Should There Be More Proficiency Test Requirements for CCW?

1. Although I have never heard of a larger number of problems with people in states that require minimal class time for concealed carry, Nevada (and possibly Kansas) dropped recognition of Utah permits due to not having any firing requirements.

2. Is concealed carry really recognized by the 2nd Amendment? I'm throwing this one out since some states did fall on this issue to prevent concealed carry. So, if a state allows open carry, are they not following the 2nd Amendment?

I am just throwing this out to see what happens. I am not against concealed carry, and prefer concealed carry over open carry.

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.

Click to expand...

The only problem is the right to transportation is not spelled out in the constitution and if you don't want to take a marriage class (from a church) you can use the JP and still get legally married.

In states that require a class it's almost like a tax (or payoff to the NRA) you pay your money you get your license.
You can try to teach safety (and should) but you can't mandate safety, the auto licensing system is a prime example of that.

Exactly, as soon as there is a mandated curriculum then when ever there is an accident or some type of tragedy the regulators will go to work to try and save us from ourselves.
In Colorado the requirement is for the training to be done by a nationally recognized organization in firearms safety /training. That is the NRA, what happens if the Brady bunch or other anti's become the nationally recognized organization of choice?
I would much prefer a Vermont/Alaska style for the sake of freedom no matter how appealing the safety aspect is.

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this old argument that our 2nd Amendment is liken to driving or getting married, or should I say that it is devalued to the privilege of driving a car or ATV, or to getting married. I can tell you really value liberty.

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.

Click to expand...

Good thing too. Who are you to dictate a free man's right?

SeanMTX said:

First off, I'd like to disclaimer by saying that my question in no way refers to 2A or how it's interpreted. I'm referring only to carry concealed and really I'm only thinking about the classes I've taken and the people who have attended with me.

I had a guy with a beautiful Springfield 1911 at my CCW class lay his pistol down, barrel facing the RO, action closed. RO said (I'm paraphrasing as it's been awhile), 'This is not a cleared weapon. Do not point an uncleared weapon at me.' He dropped the mag, locked the slide back, unlocked the cable (store enforced all non-CCW weapons were cleared and cable locked upon entry) and handed weapon back to individual. Individual then inserted empty mag and closed the slide. RO went nuts.

This started me thinking about the performance of the CCW desirees as I went through the class....many couldn't hit the broad side of the barn.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who shows up to a CCW class should be proficient in their weapon they are qualifying with. You don't have to be Charles Bronson, but I'd expect they know how their weapon works and how the hell to hit a target from 7 yards.

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

Click to expand...

In general, I'm opposed to ANY restrictions at all! However in America the 2nd Amendment has been totally co-opted, the "mushy, compliant We The People" are .. well .. compliant!
Despite all the chest thumping over Heller, despite ccw most everywhere, the fact remains that THEY'VE conditioned you to accept the concept of RECEIVING THEIR APPROVAL before being ALLOWED to either purchase, or carry a firearm!
So conditioned have we become that many, if not most of you, are fine with the never ending infringement of "incrementalism" under the guise of reasonable SAFETY & QUALIFICATION!

Not all states are alike. Some, for example, require a shooting proficiency test; some do not (Oregon is one that doesn't, which I've always found to be somewhat odd; I would far prefer to know that folks who are licensed to carry guns legally actually can demonstrate that they know how to use them). I would hate to think that some power group -- the feds, for instance -- would step into the fray and insist on a specific set of procedures that everyone in every state would have to follow. And if a group like the NRA volunteered for the job, well, the public outcry would be never-ending.

The current system may not be perfect, or to everyone's liking, but it's better than the alternatives.

This is a conflicting issue because, on the one hand, I believe the Constitution affirms that there is a fundamental human right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand...there is a fundamental human stupidity that needs to be overcome.

I heartily recommend any type of firearm safety training, its worth the investment of time and money in my opinion. Just a quick question, does anyone think its unfair to have to take a hunter safety course? I think that the right to bear arms is different than the right to free speech or freedom of press or religious freedom. You can't kill someone with your words (now you might drive them to suicide, but you can't kill them with words only). An irresponsible person with a firearm can accidentally kill someone. Accidental discharges can be avoided with proper safety training.

