CCW shooting test mandatory (as a poll)

[Prince Yamato]

Anti-gun and a fascist... yes, that's me down to the letter...

I am going to bookmark this thread. Anytime we have a debate on where to carry and places that should be off-limits, I'm going to refer to this thread. If any of you that called me anti-gun propose restricting where I can carry or I find you expressing your "holier-than-thou" attitudes in other manners...such as teetotalism, I'm going to out YOU as the enemies of freedom.

But let me give this one more shot. Let's say that tomorrow, NYC was going to go "shall-issue". Would you really want 68 million people, many of whom have never handled a gun, much less shot one before, to be afforded the ability to carry that weapon concealed- anywhere- without demonstrating basic (and I mean BASIC, almost imbecilic) shooting skills? Think about it. What if one of those people uses the weapon on the subway but is so incompetent that they miss their aggressor and instead shoot others on the subway. When I say, I support carry everywhere, I do mean everywhere. I want to be able to carry in NYC, on a subway, etc. What I would like to know though, is that in addition to my ability to defend someone, that if someone else on that subway is CCWing, that they have the ability to defend me, if they choose to draw their weapon, and that they can do so competently and not hit me or the 10 people standing around me.

 

[rbernie]

Let's say that tomorrow, NYC was going to go "shall-issue". Would you really want 68 million people, many of whom have never handled a gun, much less shot one before, to be afforded the ability to carry that weapon concealed- anywhere- without demonstrating basic (and I mean BASIC, almost imbecilic) shooting skills? Think about it. What if one of those people uses the weapon on the subway but is so incompetent that they miss their aggressor and instead shoot others on the subway.

If this is such an issue, why haven't we seen the bodies piling up in the states that allow OC without permit or testing? Because your fear is just that - a fear, unrealized in actual real world experiences. Preventing me from doing something because I *may* do it wrong is called 'prior restraint', and it amounts to 'guilty until proven innocent'. It's just wrong.

Funny thing, it's also the tactic used by The Forces Of Evil to try to derail CHL/CCW laws in many many states (including Texas). "Blood will run in the streets if we allow common folk, without benefit of law enforcement training and credentials, to secretly carry high-powered weapons in public settings!".

Enacting laws that effect prior restraint is wrong.

Creating legal restrictions without a demonstrated problem is wrong.

Legislating from fear is wrong.

Pretending that a test will not act as a barrier (economic, operational, or other) to lawful self-defense is wrong.

Thinking that a one-time test will equate to firearms competency (especially in your given scenario) is wrong.

Valuing public safety moreso than personal liberty is wrong.

The whole bloody notion is just WRONG.

<sigh>

 

[divemedic]

Pulse- I was not attacking you. I was tying to demonstrate that another person placing a restriction on your rights through some arbitrary test is still a restriction. Me telling you that a spelling and grammar test is required for you to have speech rights is no different than you telling me I should pass a test for 2A rights.

I think it is funny that when people propose or are in favor of tests for the privilege of exercising a right, they always seem to favor a test that they themselves can pass. Isn't that called elitism? I am the only one here that is professional enough...

 

[toivo]

I can see a case for training, but not for testing. Testing opens up too many manipulative control possibilities. Training is not really restrictive, IMHO. Who would it eliminate? People who can't sit in a chair for three hours?

Training in exchange for unrestricted carry everywhere. I could live with that. YMMV.

 

[K3]

Perhaps I missed it, but it seems to me that the most vehement advocates for testing have not acknowledged Vermont and Alaska, even though they've been mentioned here and in other threads.

Why, I wonder?

 

[heavyshooter]

According to my math (keep in mind I went to public school), more than 50% of the voters are in favor of some form of training. Less than 43% are opposed. This is THR - a site for the gun enthusiast. Who would have thought that so many of us would be in favor of a proficiency test. Are you guys even open to considering the possibility that it is possible to be a 2nd amendment proponent while appreciating a need for a shooting test for those who desire to carry? If not, then you are interacting with a gang of elite fascist. Come on, you know that's not true.

I welcomed you to my state in an earlier post, but I won't call you family or a brother. Sorry, but you are part of the problem in my book. When, not if, but when our rights erode further, it will be the fault of 'our own brethren' as much as it is the fault of the fascists that want to completely disarm this nation. I wish you realized that.

Well CoRoMo,

I don't see it that way. We are brethren. I will fight for your right to keep and bear arms, always. If you consider this topic a dividing line between you and me then you are alone. I will always stand with you and your right to concealed carry. Just take your test first.

Heavy

 

[rfurtkamp]

That said, I want some VERY basic standard so that we don't have a do-gooder pulling a weapon to defend themselves in a bar or church and negligently shooting an innocent person.

Should they do so, there are criminal and civil remedies that can be pursued that are already on the books.

Negligent or criminal action are already punishable.

The Second Amendment has no restrictions on who, what, or where.

Should you wish to change that, please work within the system to change the Second - not legislate it to death in an illegal and incomprehensible manner.

 

[GBExpat]

Do you feel a reasonable (center of mass shots, silhoutte target, 10 yards) should be required to receive a CCW?

Absolutely not.

 

[ufe20]

Why don't we just forgo the entire permit process and let people spend the money they'd spend on a class/permit on a trip to the range?

In VA, I spent about $80 on a class and $50 on the permission slip itself. That's $130 or about 500 rounds of 9mm. Now for some people $130 is a lot of money, wouldn't they be better off just spending the money on ammo instead of sitting in a class(which is all I did, no test written or shooting) and taking a couple shots at a target?

