at least in Texas) and a pain to get (11 hour class in Texas).
No infringement you say...

But the class isn't worthless.
Great we're getting to the heart of the matter at last. I want to see the tangible benefits. What stats can you provide that show that the training classes in Texas make carrying in Texas better than in states without such requirements? If its just better because you say so, your claim doesn't seem any more valid than the brady group saying that the assault weapons ban makes things better.

Just like all the other threads on the issue, plenty of gun owners support licensing, mandatory training, testing, etc but no one can step forward and show any evidence that supports the notion that those infringements make concealed carry any safer or fix any problems. Don't be like the brady group guys, look for facts and evidence before you say that gun control is a good idea. Its hard enough fighting the antis, we don't need gun owners giving up ground voluntarily too.

M203Sniper
July 15, 2008, 02:53 AM
Arizona requires 8 hours and that you hit paper that's pretty minimal, and I almost agree with the statement;

Never_retreat I voted for No one should have to have a permit.
But I think it should be just marked on your drivers license whether you can or can not own a firearm. Simple

but I'll fix it for you; I voted for No one should be required to have a permit, they can always legally Open Carry. But I think it should be just marked on your drivers license if you can not legally PURCHASE a firearm. Like if you require an ignition interlock for being a drunkard, punitive and Simple


A competency test is legitimate if it is equally applied & strictly for CC.
CCW's should be valid in 50 states & Puerto Rico.
OC should be legal.
and I'll add that if a business has a parking lot for customers they can not keep all the Imports off of their lot, neither could a business keep "some" members of the public out for a legal action, like Open Carry. Now let's see that kinda legislation.

for some of us this is a step back, but for others it is a huge leap forward. Just Level the field.

:cool:

230RN
July 15, 2008, 02:59 AM
Double post

Prince Yamato
July 15, 2008, 03:01 AM
Great we're getting to the heart of the matter at last. I want to see the tangible benefits. What stats can you provide that show that the training classes in Texas make carrying in Texas better than in states without such requirements? If its just better because you say so, your claim doesn't seem any more valid than the brady group saying that the assault weapons ban makes things better.

Easy pilgrim, them's fightin' words. I'm not for an AWB. NEVER have been. The only rifles I own are AKs, so that would be rather stupid. Check another thread I started- I'm looking at buying a suppressor in the coming year.

And do NOT paint me against CCW, because I assure you I am NOT against CCW. Nor am I FOR weapons registration. However, I do not view CCW licensing as an infringement because you can still legally carry concealed IF there is an emergency need (affirmative defense).

I'm merely saying that there's nothing wrong with a CCW permit system. In a perfect world, we'd all be taught gun safety and basic marksmanship in school- we don't live in that world. Long story short, there are those who simply cannot accurately shoot to save their life (literally), let alone another's. Similarly, there are those who cannot drive worth a damn- I don't mean the "bad drivers" on the road. I'm talking about people who have complete inability to control a motor vehicle. Now, I don't care if these people buy a car and drive it in circles around their house or up and down their driveway- a familiar surrounding, but I sure don't want them driving on the expressway. Similarly, I don't worry so much about an inexperienced shooter firing a weapon in their home- again, a familiar surrounding. And honestly, I don't worry about over penetration from handgun rounds in a home. If the round hits something else in the home, it's probably the couch or the TV. The same person firing defensively in a crowded theatre, is a different matter. The bulk of the excess material, is flesh.

Look, I'm not saying you have to be an FBI marksman to get a CCW. If you can hit center of mass, you're fine. I have personally witnessed a woman at a CCW class who missed the damn target at 5 feet. That person does NOT need to be carrying a weapon in public. She can't use it effectively. I'd say the same thing about her using a circular saw if she consistently missed cuts by 10-15 inches. At any rate, she didn't get a permit.

There were however, many people who did and rightly so. The showed they were proficient enough to handle the weapon. Again, not FBI marksmen, but they could all put down a miscreant if need be. And so I don't have to post again... yes, I do support the same requirement for the police. If Officer Bob is missing low and right by 5 feet, no gun for you Officer Bob.

I want unrestricted CCW. I want all CCW holders to be able to carry in schools- elementary, highschool, college, medical school. You should be able to carry. What I don't want is the functionally incompetent example I keep mentioning to get a CCW. Picture that person using their weapon in a defensive situation in a school, missing low and right by feet and hitting a kid. You want bad press for CCW holders? There you go- oh yeah and you have a dead kid.