Whether it should be mandatory? Well, I personally don't have a problem taking a safety course in order to carry a firearm. I think if you want to carry a firearm, you should at least be willing to put forth a minimal amount of time and effort to make sure that you do it responsibly. I think that's fair. I recognize that others may disagree with me. However, consider all the people that might wish to carry that have had no training whatsoever with firearms. Their dad didn't take them out the range and teach them how to do it right. All they know of guns is what Hollywood shows them. With no legal requirement to make them take a basic safety course, they can go out and ignorantly handle a dangerous weapon. How could learning some basic safety be a bad thing? Its for their own protection, for the protection of others and if they ever were in a situation where they really had to use their firearm for their defense, it might be nice to actually know how to use it.

I am not in favor of any other restrictions however. I believe in Open Carry, FA, SBR, AOW, Silencers etc. All of which are illegal in my state currently. I'd be reasonably satisfied if we could just get to a "Shall Issue" state.

Any shooter with much experience could put together a class in which the failure rate would be higher than 50%. Be it technical, legal or actual range qualification. That is exactly what will happen if the requirements are elevated for some sort of safety standard that is and never will be defined.
In theory it sounds good and even practical but nobody knows what the final outcome of this would be.
Do you develop the standard for a 70 year old grandmother or a 21 year old man in the prime of their life?
Is the shooting qualification geared to the guy who reloads and shoots every week end or the poor single mother who wants to defend herself but can't afford the ammo or range time to reach a high level of proficiency.
I trust the gov. to do very little well on my behalf and doubt if making me safer will be any different.

Just a quick question, does anyone think its unfair to have to take a hunter safety course?

Click to expand...

I do.
I got my first hunting license in 72 dad took me down to the local tavern we paid our money filled out the papers and got the licenses, I didn't have a hunters safety course until 2 years latter in health class.

By the time my sons were old enough the state required the HS course before they could get a license.

The school didn't offer them in health class any more so it was a Saturday wasted listening to an ”NRA certified instructor” drone on with old stories and bad info designed more to build himself up in front of impressionable youth than teach.

My class was taught by the game warden, so I ask how is a mandated class leading to better education?

I'm opposed, BUT after seeing some of the people in there it REALLY makes me nervous. In a perfect society everybody would be raised with and taught to be competent with their weapons. What about the range highly encouraging a mentor type program. I would happily be a mentor for someone who is new to firearms and needs some encouragement/guidance. Think back to how you learned to shoot.. it probably was with a more experienced individual who taught you safety and responsible gun ownership. At least I know my kids'll be raised right..

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

The right to vote is a constitutional right.

If you put restrictions on one, you should be able to put restrictions on the other.

Maybe people should not be allowed to vote if they have not paid their poll taxes, are too short for the rides at Disneyland, and can't pat their head and rub their belly at the same time.

For silly CCW tests, the sky is the limit. After all guns are dangeous.

Maj.Striker said:

Whether it should be mandatory? Well, I personally don't have a problem taking a safety course in order to carry a firearm. I think if you want to carry a firearm, you should at least be willing to put forth a minimal amount of time and effort to make sure that you do it responsibly.

Click to expand...

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I put your inability to feel safe around the human populace much, much lower on my list of priorities than my ability to be a free man.

If you don't have a problem taking a safety course to exercise a right then, by all means, do so. Just don't project your irrelevant fears on me and my rights.

I do think some peaple misunderstood my last posting.
You do do have the right to own a firearm if you are not a felon.
you do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege, Just as a ccp is a privilege
If it was a right wouldn't it be in the constitution that you can carry a gun that no one can see?
And CoRoMo I lived in your great state in the late 80's. Lakewood,CO. Do they still shot out the street lights on colfax ave? Hope they didn't take away the right of doing that. a freemans right.

No. But I think those who carry should be better trained- I just don't think it should be required.

Maj. Striker said:

On the other hand...there is a fundamental human stupidity that needs to be overcome.

Click to expand...

You can't fix stupid.
Huntsman made an excellent point regarding that.

Huntsman said:

You can try to teach safety (and should) but you can't mandate safety, the auto licensing system is a prime example of that.

Click to expand...

Even with all the training required to drive a car there are more bad drivers behind the wheel than I care to think about.

The real problem with fundamental human stupidity is that we live in a world where the dumbest people no longer get eaten by predatory animals. Survival of the fittest? I don't think so.

