CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[USMCRotrHed]

I was waiting for that

Do we need training to exercise any of the other Constitutional rights?

I thought about posing the question as: Is English or lierature training required before we can exercise our freedom of speech, or freedom of the press?

Mental gymnastics!

 

[NineseveN]

OK, I see your going to make me do my research and report back. I'll do that, and if I am wrong I will let you know. Thanks for the piece you just posted, I will begin there before I dig up my old textbooks and other materials.

Good to see you taking the initiative, but I expect you to find Herself very much on the side of fact, she is quite correct. Good hunting!

 

[USMCRotrHed]

If John Jay said it....

I concede.

That didn't take long.....
I was wrong, not the first time, probably won't be the last.

I am a big fan of our founding fathers and if one of the writers of the Federalist Papers says so....in a legal opinion of the Supreme Court.....I'l go with it.

Chief Justice John Jay said- "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, pre- sumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

OK, back to the subject of the thread. I would hope the jury would nullify the law in that case for the clerk mentioned above.

 

[Mainsail]

That’s funny. I live in Tacoma as well (I think you live there) and when I didn’t have to have any training I assumed it was because I was active duty. I’m not sure where I stand on this issue though. Training costs money and the restriction might be considered an infringement on my WA constitutional rights.

 

[Ghost]

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.

Hmm, my fiancee wears a lot of pink stuff, carries lots of Hello Kitty stuff (she even put hello kitty grip panels on her Beretta 92) asks a lot of what most people would consider stupid questions every time she is filling out the purchase forms and generally carries herself as kind of an airhead in public even though I'm fairly sure she is not.

She's also in the Army, been deployed overseas in the current dustup, been shot at and missed, shot back, and I would trust her by my side in a dicey situation before I would trust a classroom trained college student with pretensions towards joining the military.

You never know what kind of experience people have just from looking at them. Most of the people I've met whom I would consider extremely competent and lethal do absolutely nothing to advertise that fact and actually make an effort to play down their abilities/competence.

Adding mandatory training to concealed carry permit requirements just further restricts the right to carry to those that have the time to spare for the classes because they are not working 40+ hours a week and those that have the resources to pay for it. Sounds like elitism to me.

Would it be fair to say that since the girl in the above example is only 90 pounds that she has more of a need to be able to carry a firearm than you do since you have six years of brazillian ninja training?

 

[NineseveN]

six years of brazillian ninja training

LMAO. Sorry, I had to. That one's gonna have a go round now. Pool Boy Drills and Brazillian ninja training. I love this place.

 

[GullyFoyle]

I concede.

That didn't take long.....
I was wrong, not the first time, probably won't be the last.

I am a big fan of our founding fathers and if one of the writers of the Federalist Papers says so....in a legal opinion of the Supreme Court.....I'l go with it.

Chief Justice John Jay said- "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, pre- sumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

OK, back to the subject of the thread. I would hope the jury would nullify the law in that case for the clerk mentioned above.

Now, think about it. Take a good 5-10 minutes and ask yourself, WHY don't you know about Jury Nullification? Why is it that you have been taught in legal classes that such a power/right does not exist?

(if this is a thread highjack i apologize, my first post!

 

[taliv]

usmc, glad to see you doing some research on jury nullification. imho, the effort of judges i have met to stamp out jury nullification is every bit as offensive and dangerous as anti-2A efforts.

i can't emphasize enough how important jury nullification is. it's the last legal option before the shooting starts.

and lots of people have gone to jail over stuff like passing out JN pamphlets in front of courthouses. when i was called to jury duty, both cases i sat in, the judge went to GREAT lengths to explain that juries only decide the facts and HE decides the law.

i'd put as much effort into advancing jury nullification as 2A rights, but people aren't generally interested for two reasons: nobody likes being called to jury duty (it's not like people collect jury cards and go to jury shows and practice being a juror or spend their vacation at Juror Ranch), and second, anymore, people assume the defendant is guilty

anyways... don't mean to hijack the thread... but take more than a cursory glance at the topic.

 

[UWstudent]

LMAO. Sorry, I had to. That one's gonna have a go round now. Pool Boy Drills and Brazillian ninja training. I love this place.

well its easy to comment about subjects that touch outside our discussion but really, none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.

other than going off topic about how great your wives are or my BJJ, which is stated earlier (this is THR, all your wives probably shoot well).. your excuses are "hey, its 2 hours away and spending 150 bucks".

well, comming from the guy who said one of the students in the CPL class said he was alarmed he couldn't shoot a guy without being in life threatening danger.. then i believe ya'll should sacrifice 2 hours of driving to make sure the people in the city don't run around shooting each other.

also, just b/c you guys don't think you yourselves don't need the training/testing.. does that mean everyone else shouldn't?

everyone is considering me being narrow minded, and saying "hey, how do you know she's not a better shot". well, i stated my opinions somewhere on the first page of this thread and it's persuasive.
if i'm narrow minded, then why am i thinking about the others who desperately need the training? there ARE people out there who don't know their state laws. i GARUNTEE it.

i'm not trying to take away the 2nd admendment.. everyone should own guns. it makes the world a better place. all i'm saying is that having a CPL test or training isn't a bad idea.

it will inform you of your rights and probalby save you from being landed in the pen.

