Common Sense and CHL's?

[joey93turbo]

I've been thinking alot about the lack of common sense in our society today and although alot of us pro-gun people don't like to budge much and/or reflect on our own ideals. I'm still strongly against the gov. having any records on gun owners and such, but I'm starting to see thinks differently when it comes to concealed weapon permits. When I talk common sense, I'm talking common sense, not what's constitutional or unconstitutional.

I often hear the praises of VT law which allows anyone to carry concealed without a permit. I often hear the complaints of states which require a CHL holder to take a class before issue. I'm all for shall issue state policies and believe self defense is a god given right. The thing is, I think that it makes good sense to make sure the CHL holder knows how to safely operate their firearm, and I believe there should be a live fire proficiency test. I do not feel comfortable that a good percentage of people I meet here in Oregon who carry have never actually fired their gun, mostly women.

I'd like to hear from you guys, but not so much about what's constitutional, rather about what makes good common sense. Would you like to have someone carrying around you who doesn't know what they're doing with a loaded firearm?

 

[LBTRS]

joey,

I see your point and don't fully disagree with it. The major problem I have is by making "proficiency" tests mandatory is sending the message that only qualified people can defend themselves. Safety training and being familiar with a firearm are important but criminals don't have to "qualify" before they stick a gun in your chest so why should we limit the ability of the law abiding public to defend themselves?

LBTRS

 

[joey93turbo]

I totally see your point. It seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to extend the class with an hour of range time, since they have to take a class anyway, just to make sure they're familiar with firearms. I've met people I actually feel are a liability carrying. Two carried auto's and didn't even know if there was a round in the chamber or whether or not it would fire if they pulled the trigger.

 

[psyopspec]

The thing is, I think that it makes good sense to make sure the CHL holder knows how to safely operate their firearm, and I believe there should be a live fire proficiency test.

My state did away with the shooting test in a fit of embarrasement after a blind man passed it.

While the motion was on the table I called a state legislator I know and asked him to support it since it does indeed place a limit on who can defend themselves. However, my argument was financial based, as doing away with the test lowered the cost of applying for a CCW, thus making it more affordable for more applicants.

While I too am concerned with the gun handling of permit holders, when it comes to testing I also have concerns about the limiting factor that standards could create. Safety cannot be legislated, but rather it can only be taught to the willing. And test administrators might have different ideas of what good gun safety is, possibly applying unfair standards to applicants. Also, if someone is denied a CCW for an unsafe act that can be corrected through remedial training, they're still going to have the denial on record, which in some states serves as grounds for denial on a CCW application (IE if that applicant is persuing a non-resident permit in another state).

I think the best an administrator or fellow shooter can do is be polite and proactive in starting new shooters down the path to safe gun handling. Even if they're denied a CCW, they're still going to be a danger with a gun; however, by being professional and recommending that new shooters seek training, we can limit bad habits that go unchecked while at the same time preserving the right to self defense (and dangerous stupidity, since that too comes with the territory of freedom) for all.

 

[MadMercS55]

I live in PA and we have no tests of any kind when getting a firearm or permit to carry. I've carried for many years, and during that time I've come to think that maybe a proficiency test may not be all that bad of an idea. I can't count the number of times at the range when I've witnessed extremely poor gunhandling, and people that fire 100rnds and get 20rnds on the target at 10-15yrds, reload, holster the weapon and go about their business.
I don't think the tests should be super-hard, but perhaps more focused around proper weapon handling, good accurate shooting, and being familiar with your particular weapon.

 

[Sinsaba]

... I'm all for shall issue state policies and believe self defense is a god given right. The thing is, I think that it makes good sense to make sure the CHL holder knows how to safely operate their firearm, and I believe there should be a live fire proficiency test. ...

Excuse me? If it is a God given right, where do you or anybody get off saying who can and who cannot exercise it?

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Joey...

There are a lot of people driving two ton vehicles who aren't proficient either.

psyopspec

Safety cannot be legislated, but rather it can only be taught to the willing. And test administrators might have different ideas of what good gun safety is, possibly applying unfair standards to applicants

+20

 

[Mixlesplick]

A good class may be able to teach some safety...if people are willing to learn and adhere to the safety rules. If it is just "common sense" to make people take a class then make sure the classes are all better than this one:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=158014&highlight=dangerous+ccw+class

Sure, people should learn to use their firearm safely but a class won't teach anyone something they don't want to learn or aren't serious about learning. The quality of instruction can vary so much from class to class that there may be no minimum of proficiency or safety learned by taking a class. I think Alaska and Vermont got it right. We are all accountable for our own actions.

 

[af1acura]

In Virginia you are required to take a class but since I am AD Air Force my firearms training was a sufficient substitute for the class. That being said, there are many people in the Air Force that cannot handle firearms and I would not trust them to have a CHP. The majority of Air Force people do not handle firearms but once every three years and that training is with a rifle not a handgun and lasts about a hour.

 

[Krenn]

there are too many embarrassing tales of state-sponsored firearms training for me to take such measures seriously.

I'd reccomend a mandatory brochure. basic safety rules, encouragement to take a class, and addresses.

the free market would stilll help to encourage responsible gun instruction only.

 

[Wiley]

Great idea, Joey.

Let's mandate the minimum price/quality of firearms to an amount that the folks who really need them can't afford ('saturday-night-specials').

Then, lets mandate training requirements so that the folks who really need to carry a firearm can't afford to comply (If 8 hours/$150 is good wouldn't 6 months/$10,000 be so much better?)

And of course, if a permit background check at $25 every 4 to 5 years is good then a weekly background check at $100 would be so much more effective.

Let's not forget to require a permit just to buy a firearm (couple of grand per sounds about right).