I'll add another example:

I often post in threads that the day NYC goes "shall issue", I'd probably move there. Would you honestly want (again) said person who misses low and right by 5 feet to draw her weapon and shoot at an attacker on the subway-missing? I sure as hell wouldn't. Are you one of those who subscribes to the notion that "a few casualties are worth it for the greater freedom?" I'm assuming you're probably not. Now, I realize that there is no way to eliminate all accidental shootings, but they can be reduced by having a basic shooting requirement.

And for God's sake, I don't support magazine restrictions or any of that garbage. So quit it with the, "first they came for" crap.

Finally, I don't have any direct stats to back up my statement. Hell, maybe I'm completely wrong. It's my preference though, that those who make it their business to defend life around me can do so competently. With the Texas system, at least I know that the CCWers can hit center of mass. That's at least 300,000-some people who can do that and there is documented proof that they can do that.

230RN
July 15, 2008, 03:17 AM
It's reasonable to require a permit.

It's reasonable to require a class to get the permit

It's reasonable to require a four hour class.

It's reasonable to require an eleven hour class.

It's reasonable to require a 48 hour class.

It's reasonable to charge $25 for the permit.

It's reasonable to charge $150 for the permit.

It's reasonable to charge $1500 for the permit.

It's reasonable to require that you only carry the gun you qualified with.

It's reasonable to restrict the magazine capacity to ten rounds.

It's reasonable to limit the power of your carry piece.

It's reasonable to limit the caliber of your carry piece.

It's reasonable to limit the bullet type in your carry piece cartridges.

It's reasonable to require that your cartridge is limited to 600 f/s.

It's reasonable to require that you keep your firearms disassembled when at home.

It's reasonable to require a locking mechanism within your gun.

Anything else reasonable? I've almost run out of breath....

[deep breath] Ah, OK.

It's reasonable to require a $200 NFA tax

It's reasonable to require a $5000 NFA tax

It's reasonable to deny suppressors for firearms without a $200 stamp.

It's reasonable to deny supressors without a $5000 stamp.

It's reasonable to ban barrel shrouds.

It's reasonable to ban centerfire rifles over cal .50.

It's reasonable to ban centerfire rifles over cal .30.

It's reasonable to ban muzzleloading rifles with scopes.

It's reasonable to ban use of any scope over 4 power.

It's reasonable to

Prince Yamato
July 15, 2008, 03:51 AM
Here is irony on THR...

People bitch out "the sheep" and following blindly, yet if you don't follow lock-step with everyone on here, you are chided. Who's the sheep?

So far, in the past two days, I've been called:

an anti
a queer
a Democrat

I am none of the three.

If you don't like differences of opinion or don't want to hear them, don't offer the options in your polls.

jakemccoy
July 15, 2008, 04:35 AM
Be careful what you wish for with your "reasonable" requirements. Before you know it, you'll be forced to navigate through California-type requirements, such as "may issue" permits (also known as "no issue" permits). I totally see how California got to where it is. Gun owners like some people on this site wanted the requirements. The anti-gun people just followed up with extra weight.

Aguila Blanca
July 15, 2008, 11:39 AM
And do NOT paint me against CCW, because I assure you I am NOT against CCW. Nor am I FOR weapons registration. However, I do not view CCW licensing as an infringement because you can still legally carry concealed IF there is an emergency need (affirmative defense).
And here again, what may be true for Texas MUST be true everywhere, right?

There is no such exception or affirmative defense in my state, or in most states that require a license or permit for concealed carry. A requirement for a license or a permit IS an infringement. Do you understand what the word "infringe" means? Look it up. Anything that in any way limits, restricts, or curtails the right to keep and bear arms is, by definition, an "infringement."

22-rimfire
July 15, 2008, 11:53 AM
Life is full of compromises.
I don't particularly like filling out the Federal Form 4473 to purchase a firearm.
I certainly don't like the NICs check done on me when I purchase a firearm.
I don't like having to give my finger prints to purchase a firearm in TN.
I don't like being forced to take a class to teach me most of what I already know for CCW.
I don't like spending around $150 for a CCW permit in TN.
I don't like new "reasonable" gun control laws under consideration.
I don't like Mayor Fenty even though I have never met him.

I don't like sweet tea. That about covers it! :)

I'm no lawyer and I'm certainly not a politician. I think many things are an infringement on my rights relative to guns. I suspect it is perfectly legal at this time for the federal government and states to require all the things I don't like regardless of my opinion. The mayor is another matter. The fight goes on.

230RN
July 15, 2008, 12:10 PM
Honestly, you see those people at the range that can't hit the target two feet in front of them? Do you want to be standing next to that "target" when they have to defend themselves in public?

I think maybe that's why they're at the range.

I, on the other hand, punched Xs all day long the first time I picked up a gun.