 

[taliv]

uwstudent, if you approached it slightly differently, i suspect the vast majority of people here would agree with you.

e.g. "gun safety and the legal implications of self defense should be taught in High Schools, along with more emphasis on civics and economics, to everyone, whether they intend to carry or not"

your approach, while seemingly noble, practically changes a right into a privilege

 

[NineseveN]

but really, none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.

Sure we have, you haven't been paying attention:

If it is required, it is more unconstitutional than the whole permit system is in the first place.

Mandated training does not increase skill or awareness above marginal levels.

The states that have no requirement such as this are not prone to random acts of senseless violence over cellular phones or accessories, and since we do not see this where no training is required, there is no problem to solve. Since training is a solution, you need a problem. If you have no problem, you need no solution.

All of the above was very clearly discussed in this thread.

You can champion and advocate optional trainng, but the minute you start asking the government to require it, you're in the wrong and no friend to firearms owners. If you really cared so much, you could have aproached the couple, struck up a conversation and volunteered to meet them at the range. You didn't even consider that, did you?

 

[springmom]

Where to begin....

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.

1) Texas, my state, does require training, and it is not "driver's ed for shooters". You must pass both a written and a proficiency test. You must demonstrate to the instructor that you know how to load and handle and decock (if one is on your gun) your firearm. You don't have to be Annie Oakley to pass the proficiency test, but it is not a shoo-in. It is $140 which is far too much; but it's good for 7 years, so that's $20 per year which suddenly doesn't seem like so much given what I pay for my hunting and fishing licenses.

2) As some have noted, the question of the states limiting a right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is a serious problem. You appear to want to rescind this woman's Second Amendment rights because she wears Abercrombie (bad taste, yes, but still...) and seems clueless. I expect I seemed pretty clueless when I bought my XD-40 too, but that doesn't mean I stayed that way, or that she will. For the record, I wouldn't be caught dead in the Abercrombie store, let alone the clothes.

3) The best argument I have ever read for NOT limiting the right to keep and bear arms may in fact be your post today. You think this woman should not be allowed to have that gun until she has passed a class? And who says what's in the class? Who says what's "good enough"? YOU? Me? I sure don't want that responsibility. I am glad that I took the CHL class, not because the state of Texas requires it (although I'm too much a "good girl" to ignore that and carry without, LOL) but because I learned a ton from it. But the class should have been MY choice, not the state's mandate. The Constitution does not give a hoot whether your assumptions are typically accurate; if she is a citizen with the full rights thereof, she has a right as a member of the citizenry, to buy that firearm. Whether you like it or not. And for that, I thank the Founders of this nation.

Springmom

 

[Double Maduro]

udub,

none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.

Neither have you made any for why it should be required.

well, i stated my opinions somewhere on the first page of this thread and it's persuasive.

Obviously not persuasive enough, or you wouldn't still be trying to justify them.

then why am i thinking about the others who desperately need the training?

I don't believe you are thinking about anything except stirring the excrement before it gets flung at the air circulation device.

Your arguments make as much sense as your syntax, in other words, very little.

I plan on having a good life

Not starting out too good if all you can think of to do for fun is to exhibit this kind of stupidity.

You started off good enough, you asked our opinion. As soon as some gave theirs to you, you told them they were wrong. Not a good way to exhibit your education, or open mindedness.

DM

P.S. udub, don't bother replying to this post. I am afraid your razor sharp repostes will be waisted, as I am done with you and this thread.

"Brazillian Ninja vanish" to paraphrase. rotflmbfao!!!

 

[Herself]

well its easy to comment about subjects that touch outside our discussion but really, none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.
[...]
i'm not trying to take away the 2nd admendment.. everyone should own guns. it makes the world a better place. all i'm saying is that having a CPL test or training isn't a bad idea.

So, tell me, do you also believe we should all have to have training in reading and writing before we should be allowed to own and carry books? Perhaps a Literacy Permit should be required? How about a quick course in bookbinding? Many of those fine old books can be damaged by careless handling!

Do you think we should have to have religious instruction and get a Worship Permit before attending church?

