CCW classes: Good or bad?

[Trebor]

Is this really that upsetting to you that you are forced to show documentation that you are at the very least somewhat competent with a firearm..........?

For "somewhat competent with a firearm" substitute:

...literate enough to vote? (Literacy tests used for voter discrimination)

... have enough income to able to afford to vote? (Poll tax used for voter discrimination)

A government mandated class is the same idea, it just affects a different civil right.

Once the government sets "minimum standards" there is nothing that keeps them from changing the standards to disenfranchise (voting) or disarm (gun rights) different groups of people.

The costs involved from mandated training and permiting are another barrier to entry. The training tuition and then the permit application can add up to a substanial amount. The right to self defense should not be limited to those who can afford to pay for the government mandated scheme.

 

[cleetus03]

Cry me a river! Your arguing about a Training course requirement being unjust......A person who carries is in essence a armed "Good Samaritan" in the making, who has the capability of upholding law & order just like a cop.

The training requirement is basically the bare minimum regarding firearm safety & education......I personally have no problem submitting to this, especially since I already submitted my fingerprints into god knows what DATABASE!

 

[cleetus03]

The costs involved from mandated training and permiting are another barrier to entry. The training tuition and then the permit application can add up to a substanial amount. The right to self defense should not be limited to those who can afford to pay for the government mandated scheme.

a HUNTER SAFETY COURSE is FREE to take and is accepted as training............I WILL REPEAT;

ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE A HUNTER SAFETY COURSE...........


And while were at it why don't we **** and moan about a hunter safety course being required to get a hunting license..........

 

[Sam1911]

Regardless of what you think, It's the law.....So it's pointless to argue

First of all, no, it ISN'T the law in many places, as was already pointed out several times in this very thread. Having no training requirement at all works (quite well, thank you) for many states.

If it is the law in some places and isn't the law in others, it seems like there is a lot to be learned from the debate, e.g.: has it helped alleviate some problem in states where it is required, has a lack of this requirement caused a problem in states where it isn't, are their civil liberties implications one way or another, etc.

And, further, law is a human construct. It may be good, it may be bad. It isn't handed down from on-high. We, the people, have the right and the duty to question the law, debate the law, and change the law if we can persuade enough of our fellow citizens to see our point of view.

Is this really that upsetting to you that you are forced to show documentation that you are at the very least somewhat competent with a firearm..........?

As Trebor has so well illustrated, creating a hurdle for folks to cross when practicing a civil right is a pretty heavy thing. There has to be a demostrable reason, eternally challenged and re-proven, for such an affront to liberty.

Just saying, "well, the big folks up in the Capitol say this is what's best for me, so I guess that makes it right," isn't good enough.

-Sam

 

[eye5600]

If you are correct, we should be able to look at those states which either require no permit to carry, or which do not require training to get a permit. There should be a dramatic statistical difference between those states in terms of accidental and unlawful uses of firearms in "self defense."

Statistics again? Not a firm basis for making a decision.

In part, a required class is like having your signature on the bottom of a sheet paper that says you know and will follow the law. It eliminates the defense of "Gee, I didn't know."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Statistics again? Not a firm basis for making a decision.

Then what is your basis for making a decision?

In part, a required class is like having your signature on the bottom of a sheet paper that says you know and will follow the law. It eliminates the defense of "Gee, I didn't know."

There is no defense of "Gee, I didn't know."

And how many times do people try to use this "defense?"

 

[cleetus03]

State laws and policies relating to the issuance of concealed carry permits generally fall into various categories depending on their guidelines. These are typically described as may-issue, shall-issue, no-issue, and unrestricted.

God bless the people who live in unrestricted states; but I think the may-issue and no-issue states are the ones who need the most help.

I live in the shall-issue state of Florida;

This means if anyone, I repeat anyone meets the following requirements then the state shall issue a CCW permit to that person, no questions asked;

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
• You must be 21 years of age or older.
• You must be a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident alien with supporting documentation as provided in
Question 5.
• You must have received firearms training as described in Question 6.
• You must not be ineligible based upon a disqualifying condition as specified in Questions 7 through 16 of the application.
• You must desire a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for the purpose of lawful self-defense.