Glad you did, too.

dogrunner
July 15, 2008, 12:52 PM
Well, Yamato, I certainly woulden't brand you as anything other than a product of your environment. You're from Texas, a State that requires some pretty close regulation of pistol packin'........much, much more so than most other of our Western States. Likely that's a product of the cultural base that settled a lot of that neck of the woods. You seem to want to accept those regulations as "reasonable". Apparently a substantial amount of the posters hereon don't....certainly I don't, but my 'cultural' background is from the hills of W.va, and in most of the Appalachians the "gun culture" is older than the United States itself.....! In fact, the people of West Virginia TOOK BACK their right to keep and carry (open without any license) after over 70 years of extreme "regulation" that really amounted to prohibition! I know of no other jurisdiction that was so stringently regulated to have done so!
So yes, I DO think you are influenced by those attitudes and cultural mores prevelant where you are. Now, Florida, where I've lived for over fifty years has an interesting dichotomy of values.....The extreme southern tip is reflective of the eastern liberal establish attitude on the subject....with notable exceptions the balance of the State is way over the tipping point in the other direction...........which is why Florida led the pack with CCW reform, and qualification along with most regulation is about as minimal as we could get it.......and we're not done yet!

You are simply reflecting what you accept and where you live...simple as that!

Gunnerpalace
July 15, 2008, 01:18 PM
If you don't like differences of opinion or don't want to hear them, don't offer the options in your polls.

Don't worry it happens it is an Internet forum, the reason we have seen this increase is disappointed people who thought Heller was going to remove every single gun law ever enacted. which, was never going to happen, I find it interesting to see the zeal people have for Vermont carry across the US but, also think 922o will never go away.

Oh yeah,
It's reasonable to require a permit.

It's reasonable to require a class to get the permit

It's reasonable to require a four hour class.

It's reasonable to charge $25 for the permit.

It's reasonable to require a $200 NFA tax


I find these reasonable.

Soybomb
July 15, 2008, 02:00 PM
Easy pilgrim, them's fightin' words. I'm not for an AWB. NEVER have been. The only rifles I own are AKs, so that would be rather stupid. Check another thread I started- I'm looking at buying a suppressor in the coming year.
I never said you were for an awb, I was trying to draw a comparison. There is no evidence that an AWB does anything for public safety. The antis support them anyway because despite having no evidence, they feel like they're a good thing. You have no evidence that these carry conditions/restrictions increase safety but support them anyway. It hardly seems fair that we hammer the bradys for supporting laws that have no evidence of effectiveness and then doing the same thing ourselves does it?

Would you honestly want (again) said person who misses low and right by 5 feet to draw her weapon and shoot at an attacker on the subway-missing? I sure as hell wouldn't.
And the bradys say there will be shoot outs over parking spaces if we allow concealed carry. Of course concealed carry is already here and they can't prove what they fear actually happens. Why can we strike down their baseless fears yet you feel like yours deserve respect. If what you're saying does actually happen then lets see it. Shouldn't we have a problem before we try to fix it?

I do not view CCW licensing as an infringement because you can still legally carry concealed IF there is an emergency need (affirmative defense).
In your own words you said its a pain because of the time involved and expensive. Aren't those barriers to entry for people?

Are you one of those who subscribes to the notion that "a few casualties are worth it for the greater freedom?" I'm assuming you're probably not. Now, I realize that there is no way to eliminate all accidental shootings, but they can be reduced by having a basic shooting requirement.
Think of the children! Seriously though we're not even down to the matter of "greater public safety vs. maximum freedom" because you haven't provided any evidence of increased safety. You need to first demonstrate that these restrictions do lead to eliminating some accidental shootings before we can have that debate.

Finally, I don't have any direct stats to back up my statement. Hell, maybe I'm completely wrong. It's my preference though, that those who make it their business to defend life around me can do so competently.
How is that different than when the brady group says its their preference to be sure that those who own handguns in the same neighborhoods and apartment buildings they live in are trained to use and store their guns safely? How is it different than when they say its their preference that people living around them not have "assault weapons" because it makes them feel safer?

In the end nothing I say will convince you that what you ask for is unnecessary and wrong. I would ask that you challenge your own beliefs though. There are a number of us here who spend a great deal of time campaigning for more 2nd amendment rights and its terrible to spend all that time doing so and having people on our own team chipping away at what we're trying to do. You don't have any stats and admit you might be wrong and already own guns. Thats a better start than I usually have going into things. Go looking for the statistics to back up your position. Maybe mandatory training and testing doesn't make concealed carry safer than states without it. If it doesn't, quit supporting additional restrictions on self defense. But at the least spend a little time researching the effectiveness of the laws your supporting. If you're right, come tell us about it. We can use that information to make concealed carry better. You'd be doing the entire gun rights community a service.