How about a literacy test before we are allowed to vote? --Oh, I know, it will be waived if you already have your Literacy Permit! And maybe we should limit the vote to persons who own real estate; after all, renters don't have a real stake in the community, do they? Or they could prove their fitness by making a substantial cash deposit and receiving a Voting Permit!

And maybe we should have to be tested on our awareness of the law covering search warrants and police stops in order to get a Security Permit, allowing us the "right" of privacy in our homes and persons!

Naturally, there will be a fee for the classes and a fee for the permits -- but it will be open to all. Except for the poor and who cares? And anyone with a police record, and anyone with serious dyslexia, and anyone who hasn't spare time to take calls and apply for the permit during office hours; but we're best off without such random rabble, aren't we?

Aren't we?

UW, we're Americans. We are rabble.

If you have to get a Permit to do it, it isn't a right!

If you have to pass a test of any sort to do it, it isn't a right!

Indiana, where I live, has no test, no training requiements. We do not have random shootings by clueless noobs with LTCs. We do have many people offering training courses -- I have taken a couple, myself. It works. Spending a lot of worry over running other people's lives is no way to live, UW, it will just give you ulcers.

You are trying to take away the Second Amendment, a little at a time. Every bit you help grab to make yourself feel less worried about some skinny gal you've only seen once and all her kin is that much more lost for everyone.

--Herself

Now, the real issue: They make Hello Kitty grip panels? Coolness! Where can I get a set?

 

[Trip20]

other than going off topic about how great your wives are or my BJJ, which is stated earlier (this is THR, all your wives probably shoot well).. your excuses are "hey, its 2 hours away and spending 150 bucks".

Since your quoting me, I have to assume you read my entire post. If you read it again, try to comprehend that I was speaking about how the costs associated with training, licensing, and all the other costs involved, effectively prohibit certain segments of our society from exercising their right to carry.

It's not the 2 hours of driving or the $150. I'm working on having a class held in this area at a local range, which will negate the need to drive, obviously. And the $300 for my girlfriend and I to take the class is already in savings. But what about someone who’s not in my shoes? Should they be disallowed self-protection with the appropriate tools because you feel unsafe?

I don't know you from Adam. Should I feel safe with you carrying on the streets just because you claim to have been shooting for years? Do I need to personally witness your shooting capabilities - inspect a target? Have you recite the 4 rules, and watch you operate your firearms safety/decocker, magazine release and slide stop in a safe manner? I won't feel safe until I do. Turn in your permit.

When do we stop regulating because of feelings - especially when there are a couple litmus tests available (VT & AK). Who's feelings are more important, yours, mine, or the Brady campaigns -- or do we use logic and common sense? This is an important question, because we'll need to set our regulations based on the answer.

 

[UWstudent]

I don't know you from Adam. Should I feel safe with you carrying on the streets just because you claim to have been shooting for years? Do I need to personally witness your shooting capabilities - inspect a target? Have you recite the 4 rules, and watch you operate your firearms safety/decocker, magazine release and slide stop in a safe manner? I won't feel safe until I do. Turn in your permit.

others stated in this thread that they do feel safer having taken the course..
i dont understand, maybe because of your not being clear.
but i'll i'm getting is you wouldn't feel any different standing next to mr. tactical instructer vs. someone who hasn't shot before.. .. during a shoot out.:banghead:

 

[springmom]

ROTFLMFHO!!!!

KH, most 21 year olds do need training to speak in public. I recommend enough training so that all "rapper jargon" is eliminated.

You know what I'm sayin', gee?

"Yo, dawg, like I got a pair of homies under 21 of my OWN, see, and dey drive me BATS with this rap." Hey, that wasnt' too bad for a 51 year old mom....!

I'd just be happy if they could all learn that not EVERY sentence MUST have the F-bomb in it....:banghead:

Springmom

 

[Ghost]

Now, the real issue: They make Hello Kitty grip panels? Coolness! Where can I get a set?

Here, hers were about $90 for a set of rosewood grips with the hello kitty face and her monogram.

http://www.gungrips.net


I for one wouldn't feel safer standing next to a "Mr. Tactical Instructor" if he was stupid enough to still be standing out in the open in the midst of a firefight as that behavior really calls their credentials into question. Personally I try to avoid firefights as much as possible as it isn't any part of my job description anymore.

I think that most people here wouldn't have any problems with a short safety questionnaire as part of the process of getting a permit, but the way you stated things earlier it sounded as if you wanted mandatory training as part of the process which is just a way of restricting access to what most of us view as a basic right.

 

[Sistema1927]

I shouldn't have to take a class to exercise a RIGHT.

If I choose to take a class, or a whole series of classes, to assist me in exercising that RIGHT in a more efficient and effective manner, then that is MY choice.