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/forms/16036.pdf

I can deal with the above eligibility requirements.......if you can't, well than perhaps we should agree to disagree, cuz ya ain't gonna change my mind with the defense arguments you've made.... Like I stated before there are FREE COURSES that are offered which allow eligibility for the Training Requirement.......So poor or rich anyone can complete this

 

[Sam1911]

A person who carries is in essence a armed "Good Samaritan" in the making, who has the capability of upholding law & order just like a cop.

Not even sort of. A person carrying a weapon to defend their life has none of the duties of a sworn officer and may not try to adopt the authority granted to one in that position. A person who carries a weapon to defend their life is merely exercising the most basic, fundamental right known to man. Nothing more. NOTHING LESS.

The training requirement is basically the bare minimum regarding firearm safety & education.

Again, (see post 15), WHICH training requirement? Where? They're all different, and many include NO gun-handling or firing training at all. Others include little or no legal education. You may have a picture in your mind of what "training" should be, but it generally isn't what you're picturing, nor as complete as it should be to be effective. However, as Vern said, what problem would adding a training requirement solve? Where's the "blood in the streets" from all the undeducated noobs mishandling their weapons?

I personally have no problem submitting to this, especially since I already submitted my fingerprints into god knows what DATABASE!

Have you? Why? I didn't submit any finger prints to get my state's carry license. In fact, none of the over 650,000 licensed individuals in my state did, either. What demonstrable problem has this caused? None what so ever.

Strikes me that the folks up in VT and AK, who didn't even have to go apply for a permit or license AT ALL, didn't have to go get printed or take a class, either. Of course, I heard a rumor that they all shot each other accidentally...

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

In part, a required class is like having your signature on the bottom of a sheet paper that says you know and will follow the law. It eliminates the defense of "Gee, I didn't know."

Last I checked, I didn't ever have to sign a contract with the state that I'd follow the law. It is required of me whether I agree with it or not.

And, as Vern pointed out, "Gee, I didn't know," is no legal defense in any case, so the State has no interest in preemptively countering it.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Statistics again? Not a firm basis for making a decision.

Wow. I guess you're right to a degree.

The basis for making a "decision" to adopt a law has to (at least) touch on these points:

1) Is it Constitutional? Many here would debate that any barrier to a law-abiding citizen's RKBA in defense of self are not.

2) Is it otherwise lawful? Depends on the state and the state's Constitution.

3) Does it serve a purpose? This is where the statistics come in. It is VERY IMPORTANT that laws effectively address a need. How many new CCW holders are injuring others or running afoul of the law? None? A few? Some? Lots? Enough to be a significant social risk? Could we fix this problem if we required a training course? If we think yes, then what training? How much? How often? Who pays for it? Are there proficiency tests? Will the applicant be denied their civil rights if they cannot demonstrate a certain skill level?

If it cannot be shown that a law effectively prevents some significant social harm, then it should not BE. Ineffective laws create a "malum prohibitum" situation in which the citizen runs afoul of the law without causing or threatening harm to any one. We have PLEANTY of those already without tying ourselves up in yet more.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Like I stated before there are FREE COURSES that are offered which allow eligibility for the Training Requirement.......So poor or rich anyone can complete this

No such thing as a "FREE" government ANYTHING. We pay for it one way or another. So, instead of just the benefited party paying for the service, EVERYONE must pay? That seems fair...

And what if that program becomes unfunded? A lot of states are cutting back on programs right now. What if the schedule for courses is cut in half or even put on hold?

Sorry, no rights for you because we had to cut funding for those programs.

Not good enough.

ya ain't gonna change my mind with the defense arguments you've made

You're probably right, but others may read these words and see something that will make them think.

-Sam

 

[cleetus03]

Are the following options really that much of a hurdle for one to complete?

ACCEPTABLE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION​

• Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission or a similar agency of another state;

• Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;

• Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement,
junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing
instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission,
or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;

• Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators,
special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;

• Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition
or military service (persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card;
discharged persons may submit a copy of the DD-214);

• Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or a county or municipality of this state, unless such
license has been revoked for cause;

• Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle
Association-certified firearms instructor.

A Florida CCW License allows you to carry legally in over 30 STATES as well. In addition out of state residents can apply for a Florida CCW. I think maybe they just want that feel good feeling of a training requirement to cover there ass when anti-gunners protest.

After all one of the Brady Campaigns signature arguments against CCW permits is that there is no firearm training required to get one.....which is a lie or not depending on the State....