People bitch out "the sheep" and following blindly, yet if you don't follow lock-step with everyone on here, you are chided. Who's the sheep?
Only 42% of the people in this thread agree with me at this time, you're in the majority when it comes to wanting permits. I don't care for the term sheep but I think if you want to be thought of as a thinking guy and not a sheep you need to be able to support your opinions and arguments with substantial fact and not guesses.

Prince Yamato
July 15, 2008, 02:48 PM
How is that different than when the brady group says its their preference to be sure that those who own handguns in the same neighborhoods and apartment buildings they live in are trained to use and store their guns safely? How is it different than when they say its their preference that people living around them not have "assault weapons" because it makes them feel safer?

Because I'm not saying there should be a mandatory training requirement for purchasing a weapon. I'm saying if you choose to purchase a weapon, with the intent to carry it and use it in a public and possibly crowded surrounding, you should have a minimum level of shooting proficiency. Also, I would never advocate for "safe storage" laws of any small arms. That's an asinine concept. Assault Weapons, like "machine guns" are a made up category of weapons and I don't have a problem with either. What your talking about is a chunk of metal coming out of a piece of formed metal at high-speed. Who cares what the formed piece of metal looks like?

You're from Texas, a State that requires some pretty close regulation of pistol packin'........much, much more so than most other of our Western States.

Yes, but our permit is allows us to carry in more places than most western states.

There are a number of us here who spend a great deal of time campaigning for more 2nd amendment rights and its terrible to spend all that time doing so and having people on our own team chipping away at what we're trying to do.

You know, I don't go to marches, and I don't have money to join the NRA, but I do my part as well. I'm a strong advocate of CCW, especially in schools. I study (PhD student) and work (teacher) in those "sensitive areas" covered under the recent Heller decision- so it's a very important issue to me. I work on converting the real antis (the far-far left people I work with), not bitching out the perceived antis (who you apparently think I am). Yes, the real anti-gun people, like the ones who live in restrictive areas like NY and CA (and have had little exposure to firearms other than the evening news) that some people on this forum consider "not part of the real US" or even people from *gasp* Dallas, a city which some Texans say, "is not really Texas". If you've read any of my other posts, you'd see that one of my goals is to see "shall issue" CCW in NYC and removal of both NYS and NYC AWBs.

Do you understand what the word "infringe" means? Look it up. Anything that in any way limits, restricts, or curtails the right to keep and bear arms is, by definition, an "infringement."

So NICS, preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a weapon is an infringement? The NFA background check preventing the same person from buying an RPG is an infringement? Hardly. If you're not a criminal they're just a pain in the neck. I'll put up with a 5 minute NICS wait if it prevents mentally ill people from purchasing guns at my favorite store. The NFA could move a little faster though. I'll concede that. Perhaps if they could merge that with NICS. Anyhow, I don't consider 5 minutes of my time an infringement. 11 hours for an initial class is a long time, but I found the class informative and so did others. If you compare it to the time I've spent in undergrad up until now, 11 hours really isn't that long either. Knowing the law is important. I'll take an 11 hour course. I think permit turn around time should be faster though. And I mean 24-72 hour turnaround, not weeks.

dogrunner
July 15, 2008, 02:55 PM
Yamato: What'd you mean "more places"....you referring to reciprocity or just general carry locale? Y'know I mentioned W.Va as a comparator, and all that State requires is some minimal type of training for a ccw......openly, well then it's do as you will....but allows that ccw nearly everywhere. Pennsylvania's the same....I really don't think that a Texas CHL allows nearly the carry freedom that one here in Florida does, and I'm sure you don't have the reciprocity agreements we do.....or am I mistaken! Further, Wyoming and Montana are extremely liberal. My take is that Texas is one of the MOST restrictive licensing States around.

FieroCDSP
July 15, 2008, 03:45 PM
In Ohio, we need 12 hours minimum class time., 10 of instruction and 2 hours live-fire. IN my particular class, we had eight hours of laws and basic shooting methods, sight alignment, etc, and then four hours of basic live fire instruction and then drawing from holster to engage, shot placement, etc.

96% of what I heard and did in the class I've learned on my own, in my own time. It was only after I learned basics, gained experience in live-fire, and learned as much as I could about safety, that I decided I would try open carry. Through my experience I learned to respect the arm and what it could do, and how best to keep myself and others safe.

Now, none of us want known criminals to have guns, but you can hardly stop that. Few of us are comfortable with the idea of someone with no knowledge of a firearm carrying one in public, openly or concealed. That lack of knowledge is simply not conductive to responsibility. We want people that are willing to invest time and effort into becoming responsible enough to use their firearm in a safe manner.

