CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UWstudent

member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
225
Location
Seattle
i just remembered something..

about a year ago i obtained my CPL or CCW permit (WA), and all they did was made me fill out a page or two of paperwork, pay 60 bucks and throw a washington state firearms saftey pamphlet or something at me.

yeah, i realize they conduct a little investigation to make sure you're not medically insane and you haven't been evading the law enforcement recently..

but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?

when i was waiting in line to return the paperwork and pay the money, i remember a dude who was making his girlfriend fill out the paperwork so she could obtain a CCW permit (i remember her b/c she was hot!! :) ) but also, she was wearing flip flops, decked out in abercrombie, weighed probably 90 lbs and will probably be packing a .45 that was purchased from her over protective boyfriend..

i just really hope she has took some formal training on how to use her firearrm. i did, but i've also been shooting since i was a kid since i wasn't raised in the urban downtown of seattle, but more into the country (shelton).
 
My experience has been

That most people who will go to the trouble of packing a handgun for any length of time will put the effort in to get some kind of training if they are new to firearms. It's too much hassle if you're not committed to it.

The other observation I have is that requiring training is the state limiting a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Training is good, so are seat belts. Should the nanny state tell you you HAVE to wear it? Punish you for not wearing it? Where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and excessive legislation "for the children"?

My wife often runs around (summer time) in shorts and tank top, sandals or flip-flops. Weighs about 100 Lbs. She might outshoot you.
 
WARNING A PRE COFFEE RANT:
the problem with training being required is , i ain't got no spare 150 bucks for a course. it is just a way of keeping the poor from having a permit.

any filter to bearing arms is a pain..... IMHO and reeks of prior restraint.

the crime of simple possesion (sp) of ANYTHING is difficult for me to justify.

it give LEO's a great reason/excuse to roust and seach passersby and makes criminals out of those who are ignorant of the latest banned object.

yes there are arguments for it but most of them make me:banghead:

rms/pa
 
Also, um....

remember the DMV, and Driver's Ed in High School?

Somehow I can't imagine the kind of lowest-common-denomiator training you get with state-mandated, state-regulated training in most cases being worth much anyways.
 
1911 guy said:
The other observation I have is that requiring training is the state limiting a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Training is good, so are seat belts. Should the nanny state tell you you HAVE to wear it? Punish you for not wearing it? Where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and excessive legislation "for the children"?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The 2nd does not say:

"The right to keep and bear arms by trained individuals shall not be infringed."​

Though I take a bit of exception to the seat belt analogy. Cars & driving them are completely regulated by the state and are mentioned noplace in the constitution. Not even in the generic form of "transportation". The constitution can not be regulated at the state level, but somehow that's the boat we find ourselves in with the 2nd.
 
I think mandatory testing at the polls would be more imprtant. People do far more damage by electing morons to office, than they could do with a single handgun.
 
a dude who was making his girlfriend fill out the paperwork so she could obtain a CCW permit (i remember her b/c she was hot!! ) but also, she was wearing flip flops, decked out in abercrombie, weighed probably 90 lbs and will probably be packing a .45 that was purchased from her over protective boyfriend..
Click to expand...
My sister is also hot, petite (5'9" and 120 lb), and is probably decked out in abercrombie as I type this.

She is also a professional engineer, one heck of a shot, owns an S&W CS9, and has her local shooting range on speed dial. :D

Appearances can be deceiving...
 
i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

i don't the training should be 150 dollars.. or out on field with mr. ranger.. but i'll take back what i said about "training".. because even a simple exam of 20 questions would suffice, which would mean the person acquiring the CPL would have a brief knowledge about the state rules.

so, i know a couple of you are thinking its the CPL's respnsibility to figure everything out on their own but i GARUNTEE you that girl i mentioned above had absolutely NO idea what a pistol was.

spare the comments about your 90 lb wives and sisters that fit this girls profile, and how she could probably outshoot me. so what? im sure a lot of girls can out shoot all of us due to their lower center of gravity.. but my assumptions are typically (not always) accurate. this girl was saying things like "why do i have to do this again?".. and.. "is this legal?".

so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.

just not right.
 
IME, the most dangerous people on the range on the people who have been shooting "all my life!":uhoh:

No, no sort of training should be required to exercise any civil right. It is a fraud, a prior restraint, a barrier to entry, the creation of a parasitic class and no more constitutional than requiring comparative religion classes for your "License to Attend a House of Worship."

If you are concerned about training (have you guys noticed that people are always worried about someone else's level of skill but never about themselves?), the way to affect change is to change the culture. Make training the "in thing" to do. Use public policy to impact the culture for the free exercise of rights--firearms training in schools, public ranges, state-sponsored shooting contests, inter alia.:)
 
Wow.

Ok. I had a (relative) bunch more I wanted to say. But I've just been upstaged by a lawyer.

(have you guys noticed that people are always worried about someone else's level of skill but never about themselves?)
Click to expand...
Well put El T.

UWstudent ... Who would you have write the exam? Mayor Daily?
 
You make a lot of generalizations.

Frankly, the attitude that comes across is a bit elitist. Apparently, nobody but the highly trained, including yourself, no doubt, are capable of exercising good judgement.