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Are the following options really that much of a hurdle for one to complete?

Are the following options really that much of a hurdle for one to complete?

• Literacy test for voting.
• Poll tax for voting.
• Property test for voting.

 

[vow]

I have no objection with ccw classes, one can hardly go wrong talking any class on anything. However I do object to having to take a ccw class to get my carry permit renewed. Once, if passed, should be enough.

 

[DocCas]

It is my opinion that no licensure should be mandatory for a person to keep (own) or bear (carry) arms. However, from a purely practical standpoint, the more training you have the better off you, and those around you, will be.

There is no greater impediment to learning than the idea that "I already know all about that."

 

[Sam1911]

I think maybe they just want that feel good feeling of a training requirement to cover there ass when anti-gunners protest.

If it cannot be shown that a law effectively prevents some significant social harm, then it should not BE. Anti-gunners protesting is not a significant social harm...at least not one that instituting a training requirement would abate. Nor is it one worth even the smallest infringement of rights to counter.

I leave it up to your imagination what that "feel good feeling" is worth...

After all one of the Brady Campaigns signature arguments against CCW permits is that there is no firearm training required to get one.....which is a lie or not depending on the State....

So what? Do you honestly believe the Brady Bunch will shut up and go away if that changes? The more restrictions they win the more they'll clamor for. And what about their campaign ISN'T a lie? You would honestly consider FOR ONE INSTANT giving an inch of my rights to appease that crowd? If so, you've surely not been paying attention for the last few decades.

Don't bring that abysmal lot into a logical discussion of concealed carry policy. They and their agenda have NO PLACE here.

-Sam

 

[cleetus03]

Don't bring that abysmal lot into a logical discussion of concealed carry policy. They and their agenda have NO PLACE here.

Fair enough and point taken.........now moving on;

I guess in the end we have to give prompts to Florida for even passing legislation in 1987 for a state mandated "shall-issue" basis for CCW licenses. Florida was the experimental test baby in which the effects both good or bad would determine the laws fate. Because it was good, It created a domino effect with numerous other states adopting similar shall issue laws.

In 1987, Florida bucked a national trend by passing legislation based on the principle that the great majority of the citizenry should be able to obtain a license to carry concealed weapons. There would be no requirement to demonstrate special need, celebrity status or political connection. The applicant, upon demonstrating basic firearms capability and knowledge, would receive a license unless the State could prove ineligibility due to criminal behavior or diminished capacity. At that time, less than ten states had this type of “Shall Issue” laws on the books and the great majority of states prohibited concealed carry altogether.

That same year, a concealed handgun bill was laughed off the floor of the Texas legislature. The major media outlets treated the entire idea as a joke. Eight years later, the smiles froze, the Democrat governor was history and the Texas Right to Carry bill was law. By 1995-6, the domino effect was in full swing with numerous other states following with initial legislation or shall-issue reform. In no small part, the rapid spread of Shall Issue States was fueled by heartland reaction to the election of Bill Clinton and his success with anti-gun legislation. By late 2003, the number of States with Right -To -Carry programs has reached the mid-30s and the growth in reciprocity among the states is almost impossible to track or even fathom. www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_RTC.htm

 

[cleetus03]

Coverage of the Florida reform in The Economist (a British newsweekly) typified most of the American national media's coverage. The magazine asserted that after taking a few hours of training, "Anyone who wants to carry a pistol may now do so." The Florida media were sometimes hysterical, predicting that the law would increase lawlessness and death. Opposing legislators warned that Florida would become "the GUNshine state."www.davekopel.com/2A

So think of it just like how the evil media thinks about it, Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can apply and receive a CCW permit in a "shall-issue" state, provided they meet the requirements. And the argument the OP is trying to make is that the training requirement is unjust?

Well if a person is not willing to undergo the ABSOLUTE bare minimum that a CCW or similar firearm class teach you, what makes you think they will do it ever?

 

[SHusky57]

Go work at a gun shop for a few months and see if your opinion changes.

There is no IQ test to buy a gun.... and I'm not saying there should be, but some of the people that walk away with firearms really make you hope they aren't in the apartment next to you. Not that they are bad people, but they generally don't have a clue about firearm safety or usage....

One customer was trying to fiddle with a trigger lock on his revolver while the 357 magnum revolver was pointed at his own kids head. Of course I corrected him to point his muzzle in a safe direction to which he got offended and replied, "but it's not loaded!"

