Should There Be More Proficiency Test Requirements for CCW?

No, it is a right.

Click to expand...

Exactly that is why I asked the rhetorical question.

Is the RKBA a privlige like driving a car?

Click to expand...

It seems we accept CCW licenses as an acceptable compromise we should fight for rights like states like Vermont with CCW without licensing.

If you're going to carry, you have a responsibility to yourself and the general public to be safely proficient with your firearm. If it takes a law to get you to understand this, then you should know better and not carry.

Nope. There should be no test at all, as its a right and not a privilege.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "right." The only freedoms we have are those we grant ourselves. If you are a felon, no gun. A wifebeater? No gun. Drug addict? No gun.

Only citizens in good standing are allowed to exercise the 2nd Amendment. Went to a range today I haven't been to before, and they had me watch a 20-minute video and take a written test before shooting. I didn't have any "right" to bring guns onto their property and start blasting away. They asked me to learn their rules and agree to abide by them before shooting.

The test case for me is the woman who needs a gun to protect herself from a violent spouse or ex. Guy calls her up, says, "I'm coming over right now and I'm going to kill you and the children and you can't stop me."

I think she should be able to purchase a gun and defend herself and the kids. Too many restrictions and waiting periods and whatnot mean she's defenseless and the BG gets her. So while I'd prefer any prospective gun owner meet a minimum standard of training before purchase, it's too restrictive a requirement.

SpecialKalltheway said:

NavyLT lets not forget the police, they need to get to the range more often as well. I think if we make ammo purchases for them tax deductible then they might go almost as often as we do.

oh and opposed of course.

Click to expand...

It already is. If they are able to itemize deductions, they can deduct the ammo as "non-reimbursed employee expense".

Oh, and opposed. It's a slippery slope we don't want to go down. It'll end up like in CA where you have to take a test just to buy a gun. Screw that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a price that has been paid for our Freedom, and an ongoing price
to maintain it.

Part of that ongoing price is not to jump at even such grevious instances as you give, and bear with the fact that this freedom will incur some bad examples from time to time.

I know all too well of people who should not have guns in their hands, but for the sake of my own Freedom and yours, I'm willing not to infringe on that Amendment, but to do my best to see that those people are corrected
-by instruction, rather than restriction.

Click to expand...

Well said Mr. Thomas.

self and civil responsibility

In any social crisis, Brian, it will take Laws to "protect the public" like the German "Enabling" laws.

After passage of such "protective" measures; for the public good, the public became aware and "knew better." But it was too late.

Please don't advocate the passage of laws that erode our freedoms to get just a few irresponsible people under control. They would sooner or later
be roped in anyway, and not necessarily by a fatal occurence either.

Besides, I don't see or read or hear of reckless armed citizens reaking public havoc throughout the nation.
I do see criminal activity doing some of that, and think about it, there are laws already in place against those activities and for those individuals.

Safety exchanged for Freedom is a poor exchange.

Pass the popcorn.

opposed, because it further divorces the tool from the bill of rights that affords it in the first place

Having worked as a range safety officer I do support training--the same training usually required for competition at most clubs. Just too many people who haven't a clue.

Training should not be made to provide a barrier or test, but to ensure the safety of everyone. I've looked down muzzle of way too many firearms.

For those who think training should be mandatory, who shall decide what is adequate and what the passing score should be? What do you think the training should be?
Do you want to cede that power to some bureaucrat?

One of my favorite analogies is chain saws. There is a terrific accident rate with chain saws, but there is no training required for private purchase of this dangerous tool. And, similar to guns, the chainsaw-wielding idiot can easily injure others as well as himself.

Employers, recognizing the liability of chainsaw use, generally have mandatory training. IMO, this is similar to police departments requiring "use of deadly force" training and periodic qualification for their officers who carry guns.

So, do you favor mandatory training for chain saws? Would the training lower the accident rate enough to justify the incredible cost?

I vote for individual responsibility, and a criminal justice system with stiff penalties for negligence...

X-Rap said:

For those who think training should be mandatory, who shall decide what is adequate and what the passing score should be? What do you think the training should be?
Do you want to cede that power to some bureaucrat?

Click to expand...

What would you think of mandatory, state funded, training, but no proficiency requirement? It wouldn't discriminate on the basis of the ability to pay, and would still permit anyone to carry. Perhaps individuals would also be permitted to carry without completing the course for a period of time--maybe two months. This would permit individuals who fear violent attack by stalkers or former partners to carry immediately, should the need arise. The purpose would be only to educate, on the theory that this sort of education is socially beneficial.

Guy B. Meredith said:

Having worked as a range safety officer I do support training--the same training usually required for competition at most clubs. Just too many people who haven't a clue.

Training should not be made to provide a barrier or test, but to ensure the safety of everyone. I've looked down muzzle of way too many firearms.

Click to expand...