So where does that leave us?
The gun culture is a self-governing group in its base form. If all of those selling guns are responsible persons, they make sure to recommend a safety and basic handling course to a first time gun buyer. The instructors (or even a book about gun handling/safety) are responsible for teaching people what they need to safely use the gun, etc...
The gun owner is the first responsibility. It is that person who has the legal and moral duty to know their gun, know the law, and be willing to invest time and energy into learning those.
But if no one ever tells them that they should get training, how are they supposed to know?

It's not a black/white issue. While the owner bears ultimate responsibility for their actions with the gun, the gun culture at-large bears a responsibility to do a minimum part in making sure each individual knows that responsibility comes from training and experience, not simply from owning.
I think the gun control laws in some states (Ohio for example; you know, the places it's easier to get one) are in place largely to ensure those who choose to take the time to learn responsibility are the ones getting the guns. Infringement exists when someone decides that people shouldn't have the chance to learn how to become responsible.

So where does my rambling leave me? I think the gun culture as a whole needs to step up a bit more and the government needs to take many steps back. The people that intentionally/accidently murder someone with a gun are already committing a crime. That's when the government should step in, say:"you're a criminal", and deal with that person.
It is in our best interest as gunnies to make sure those around us are trained, and responsible. Gun stores should inquire (politely, of course) to a person who seems like they might not know what they're doing, as to whether that person has had training, etc, and while completing the sale, strongly recommend training, and the reasons why it's beneficial. It then becomes that person's responsibility to learn what they can.

Sheesh...what a mess. Am I making any kind of sense? I don't think licenses should be necessary, but at this point, there are times when I'm glad they are, at least to carry concealed. OC is something a lot of people are uncomfortable with, for one reason or another, and kind of self-regulates. You have a gun on your hip, and people are watching you.
Maybe I'm just rambling after all. Anyway, we shouldn't need the government to govern over something we can govern ourselves with a bit more dilligence.

M203Sniper
July 15, 2008, 03:55 PM
It is not a black and white issue.

It is not a state issue either.

The ability to regulate CCW OC and Firearms purchases should be taken away from the states and "DC" and given to one Federal standard.













:cool:

texas bulldog
July 15, 2008, 04:58 PM
The topic of this post is concealed carry, not open. I don't know where the majority of people on TheHighRoad stand on the open carry vs concealed carry debate...but it's not arguable to me. Open carry is ridiculous as a regular means of carry in my opinion. Concealed gives you the element of suprise and doesn't make it any more appealing to the bad guy to make you target #1. So let me rephrase: you need a permit to legally concealed carry in almost all states, period.

well if you say so, then surely it must be true. like yamato, you might want to find some evidence that these assertions are fact.

again...restrictions that cannot be supported by evidence that they actually improve the situation have no place in our gun laws.

Prince Yamato
July 15, 2008, 05:36 PM
Yamato: What'd you mean "more places"....you referring to reciprocity or just general carry locale?

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant general locales. Like churches, restaurants (that don't have the 51% signs) and school property (though not school buildings). I think NY trumps TX though, as they don't mind carry in bars. What I was getting at is that some "pro-gun" states have restrictions on places like churches and restaurants. The bar restriction cheeses me off as does the school one, but those are basically the last "hold outs" in our state.

yeti
July 15, 2008, 06:08 PM
While in an ideal world Vermont type carry should be universal, personally, I'm not sure letting any yahoo stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public is really such a good idea.

Yet, being far from the ideal world, our gun laws work for us. Now possibly having permits for procreation, or being anywhere around children, might be more suitable here, our gun laws(or lack of) are fine.

The ability to regulate CCW OC and Firearms purchases should be taken away from the states and "DC" and given to one Federal standard.

NOOOooooo thank you! I do not need the Feds to tell me I need some kind of government permit. I don't need a permit to carry open or concealed now, I sure don't want the Feds helping protect my rights by requiring me to obtain some goverment approved permit, no matter how easy they make it to obtain one.

Mil-Spec45
July 16, 2008, 12:12 AM
The fact is (sad fact) is that guns will be regulated from here on out no matter what we want or what we want to think.

People always compare 2A with 1A, but let's look at 1A...You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't say the "F" word over public TV, radio, or some other public places, you cannot slander or defame someone, you cannot commit purgery in court, you cannot file a false report to police officers (i.e. "I was raped"), you cannot give false news in newspapers or news channels. Someone commiting some of the above acts could be monetarily fined or jailed, even though there is a freedom of speech. So how can people sit there and say 1st amendment isn't regulated or infringed?