I wonder how many times people have said that right before an accident.

Police officers get training before being issued weapons. Military personnel get training before being issued weapons. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but what about the well-regulated militia part?

 

[mgkdrgn]

So the classes are needed because the law is screwed up?

That is pretty much 1/2 to 3/4 of the class here in SC ... knowledge of the law and how it applies, and does NOT apply. The range portion is mainly to make sure you can actually fire 50 rounds without accidentally shooting yourself or anyone else.

Personally for it's purpose I thought mine was a good class, and I'm glad I took it. However, I can understand the argument that you shouldn't need a "permit" from the government to exercise a right declared in the constitution.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Of course I corrected him to point his muzzle in a safe direction to which he got offended and replied, "but it's not loaded!"

To which my reply would have been "And you aren't in my store ... take a hike!"

 

[Sam1911]

So think of it just like how the evil media thinks about it, Anyone and I do mean ANYONE can apply and receive a CCW permit in a "shall-issue" state, provided they meet the requirements. And the argument the OP is trying to make is that the training requirement is unjust?

"Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE can apply and vote, provided they meet the requirements."

"Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE can apply and write, provided they meet the requirements."

Etc.

Well if a person is not willing to undergo the ABSOLUTE bare minimum that a CCW or similar firearm class teach you, what makes you think they will do it ever?

I think they should. But no one should be forced to. It is not my problem if they choose not to. And, if the experience of the citizens of the Commonwealth of PA and a number of other states is any measure, it is NOT A PROBLEM for SOCIETY, either.

Why are we trying to fix this NON problem?

-Sam

 

[cleetus03]

Up until 1987 only 10 states had shall issue laws. Concealed carry has always been regulated SAM1911. Your great state of Pennsylvania finally took action in 1989 to reform, 2 yrs after Florida's fine debute;

While not as explicit as Florida's law, or as forcefully worded as Washington's, the Pennsylvania reform put some teeth in the Pennsylvania Constitution's right to keep and bear arms provision. The requirements include that the applicant be 21 or over; have no drug convictions, no convictions for crimes of violence, no prior mental hospital commitments; not be addicted to "marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug"; not be "a habitual drunkard," convicted of a felony, awaiting trial for a felony; an illegal alien; not be dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military, or a fugitive from justice. Non-residents are eligible for a concealed weapon permit on the same basis as residents, except that the statute requires that they must currently possess an equivalent permit in their home state, provided such permits exist.

Some discretionary authority remains, however. A sheriff can refuse a permit to "an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."

Pennsylvania is especially interesting, primarily because Philadelphia is expressly exempted from the requirement to issue concealed weapon permits (though permits issued elsewhere in the state are good in Philadelphia). http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#c10

 

[Sam1911]

Go work at a gun shop for a few months and see if your opinion changes. ...Not that they are bad people, but they generally don't have a clue about firearm safety or usage....

No thanks. I've had my share of seeing the best and the worst of gun handling skills. I don't need further examples. But reality does not confirm the worst of our fears. CCW holders are simply NOT causing the public harm that these training classes are supposed to prevent -- even in states where there is no training requirement. If there is NO measurable benefit to this regulation, why do you want it to be imposed?

Police officers get training before being issued weapons. Military personnel get training before being issued weapons.

LEOs and military personnel get training in the use of their weapons to complete their JOB. They do not carry weapons (on duty) as part of the exercise of their civil rights, nor, specifically, for self-defense.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but what about the well-regulated militia part?

What about it? There are many ways a militia should be "well regulated" and much political hay can be made over which criteria should be used. But to say that it means that firearms training should be mandatory is a stretch.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Up until 1987 only 10 states had shall issue laws.

Ok. What does that add to the discussion?

Concealed carry has always been regulated SAM1911.

Patently untrue. For example, VT has never had a law forbidding the concealed carry of firearms.

Your great state of Pennsylvania finally took action in 1989 to reform, 2 yrs after Florida's fine debute;

Again, why mention this? PA has some flaws in it's system, too, though it is really quite "permissive." We do not require training to obtain our LCTF, over 650,000 have been issued, no grave social harm seems to have arisen and no need for mandatory training has been forthcoming.

Do you desire that PA change it's law and become more restrictive? You seem to be arguing for that.

-Sam