(Have you noticed that mandatory driver training leads to better drivers? Nope, I haven't either. You can't train the idiot out of the idiots.)

 

[USMCRotrHed]

Well....If you must ask

Now, think about it. Take a good 5-10 minutes and ask yourself, WHY don't you know about Jury Nullification? Why is it that you have been taught in legal classes that such a power/right does not exist?

(if this is a thread highjack i apologize, my first post!

These were pre-law classes. Not law school classes. My lack of complete understanding should give that away. During my Civil Procedure and my Criminal Pro class, jury nullification was not covered; however one of the tests did cover the subject of judges deciding matters of law and juries deciding matters of fact. The judge is intended to be the expert on the law and serve as a sort of referee (for lack of a better word) in a jury trial. Since it is much more common for a motion for summary judgement than to have a jury nullification, we spent much more time there.

So...I'm curious, what is your knowledge of jury nillification based on? How did I miss out on this subject?


TALIV, I'm a little miffed myself that this subject wasn't covered AT ALL in my classes. Trust me, I will be doing more research than I already have. I can definately see the benefits of this procedure. I just went on the assumption that the appeals courts were all we had to keep a "judge gone wild" in check.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, as has been pointed out, those old pharts who drafted the Bill of Rights just weren't as wise as you, and inexplicably overlooked writing into the 2nd Amendment a requirement for training or permits/licenses as a prerequisite to keeping and bearing arms.

'Nuff said

 

[orionengnr]

and next...

We will be requiring training, and a class, and a license, to be a Parent!

Seriously...each day our society incurs far greater damage day from the last one-and one half to two generations of uneducated, irresponsible, ill-mannered, single-parent-raised, me-first Hellspawn than from all the untrained CHL/CCW/CPL holders in the history of the Republic. :banghead:

We will begin the vasectomies tomorrow at 0800. Get in line. Now.

 

[jtward01]

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

I agree completely. I started a similar thread recently after seeing a group of CWP "students" demonstrate their firearms proficiency at a local range by firing one (1) round out of a .22 revolver. Several of these people had to be talked through the loading and firing procedure step by step because they had no idea how to do it themselves. One woman pointed the gun at the target, closed her eyes, turned her face away from the gun and then pulled the trigger. The instructor handed her the certificate she needed to get her carry permit and she left. Several of the students couldn't hit an 8x10 sheet of paper at 10 feet, but they got their certificates anyway.

This is absurd. If it's too much to require a training course then at least require demonstrated proficiency. Let the issuing agency proscribe a course of fire with a minimum score and allow any NRA certified instructor to administer the test. You pass, you get your permit.

Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap. Government has the authority to regulate firearms sales and use. That was established by the courts many, many years ago. Requiring CWP holders to meet a certain level of proficiency would be a reasonable exercise of governmental authority.

 

[waterhouse]

well, comming from the guy who said one of the students in the CPL class said he was alarmed he couldn't shoot a guy without being in life threatening danger.. then i believe ya'll should sacrifice 2 hours of driving to make sure the people in the city don't run around shooting each other.

It has been said a couple times already, but . . . in States where there is no required training, people with concealed permits DO NOT run around shooting each other. It just doesn't happen.

I took the 12 hours of training, which included a shooting proficiency test. I don't feel one bit safer because of it. The target was large. A beginner could probably pass the range test, and anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together could pass the written. What I'm trying to get at is that, after 12 hours of training, I don't feel any safer walking around.

I feel that, in my case, the training served no purpose. I'm also pretty sure that the lack of training in other states has not led to a crime spree of licensed individuals running around shooting each other. So why should we have mandatory, State regulated training? As someone else mentioned, what problem are you trying to solve?

Many reasons have been listed for not having mandated training, such as the cost, the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the training/testing process, and the fact that places with no mandatory training seem to do just fine. The only reason I've seen for mandated training is so that certain people will feel "safer" around cute girls with bad tastes in clothing.

 

[WayneConrad]

Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap. Government has the authority to regulate firearms sales and use. That was established by the courts many, many years ago. Requiring CWP holders to meet a certain level of proficiency would be a reasonable exercise of governmental authority.

I can't resist. The courts started walking on the constitution during Jefferson's lifetime and haven't looked back. Depending upon the very government that has done its utmost to ignore our rights to then define those rights is nuts. Anyone who can read the Federalist papers and other supporting documents can plainly know what it is the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights. It's taken the courts years of prestidigitation to convince people that "bear" doesn't mean "bear," "arms" doesn't mean "arms," and "people" doesn't mean "people." But that doesn't make it so.

The courts only get a say in court. When we the people are deciding whether or not the government is acting properly, don't take their word for it.