It's not like anyone with access to a public library(which is pretty much everyone) can't look up the applicable laws and if they're a complete "n00b" the 4 rules and how to operate their firearm. The things aren't rocket science and I've not been around guns all that long.

So I say just skip the whole permitting process and just let the people keep their money to spend on ammo, it'll make them better shots in the long run. I know half a case of 9mm certainly would have helped me more than the class I took....

 

[John828]

Where to start? Or, really, where to end since there is no end to this debate?

The question in my mind is always, "Who sets the standard? Who decides what criteria determine the satisfactory results?"

Want me to speak freely? I actually see a repealment of 2A in the not so distant future. It may happen incrementally, but it may happen incrementally, in a very short time period due to world events.

As far as I am concerned, fight legally from the local legal level up, and you keep on fighting. And storing up.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

How often do you operate a motor vehicle? Probably several times a day.
How often do you operate a firearm in public? Maybe once a lifetime.

Exactly!

So why should it be a big deal for a law-abiding citizen to CARRY a firearm in public? And why care about some arbitrary "test'? Can that test TEST how you react in the once-in-a-lifetime situation where you might use it?

As much as we all make a big deal about marksmanship, using a gun for self defense is a heck of a lot easier to learn than using a car for transportation.

I am all for training. I am NOT for mandatory training.

 

[daorhgih]

Not to diminish our rights to own and carry, but . . .

. . .even tho' it truly is NOT all about Bambi, let's frame our comments in the context of what the ordinary carry-weapon of the 1770s was. The Framers may or may not have had primarily the long-gun in mind for "the militia." Times change. Times change us. I also find a problem with the philosophy that seems to make us all call it a "CCW", whatever that is. Our permission IS the 2d-A, and no state, person, etc. may diminish that, except for those who willingly become felons. I prefer to carry concealed, but my RIGHT is to CARRY, any way I prefer. I deem it wiser in most instances to keep my capabilities covert, but there are contexts where I can see myself as the first to fire in some dire situations. And my opinion is that if tests are to be given, it be on weapon-handling, not mere paper-punching.

 

[chris in va]

I think some sort of 'firing test' should be required. Three people in my class had never fired a handgun before, including two ladies.

People need to demonstrate they can handle a loaded firearm in a safe, respectable manner.

 

[daorhgih]

Hey Pulse !

You just keep on sayin it like you see it, and let those hissy tight-bunned librarians correct your grammar all they like ! YOU have the PROPER ATTITUDE!

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"Didn't the south have "Poll tests" at one time to discourage certain folks from voting?" Templar223. No,it was a poll tax not a test.

 

[jackdanson]

ARghhhhhhh,

RIGHTS DO NOT REQUIRE PASSING A TEST TO BE EXERCISED

If we can flex on rights then I demand an IQ test for everyone that votes. They must also pay for the test themselves at a cost of $300. (that is about the cost to get a ccw in my state after testing, permits, etc.)

 

[jackdanson]

::NEWS FLASH:: I also demand mandatory swimming training for anyone going into water with a depth of greater than one foot. More people die in drowning accidents than gun accidents.

 

[Bubba613]

"Didn't the south have "Poll tests" at one time to discourage certain folks from voting?" Templar223. No,it was a poll tax not a test.

There were both.
If you discount the discriminatory intent of poll tests, was it a bad thing that people voting had to demonstrate some command of what they were voting on?

 

[Old Guy]

The truth

[QUOTEHey Pulse !
You just keep on sayin it like you see it, and let those hissy tight-bunned librarians correct your grammar all they like ! YOU have the PROPER ATTITUDE!][/QUOTE]

He gets his message over quite well! Does he not?

Me personally, I am good with guns, quite good.

So let us look at the new Wife of a New Hampshire chap, moved from ? where ever.

She bought a S&W light weight .38 Spl. Revolver, it is in a box, reads the instructions, has a set of ear muffs, and safety glasses, loads the Smith with 5 rounds of 148g target loads (bought them at the gun shop same time as the Smith)

This Lady has read up on all the INTERNET has to offer, takes her 4 hours, holding revolver as shown in her research, goes to the back 40, and fires several shots at a large tree.

Gun now in pocket, she goes about her life. This Citizen is a danger to who?

 

[a2fireball]

According to my math (keep in mind I went to public school), more than 50% of the voters are in favor of some form of training. Less than 43% are opposed.

Website polls are flawed. One or two antis could multiple register and flood the votes.

From wikipedia:
..."A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."...

If the shoe fits

 

[RobMoore]

Anyone wanting to carry a gun in their daily life should have some form of training and regular practice, being informal with relative, friend, neighbor, or formal...

....but the responsibility to get that done is on them, not the government. I'm also not in favor of driver's licensing, pilot's licensing, restauraunt licensing, educator licensing, ect ect ect.

 

[slim76]

There already is a ccw permit-The 2nd Amendment.
Right now there is a major problem in this country with states restricting the concealed carry permit guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Although I live in Texas, the Greatest State in the Union , it is still infringing on my God-given rights.

 

[Bubba613]

Right now there is a major problem in this country with states restricting the concealed carry permit guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

There's a constitutional right to concealed carry? I must have missed that one.

 

[K3]

Perhaps I missed it, but it seems to me that the most vehement advocates for testing have not acknowledged Vermont and Alaska, even though they've been mentioned here and in other threads.

Why, I wonder?

Anyone?

Vermont's system works. Does it not?

 

[CoRoMo]

There's a constitutional right to concealed carry? I must have missed that one.

Yes, it is the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights.
To Keep and To Bear = To Own and To Carry

Still missing it?