Yeah, we eliminate all the law abiding who, by circumstance, need the means to defend themselves just by making it to expensive for them to comply.

Simpler would be to let the Brady Bunch write the purchased/permitting requirements. Then everybody would absolutly be protected from all errors and mischance.

 

[jobu07]

I live in New York and wasn't required to take any class for my concealed carry class either. But maybe some sort of class wouldn't be a bad idea. Now, it shouldn't be mandatory to receive your permit, but perhaps it could be an incentive. Take this class and you'll be able to carry into courtrooms and schools? Something to that avail anyway. Maybe i'm crazy though...

 

[Fido]

We have enough laws and regulations. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE!!

 

[Missashot]

I like the idea of actually having to take a written and a skill test to get a concealed carry permit.
Because let's face it, some people have absolutely no business with a gun. I was one of those people. Until my husband taught me a little about them, I was not comfortable at all around hand guns. (I'm pretty good now though.)
I also know that one day of training will not make someone very proficient with their firearm.
I would like to see maybe a low cost or possibly free concealed carry permit class. Followed by a couple of free days of shooting. We actually have and outdoor range near my house. And something like that is great to just go practice.
Guess what I'm trying to say is that if you own a gun, you owe it to yourself and to everyone around you to know how to properly shoot and maintain it. And those are usually learned skills that need to be taught.

 

[JamisJockey]

I totally see your point. It seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to extend the class with an hour of range time, since they have to take a class anyway, just to make sure they're familiar with firearms. I've met people I actually feel are a liability carrying. Two carried auto's and didn't even know if there was a round in the chamber or whether or not it would fire if they pulled the trigger.

Stupid people have a right to defend themselves, as well as the rest of us.

 

[Frandy]

In NC we have to make holes in paper to pass a minimum sense of proficiency for CHL.

(deleted comment)

 

[keyhole]

I have carried for years, and feel like this. Many carry without thinking of all the things that go into using a gun. The consideration of what type of gun, ammo, holster, etc. Then what it would take to use it, and if there is something else that could be done.( He who runs away, lives to fight another day ) After all, if you bust a cap, figure on giving away part of your life to explaining why, and all concerning the incident, and even money for an atty.
The responsibility that goes with a gun, is more than some people think about. I remember a time when someone asked me if they should get a 9mm or 44 for home defense. Never even thought of a shotgun, just wanted to get the gun, without knowledge of how it even worked. Load it for me, and I'll keep it on the nightstand.

Profiency is a good thing, and the CCW holder should at least be able to shoot. It would be another thing that an atty could attack, should they become involved in a shooting that goes"bad". ( someone other then the BG get's the intended round)

Just my .02 worth

 

[JamisJockey]

In NC we have to make holes in paper to pass a minimum sense of proficiency for CHL.

God-given right or not, I think it's a good idea. Seems to me that if God gave us the right to carry, God also gave us the right to use our brains...

I never mentioned mythology.
The right to self defense is a right, pure and simple. I shouldn't be restricted from excercising that right until I've proven myself a liability to those around me (IE, felon).

 

[clt46910]

This is an emotionally charged issue, but I do see the merits of some type of training or test for the carry of a firearm.

You take a test and show some ability to propel a car in a given direction to get a driver's license why not the same with a carry permit? At least prove you have some knowledge about how to handle a firearm in a somewhat safe manner and can at least hit the target at a reasonal range.

Barring the augument about the goverment knowing who or who doesn't own firearms, I would think anyone that is knowledgeable and proficient with their firearm would not have a problem passing one.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've been in the training business, military and civilian for many years. I've got two graduate degrees in the field. And as I've said before many times, training is a solution.

Before we go touting a solution, we ought to have a problem. And there ought to be some sort of connection between problem and solution.

"We need more shooting in the course." So the problem is too many citizens miss their targets?

"We need more safety training." So firearms accidents are going up? (Nope, they're going down.)

"We need to teach them the law." So what percent of CHLs are revoked for violations of the law? (Not many -- a CHL holder is less likely to commit a crime with his firearm than a policeman.)

Tell me what the problem is, and I'll help you find a solution.

 

[Colt]

To draw on a comparison made in another thread, consider the right to vote.

Should we only allow people to vote if they can name the 3 branches of the federal government? Should we only let them cast their ballot if they prove that they are able to differentiate actual facts about candidates from media spin and political ads full of half-truths?

It'd be great if people knew the 4 rules before they picked up a gun, and it'd be nice if they understood that hollywood gun play is miles from reality. But if we start putting conditions on the 2nd amendment, we might as well put conditions on voting rights, too.

Though less apparent, and maybe not as immediately realized, the uninformed voter can do a great deal of harm to themselves and others. Maybe even more than they can with a gun.

<edited for grammar>

 

[Dave Dembinski]

Amen to the last two posters! Until there's an actual, documented problem of CHL holders shooting who they're not supposed to, I am not going to support any more "common sense" legislation. It makes me nervous, too, to see unsafe gun-handling practics, but you know what? I don't have a right to be made comfortable at all times.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Though less apparent, and maybe not as immediately realized, the uninformed voter can do a great deal of harm themselves and others. Maybe even more than they could with a gun.

You have a good point -- if you can vote with no education or training, you can surely carry a gun.

Anyone who can vote should be able to carry a gun.

 

[TallPine]

joey:

Can you point to the number of accidents and irresponsible shootings in states with no permits/training required...?

If not, as someone already said, you are suggesting a solution in search of a problem

Criminals will always carry if they want, and without training

 

[Zach S]

Would you like to have someone carrying around you who doesn't know what they're doing with a loaded firearm?

I see them around from time to time. They came to the range to practice before they had to qualify.