I'm glad I get to concealed carry at all...it's relatively new to my state and nowhere in the constitution does not specify concealed carry as an option under "bearing" of arms, which is why it's left to the state. I wish it did. But it doesn't.

Autolycus
July 16, 2008, 12:19 AM
What if we let Diane Feinstein or Sarah Brady decide the amount of training required? Would everyone be ok with that?

I voted for no permit required. Its a right.

Soybomb
July 16, 2008, 12:57 AM
People always compare 2A with 1A, but let's look at 1A...You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't say the "F" word over public TV, radio, or some other public places, you cannot slander or defame someone, you cannot commit purgery in court, you cannot file a false report to police officers (i.e. "I was raped"), you cannot give false news in newspapers or news channels. Someone commiting some of the above acts could be monetarily fined or jailed, even though there is a freedom of speech. So how can people sit there and say 1st amendment isn't regulated or infringed?
Those examples don't seem to be infringements but just ways that people are responsible for what they do with their freedom of speech just as you're responsible for what you do with your freedom to keep and bear arms. Using your free speech irresponsibly in a way that might harm other, like yelling fire, might cause harm to others and bring punishment to you. Similarly if you behave irresponsibly with your firearm in a way that could harm others, you might be deserving of punishment as well. Note that we don't have a free speech licensing system with tests and training.

nowhere in the constitution does not specify concealed carry as an option under "bearing" of arms
The constitution is not an all inclusive document. Note that bear arms doesn't say in any particular fashion, open, concealed, at home, etc. I don't know why you would expect to include a list any more than you'd expect the first amendment to explicitly mention electronic communication or the 4th amendment to list telephone conversations.

saspic
July 16, 2008, 01:01 AM
originally posted by Prince Yamato
What I was getting at is that some "pro-gun" states have restrictions on places like churches and restaurants. The bar restriction cheeses me off as does the school one, but those are basically the last "hold outs" in our state.
Me too! Have you joined the Texas State Rifle Association yet? I just became a life member.

http://www.tsra.com/?p=page&id=1

I understand this year we are focusing on getting pro gun legislators elected for next year's session. We already know Governor Perry is receptive to expanding right to carry, so it's time to push!

ctdonath
July 16, 2008, 12:14 PM
While in an ideal world Vermont type carry should be universal, personally, I'm not sure letting any yahoo stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public is really such a good idea.
Let's analyze that idea: in Vermont (and Alaska), any yahoo CAN stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public - and it doesn't seem to be a problem. ...so what's the problem?

jakemccoy
July 16, 2008, 03:31 PM
Some of you guys from states that enjoy ample gun rights crack me up. You really don't know much about the fire with which you're playing. "Reasonable restrictions" is a real powder keg. You should be using all your cleverness and mental abilities to resist, not allow, reasonable restrictions on guns.

Please understand that your idea of what’s reasonable will not be reflected in the laws. Rather, take your idea of reasonable and degrade it a few notches after anti-gun people get their say. The resulting gun laws will eventually be a compromise you cannot stomach. However, don't believe me. Look at DC, California and other similarly restrictive states. The proven result is right in front of your eyes, and you're still here arguing for reasonable restrictions - pretty sad.

It's best to shoot for no restrictions as a starting point of compromise.

JR47
May 13, 2009, 08:05 PM
This has reached the point where even the NRA has taken a stand. They are also against any formal training for a CCW. They, rightfully, point to the simple fact that states that are "shall-issue", and require a formal training and qualification program, DO NOT have a better record as far as shootings, brandishing, or accidental injuries goes. As these figures are available covering numerous years, where is the advantage to a "class"?

The other problem lies in the fact that politicians come and go, and can always redefine a requirement. What's an 11 hour program could easily become a 24 hour program, or a 72 hour program. Once the requirement has been codified, the temptation to increase it will always exist. :)

wankerjake
May 13, 2009, 08:31 PM
Yeah, I think you should have to show competency to carry concealed in public. A lot of people don't know their arses from their elbows when it comes to safely handling firearms. When I took the class there were a few people who I could tell knew nothing about the firearm they were qualifying with. Defending your home and carrying on your property is your own business, but when you bring your gun out in public you need to know how to use it properly and accurately.

PT1911
May 13, 2009, 08:41 PM
Accepting a "permit" means you've surrendered the right. A "shall issue" license means you've met some minimal level of competence and/or trustworthiness. Great pains were taken to make Texas have a CHL instead of CHP!
and the fact that myself and all of you get our permits each year or whatever interval your area requires just shows we allowed that to happen... all the blowhards can speak tough all they like, but in the end, nothing is being done to stop the infringements that are taking place... some will say, "but I support the NRA" which would be nice if they stood up for anything... but instead, they throw money at a giant gun museum and allow the government to take our rights little by little.