First off, I'd like to disclaimer by saying that my question in no way refers to 2A or how it's interpreted.

Click to expand...

It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate this from the 2A issue - they are joined at the hip, chest, head, hands, and feet.

In other words, the CCW laws are THEMSELVES (with or without a proficiency test) an unconstitutional violation of our rights, illegal from inception in my view.

So it would come as no surprise that I believe that adding MORE requirements would only make it even MORE unconstitutional than it is now.

I could maybe see a thorough proficiency test to carry on airplanes as a good positive idea, provided that it's a fairly-administered "shall issue" law - anyone who passes the objectively scored written and proficiency test can carry on the plane if they choose.

Quote: The Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit.

Just a quick question, does anyone think its unfair to have to take a hunter safety course?

Click to expand...

Yes ... I do ... although I think that one or more types of courses like that should be readily available and advertised.

When Virginia became a Shall Issue state, I was de-lighted to find that the fact that I had previously been issued a CCW permit (in the '70s & '80s) meant that I did not have to try to find the time for any such course ... because that would have meant no CHP for me because I had no free time for such a thing.

Just a quick question, does anyone think its unfair to have to take a hunter safety course?

Click to expand...

Edit: Hmm, I'm changing my answer on this from No to not sure; have to think on that one;

Why should you need required training to carry a gun in the woods, and not need any to carry a gun outside of the woods?

If it was a right wouldn't it be in the constitution that you can carry a gun that no one can see?

Click to expand...

I think my eyes are bleeding. You're right, it isn't in the Constitution...but neither is instant communication, so what, telephones and the internet are not covered by the First Amendment? You think no one in the 1770's ever threw a coat on over a pistol? Concealed Carry is not a new concept. Only licensing is a new concept. (Comparatively.)

And CoRoMo I lived in your great state in the late 80's. Lakewood,CO. Do they still shot out the street lights on colfax ave? Hope they didn't take away the right of doing that. a freemans right.

Click to expand...

Breaking the law is not a right...and destruction of someone elses property is breaking the law, so that argument is invalid, sir.

For the record: I fully support revoking all licenses required to exercise my rights. Any federal or state mandate requiring such licensing is unConstitutional and therefore invalid. However, because it exists at this time, I will follow it until I can get it changed.

Maybe people should not be allowed to vote if they have not paid their poll taxes, are too short for the rides at Disneyland, and can't pat their head and rub their belly at the same time.

Click to expand...

I really do think people should have to pass a test on the Constitution and Bill of Rights before they are allowed to vote or run for any public office

Absolutely not. There should be no CCP required to carry concealed in the first place.

Click to expand...

+1 There ya go!

Oppose.

My argument: There are 6 years of training required to practice medicine, 9 years for surgery. Stringent licensing, exams, and continuing education requirements are all in place. I would argue that it's one of the most regulated practices in the country. Yet, in my 20 years I've seen many incompetent physicians kill people.

They test well and are highly educated but still exhibit dangerously poor decision making because they're human. The worst part is that they may kill many times before any action is taken. Most times they're shuffled quietly off to a different hospital (not unlike a priest with certain proclivities).

Laws, training and regulations cannot protect us from the unstoppable power of human ignorance. I only need to look as far as the bullet holes in the walls, ceiling & stall dividers at the range to know that people can & will make mistakes. More 'licensing requirements' will change nothing except restricting our freedoms.

To quote a THR member's signature: America is where the liberty is, and liberty is not certified safe. I favor Vermont style carry for anyone who is not a felon or deemed an incompetent person.

There is a big problem with requiring, by law, a proficiency standard. There is nothing to stop them from making the requirements ever more stringent until no one but a Jerry Miculek type could pass them. The same goes for licensing fees. What is to stop them from raising the fees until no one can afford them?

No.

But everyone should be held legally accountable for bullets they fire. Which along with being more capable should act as motivation to be proficient.


If I was elderly, still had all my senses but had poor sight and severe arthritis, or maybe parkinson's disease and a trembling hand I would not want the state to say I can no longer carry a gun to shoot a violent predator from 2 feet away because I could not accomplish their 20+ foot proficiency test and fire X number of rounds into Y size target in Z amount of time.
It would however still be my responsibility to take only shots I was reasonably capable of making.