Center of gravity has nothing to do with being a better shot. Mindset and training take care of that.

The pamphlet you were given was probably a brief outline of the states CCW regs. Did you read it or assume you knew what was in there because you're smarter than the girl in flip-flops?

I'll spare you the comments about my 100 Lb wife outshooting you when you spare the rest of us your gross generalizations and "smarter than the average bear" attitude and pro-victimization thoughts on women being told to take some responsibility for their own safety.
 
Why stop at a 8 or 10 hour mandatory class?

I think there should be a MINIMUM of 120 hours of training and a two year waiting period before being able to receive your Concealed Carry Permit. Permits should cost $1000 and half of that money should be put into a fund for the victims of handgun violence.

:rolleyes:

Just remember everybody's idea of a "reasonable" training requirement might be different.

Self defense IS A RIGHT.
 
alright.. so this is what i'm understading mr. 1911

a 15 minute questionaire (kinda like getting ur food handlers permit) is NOT ok for the people that don't know if they should shoot somebody that snatched their cell phone?
 
first of all, she looked like she was FORCED to get her CPL b/c her boyfriend made her. secondly, (yes, im gonna start stereotyping) she was 90lbs, wore pink everything, chatted on her pink sell phone about clothes and money. then asked why she was doing this again and if it were legal.

now, taking all this.. why don't you guys make a visualization of this.

all i'm trying to state is, i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun. if i saw her today, i would avoid her to be honest.

btw, i did read the pamphlet. i'm not special where i think i'm "above" the average bear.
 
UWstudent said:
a 15 minute questionaire (kinda like getting ur food handlers permit) is NOT ok for the people that don't know if they should shoot somebody that snatched their cell phone?
Click to expand...
I'd feel much safer around girls that are carrying because their boyfriends want them to be safer walking around at night than a bunch of Internet Rambo wannabes in their Tacti-cool thigh-rig holsters and Schlock 2000 uber-pistols with itchy trigger fingers! :neener:
 
Discussion or argument?

If you want to discuss merits of your view versus my view (and a lot of others, it appears), I'm all for it. Maybe we can both take something from the discussion. If, however, all you want to do is use one girl you have a low opinion of as an example of why nobody but you is smart enough to educate themselves, count me out. I'll check back in 10 mins for a thought out rather than button pushing comment. If not, I'm gone from this one. Not gonna waste time talking to someone who's mind is already made up.
 
El Tejon said:
UW, I live in state full of such people as Indiana does not require any sort of training. I walk the streets without fear.:)
Click to expand...

Indiana has very few problems with permit holders shooting people who don't need to be shot. Funny how we lack a training requirement.

I want to be the guy who gets to look at people to decide if they are worthy of carrying a gun. Where do I apply for that job?
 
1911 guy said:
If you want to discuss merits of your view versus my view (and a lot of others, it appears), I'm all for it. Maybe we can both take something from the discussion. If, however, all you want to do is use one girl you have a low opinion of as an example of why nobody but you is smart enough to educate themselves, count me out. I'll check back in 10 mins for a thought out rather than button pushing comment. If not, I'm gone from this one. Not gonna waste time talking to someone who's mind is already made up.
Click to expand...


I don't want to bother discussing our differences because apparently everyone here knows a girl thats fits the profile of our subject and has a high opinion of her. well, duh.. this is THR. not disarm-america.com
My mind is made up. I would avoid this chick and flee if I ever saw her.
We're not going to make a difference, so how about all the guys reading this who want to arm their signifficant other, please please please teach them state rules and wahtever. hey, the same goes to the ladies who have b/f's who don't know anything :cool:
 
The problem as I see it is not training. It's a mandatory hurdle that could and probably would be abused.

I believe that most people here are in favor of people who take the responsibility of carrying upon themselves understand what that responsibility entails.

The problem is what level of training is *needed*:
15 min questionaire? What questions?
Demonstration of ability? What is "good enough"?
Classroom training? Who is qualified to teach?

All of these items can and will be abused by people trying to control access to guns.

All I can do as a CHL owner is show by example, and refer anybody looking for information to an expert.


Adam
 
My 2 cents

Here's my take on the training requirements. Whether right or wrong. I gladly sat through the class because in my state it is basically a class that reviews the laws regarding concealed carry. They give you the information that WILL KEEP YOU FROM BEING SUED. The firing portion of the class is only enough to verify you will not shoot your toe off during the draw.

Yeah, the class costs too much, but you are paying an instructor who takes on a lot of liability. Who do you think will get called to the stand if you have to go to court to defend your shoot? He will have to testify as to what exactly you were taught.

The fees charged for the permit itself, well, it may not be right, but freedom isn't free applies here too I guess.

If you want to put blame on someone for the requirements, default to blaming a lawyer!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Applied for WA CPL; Oregonians read this
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Alan Smithiee
A
A
  • Locked
Wife's CCW interview with Sheriff
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
6K
koja48
K
X
  • Locked
Words I never thought would come out of my GF's mouth
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
xenophon
X
3
  • Locked
LEO Weirdness re: spouse applying for CCW
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
Clipper
C
W
  • Locked
Fewer Gun Deaths - with more permits
Replies
21
Views
1K
TexasRifleman
T
Back
Top