I'm personally of the opinion that the basic aspects of gun safety are basic life-skills that should be taught in school. Maybe a short lecture in the standard middle-school health class. The people who visit ranges don't necessarily carry concealed, and so wouldn't be subjected to this requirement. Likewise, people do stupid things with their firearms within their own home. I've just heard too many stories of people who've never handled a gun picking it up and treating it as a toy. Now, I doubt that such a lecture would have a substantial effect, but it might be sufficient to stop some of the more egregious stupidity.

RS14 said:

What would you think of mandatory, state funded, training, but no proficiency requirement? It wouldn't discriminate on the basis of the ability to pay, and would still permit anyone to carry. Perhaps individuals would also be permitted to carry without completing the course for a period of time--maybe two months.

Click to expand...

And the irony is you just put a "requirement" on the mandatory training, and you probably didn't even notice. Allowed to carry for 2 months without training, what happens to those who do not take the training? How long would that stand anyway before someone suggested a "pass" criteria, once your idea is in place it is very easy for someone to suggest that, and who can logically argue. If it's for safety, of course people should meet a minimum criteria otherwise it's pointless having training. So no mandatory free training, its the stealth side of the slippery slope, or the slippery slope to the slippery slope.

Also why should there be a requirement to exercise a right? Why is carrying any more dangerous than keeping a gun at home? With rights come responsibilities you cannot mandate that people are responsible, but you can mandate what is and is not illegal and if someone irresponsibly breaks the law you can prosecute.

If someone is responsible they're going to take a safety class, and likely some kind of proficiency training, someone who is not will not learn very much if anything if they're forced to attend some mandatory training.

Just my 2 cents.

No test. No permit.

I think my views on the subject have been said by plenty others already, but I do believe that safe gun handling lessons should be more widely available and safe handling practices should be more widespread. I shouldn't have to meet certain qualifications to protect myself, but Joe New Shooter who's never picked up a gun before ought to know what the hell he's doing before he carries this tool to protect himself, otherwise he's able to hurt an innocent person, or himself.

So gun safety lessons, yes.
Infringing upon citizens' rights, NO.

Know your tool or be a tool.

Learning is a slow process for some but once "learned" they are good to go.

not at all

that buy a gun and go straight to a CCW Course before they know the 4 rules. Honestly I think that upon entering a CCW Course it would make me more comfortable if you were required to immediately show you could operate/fire your weapon before class started.

Click to expand...

Ahh the "4 rules"

I agree people who own a gun should at least know how to make it work, but man's been handling guns long before the four rules were thought of and tests and qualifications don't really make people safe do they?

I am of two minds on this. The Texas CHL test is so easy that folks who have never shot a gun before can pass the test (and have). So the shooting qualifications are really far too easy to be meaningful. So either the shooting qualifications need to be dropped all together or they need to be raised.

No. This guy did not pay attention during the ccw permit class. There will always be idiots out there.

shockwave said:

There is no such thing as a "right." The only freedoms we have are those we grant ourselves. If you are a felon, no gun. A wifebeater? No gun. Drug addict? No gun.

Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers would have disagreed with this comment. The Declaration states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,..."
The second ammendment does not grant us the RKBA, it merely prohibits the governement from infringing on that right.

SeanMTX said:

Out of curiosity....are ya'll in favor or opposed to generally tighter proficiency tests for CCW?

Click to expand...

Nope. I am, however, in favor of repealing all permit requirements to exercise a right.

What would you think of mandatory, state funded, training, but no proficiency requirement? It wouldn't discriminate on the basis of the ability to pay, and would still permit anyone to carry. Perhaps individuals would also be permitted to carry without completing the course for a period of time--maybe two months. This would permit individuals who fear violent attack by stalkers or former partners to carry immediately, should the need arise. The purpose would be only to educate, on the theory that this sort of education is socially beneficial.

Click to expand...

Givin a choice (worst of two evils) I would call for mandatory firearms training at the middle school level and the student must pass to advance to high school. This would be required of all students.

To tie training to the ownership of a gun will turn out badly no matter, sooner or later it will be used as a tool to limit a persons ability to own and protect themselves.

Should have made a poll.

The last time we did this topic, it was closed at the OP's request.

Better training, yes there should be.

I think lots of people here think that by better training, they are being told that they can't have. To own a firearm is a right, In Minnesota, you have to take a class to drive a car. you must take a class to drive a snowmobile, the same thing for a boat, Some churches make you take a class before they will marry you. I do not think that it is too much to ask someone to know how to use a firearm. No one is saying that you can't have a gun . They are just saying that you should know how to use it. I have seen many people at the range that have no clue what they are doing. And some don't like it when they are told that they are not acting in a safe manner.
I teach archery to kids, and most want to learn to become better at it. Some just think they already know how to do it. Even when the can't hit the target they still seem to think and tell me that they know how.
The same is true for some adults and firearems.
There were three men at my last carry class that should not have passed.
But I am not the instructor there.