Frank Ettin
May 13, 2009, 10:22 PM
... some will say, "but I support the NRA" which would be nice if they stood up for anything... but instead, they throw money at a giant gun museum and allow the government to take our rights little by little. And exactly what do you propose should be done? Do you really think that a Vermont style carry law is politically a real possibility in most states? Are you prepared to throw millions of dollars into litigation to try to get the courts to throw out shall issue laws in favor of there being no permit requirements -- especially when there are virtual bans and may issue systems to challenge?

Walkalong
May 13, 2009, 10:41 PM
Should not have to have one. Folks who use guns in crime should be severely punished. That would leave the good guys in a good spot. :)

ants
May 13, 2009, 10:46 PM
Many states already have a "Three Strikes and You're Out" rule for violent felonies.

When it comes to the use of a gun in a crime, the rule should be "One Strike and You're Out, No Exceptions".

With a Three Strikes rule you have at least three victims.
With a One Strike rule, you reduce the number of victims by 2/3.

Madcap_Magician
May 13, 2009, 10:46 PM
While I'm not sure what I think about the necessity of having permits, if we're going to have them, and it seems like we're stuck with them regardless of whether or not we like them, they might as well mean something.

I think carrying a firearm requires responsibility, hence, permit holders should be able to:

1. Demonstrate that they know their state's laws regarding concealed and open carry, what they may carry, where, when they can legally draw, and when they can legally shoot.

2. Demonstrate that they can handle a firearm safely.

3. Hit a target at reasonable self-defense ranges.

4. Practice.

eventer289
May 13, 2009, 10:51 PM
I am actually totally anti government.

I never want to live in a world without government...

I am glad there are requirements for CCW permits.

AKElroy
May 13, 2009, 10:55 PM
Government does not create or give rights, it is charged with protecting and not infringing on pre-existing rights. To suggest that training or competancy should be required is to suggest that the goverment controls the right, and can withhold or disperse it at their will. We have laws against reckless endangerment and incredible legal liability aggresively enforced against anyone improperly using a weapon. I share the concern over incompetant people owning guns, but keep in perspective that more children die drowning in backyard pools than firearms accidents. Are we suggestng that a homeowner should be required to pass a swimming course for themselves and their children before they can get a permit to build a pool?

Rob360
May 13, 2009, 11:39 PM
Government does not create or give rights, it is charged with protecting and not infringing on pre-existing rights. To suggest that training or competancy should be required is to suggest that the goverment controls the right, and can withhold or disperse it at their will. We have laws against reckless endangerment and incredible legal liability aggresively enforced against anyone improperly using a weapon. I share the concern over incompetant people owning guns, but keep in perspective that more children die drowning in backyard pools than firearms accidents. Are we suggestng that a homeowner should be required to pass a swimming course for themselves and their children before they can get a permit to build a pool?

That was beautifully articulated. Well done! :cool:

Hammer-52
May 13, 2009, 11:53 PM
I voted: "Anyone should..." I really prefer the "No one should have...", but we seem to be stuck with some sort of a permit system. Yeah folks need to learn to safely handle/use a firearm but few programs are going to make people proficient. Local gun shop here offers a free range session wi the each purchase--best answer possible.

Flyboy
May 13, 2009, 11:54 PM
In my opinion...I don't feel comfortable...I felt...would I trust...I've never been any more uncomfortable...these people should not carry anything more than their driver's license.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but who the hell died and made you king?

Seriously--at the risk of leaving the High Road, when did this become all about you and your feelings? Who made you the arbiter of what people ought to be allowed to do?

Please explain to me just how your attitude is any different from, say, Dianne Feinstein ("I know what I'm doing, but you guys aren't good enough")?

eventer289
May 14, 2009, 04:26 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but who the hell died and made you king?

Seriously--at the risk of leaving the High Road, when did this become all about you and your feelings? Who made you the arbiter of what people ought to be allowed to do?

Please explain to me just how your attitude is any different from, say, Dianne Feinstein ("I know what I'm doing, but you guys aren't good enough")?

He prefaced what he stated with "in MY opinion." So it is exactly that--his own feelings on the matter. He didn't state those things as if they were fact, so it's perfectly fine that he identifies what he wrote as his own feelings.

HarleyFixer
May 14, 2009, 08:30 AM
I don't beleive that ANYTHING should be required to carry. Would I like to see people get educated and proficient on firearms? YES. The government is TOTALLY unable to do anything well and therefore I don't want them to have anything to do with my RIGHTS. I have carried a gun for the past 38 years and I will bet I am more knowledgeable and proficient than ANYONE the government can provide to TEACH me.

Kwanger
May 14, 2009, 02:25 PM
This reminds me of the thread I started last week. As I was told in no uncertain terms, advocating any kind of training requirement for anything at all to do with firearms is just plain wrong. In fact, to even have that view makes you a member of the Brady bunch, apparently. Never mind if you actually own guns yourself.

So not wanting to be labelled as such, I now say that having to have a permit for anything at all firearms related is evil and unconstitutional.

cloudedice
May 14, 2009, 02:27 PM
We've got four rules. Who could ever need any more?

ETA: I think I'm making that a sig.

sig87
May 14, 2009, 04:24 PM
I think there should be a back ground check. I do not thank any of us wont a crazy man caring. I do agree with the point that a bad guy is going to carry with the Concealed Carry or with out. I am taking a class June the first. I cant wait. I will be using my Sig p6 to take it. It will be the gun I carry ever day.

chuckusaret
May 14, 2009, 05:25 PM
When I was growing up on the farm guns were part of the every day life. I got my first Fox SS 12 ga. when I was 10 or 11, I also got my farm drivers license when I was 13. Today the only gun the average person has ever seen is on the hip of a LEO and some of you would allow them to get a license without any type of training!!!!! I don't like the government involved but to turn some of today’s idiots loose with a gun is only asking for trouble.

BhmBill
May 14, 2009, 07:00 PM
No free man should have to do what society FEELS they should just to be able to defend themselves ANYWHERE.

Permits, classes, fees, taxes, etc are all an infringement of your 2A rights.

Do I think everyone should proficient and trained in the use of firearms? Yes. Do I think mandating classes, permits, etc. is okay? Not in the slightest.

So not wanting to be labelled as such, I now say that having to have a permit for anything at all firearms related is evil and unconstitutional.

"Evil" is subjective. "Unconstitutional" is objective.

msb45
May 14, 2009, 09:32 PM
If you'd had to pass a spelling and grammar test before you could speak or post would you sign up for that? Base punishment on outcomes and behavior, not tools.

Gardien
May 14, 2009, 09:37 PM
The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit.

Issued: Dec. 15, 1791

Expires: Never

heavyshooter
May 14, 2009, 11:46 PM
The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit.

Issued: Dec. 15, 1971

Expires: Never

The 2nd amendment pre-dates 1971.

Gardien
May 15, 2009, 12:10 AM
Sorry. Typo. But I'm sure you knew that. ;)

Brian Dale
May 15, 2009, 06:28 AM
Carry without having to ask permission, just like voting, speaking, writing or going to religious services? Yes.

I also think that gun handling and marksmanship should be a required course in high school, along with math, English and history.

AK103K
May 15, 2009, 08:14 PM
I also think that gun handling and marksmanship should be a required course in high school, along with math, English and history.
Well, they were all once offered. I'm beginning to think none of them are these days.

ronto
May 15, 2009, 11:32 PM
RKBA does not mean RKBA with a permit.

The Lone Haranguer
May 15, 2009, 11:37 PM
What does the Second Amendment say, again?


I voted for no permit. It has certainly not hurt anything in VT, which has had it for many years, or AK, which recently adopted it. I am referring to an ideal situation, not (unfortunately) the reality on the ground.

acdodd
May 15, 2009, 11:43 PM
Washington state has no class or test required and that is how it should be.
There is no test required to exercise any other constitutional right.
Who would you have making the decision about who qualifies and who doesn't?
Sara Brady, Pelosi, Obama?
AC

Brian Dale
May 16, 2009, 01:19 AM
Somebody around here who's fairly wise once opined that every adult should be required to present their rifle for inspection at the polling place, in good working order, and show that they owned at least 'x' number of rounds of ammunition for it before being admitted to the voting booth to vote.

I'd add a target shooting portion. Can't hit the target? Go and practice; you'll be able to vote in the next election, after you've shown that you're able to help defend your community and your country. Handicapped shooters/voters may use crew served weapons or demonstrate that they can properly call in an air strike. :evil:

MarineOne
May 16, 2009, 05:41 AM
I see two different questions in this one this poll. The first being "Should you have a permit to carry?" and the second being "What kind of training should you have in order to carry?".

I think that we all should have the ability to carry, either concealed or open, without a permit so long as you can legally own firearms. Now, do I think there are some people that need training? Of course I do. If I had my way, I'd be training once or twice a year at a minimum.



Kris

FiREhAwk
May 16, 2009, 05:49 AM
as has been said, the person you should really be afraid of carrying a gun, doesnt care if he is supposed to have a permit or not. I felt questionable about a few of the people in my CCW class, but we all passed the same test, shot the same target and did the background check; so who am I to judge.

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