CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[jtward01]

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

They never envisioned the urban society we have today where most people grow up having never handled a firearm, where 60 percent of children grow up without a father in the home. In their day virtually every home had at least one firearm, and every boy (and many girls) was taught by their father how to use that firearm effectively and safely.

Their wisdom didn't stop at drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They established the three branches of government with each acting to balance the powers of the other.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it is flexible. The founding fathers established a way - through the courts - that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways to suit the times.

 

[Herself]

Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap.

Stupid darn Constitution! That's the spirit! That's what made this country what it is today!














Ewww. It kind of is, in fact.


Jtward, those rights don't come from the Constitution; it just says government isn't to meddle with them. And you correctly report that it has. That doesn't make it right, and it's no reason to encourage more of it.

And "flexible interpretation by the courts" is no way to proceed. Yeeech. Wassamatta, can't the gun-grabbers get an amendment? You bet they can't. And they're getting kicked out of the courts, too.

--H

 

[springmom]

HOLY COW~~~~~~~~

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.

Well said. Very well said.

Then there's this:

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.

You have just GOT to be kidding me. Just because the government appropriates power, does not mean it has the authority. Authority is a rightful thing; power is simply that.... I have a police force and you don't so I can make you.

We can only hope that some day the Supreme Court will be comprised of jurists who actually have READ and UNDERSTAND the Constitution and the framing thereof. Meanwhile, you might be very happy in England these days... I understand they don't give any of that constitutional rights crap about guns either.

Springmom


"Don't give me any

 

[jtward01]

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 never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.

Perhaps we should stop requiring soldiers and police officers to get marksmanship training. You know, if they want to survive on the battlefield or in a confrontation with an armed criminal leave it up to them to seek out the training on their own. Makes as much sense as issuing CWPs to people who don't know how to handle a gun effectively.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

The posters in this thread have convinced me. We should require training before granting someone the privilege to carry a concealed firearm. It's too dangerous to allow untrained people to carry guns. They might hurt themselves or somebody else.

To make us even safer, we should require mandatory training in how to use a computer to communicate facts over the Internet. Untrained users might promulgate unfounded opinions without any facts to back them up.

It's for the children!

 

[Sistema1927]

Perhaps we should stop requiring soldiers and police officers to get marksmanship training. You know, if they want to survive on the battlefield or in a confrontation with an armed criminal leave it up to them to seek out the training on their own. Makes as much sense as issuing CWPs to people who don't know how to handle a gun effectively.

Flawed logic alert! Flawed logic alert!

We require soldiers and police officers to receive the training that we do because we are paying them to be proficient in our defense. If you pay the piper, you get to choose the tune. They don't train simply to stay alive, they train so as to kill the enemy with great efficiency.

Citizens carrying weapons for self-defense do so on their own dime, and shouldn't have to answer to anyone.

 

[waterhouse]

I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.

I was replying to the quote by UW, where he DID say that he wanted to make sure "the people" (referring to concealed license holders) wouldn't run around shooting each other.

As for the length of time for meaningful statistics, I'm not sure what year Vermont became a state (they were one of the first quarters released, so it has probably been a pretty long time), but as far as I can tell they have never in their history regulated concealed carry. They seem to be doing just fine.

 

[Herself]

I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.

How many years? Indiana has had no-training permits for at least 30 years. I believe for a lot longer than that but can't find the information right now.

We're nowhere near the top of the list for accidental shootings by anyone, let alone by permit holders.

So you would be wrong and fearmongering once again.

I am sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man. That's the kind of suspicious, uncharitable attitude that gives us gunnies a bad name, you know.

-Herself

 

[Mannlicher]

Well let me tell ya, UWstudent, I started carrying back about 1960, when I was 15. A license to carry was just a pipedream then. The only 'training' I had was from being around guns from childhood on. You don't have to go to 'frontsight' to shoot.

 

[Ralph]

You want what


"L'homme vivant sous la servitude des lois prend sans s'en douter une âme d'esclave."
"The man who lives under the servitude of laws assumes, without suspecting it, the soul of a slave."
-- Georges Ripert, Le Déclin du Droit, Paris, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1949, p. 94

 

[jtward01]

Well let me tell ya, UWstudent, I started carrying back about 1960, when I was 15. A license to carry was just a pipedream then. The only 'training' I had was from being around guns from childhood on. You don't have to go to 'frontsight' to shoot.

So, you're saying you violated the law for many years by carrying illegally?

You may have been around guns from childhood. Hopefully your father or another relative taught you how to use them safely and effectively. Most people today don't have that advantage. I don't care whether a training program is mandated or not, but I do believe a written exam and a meaningful demonstration of proficiency with a firearm should be required for a CWP.

 

[jtward01]

How many years? Indiana has had no-training permits for at least 30 years. I believe for a lot longer than that but can't find the information right now.

We're nowhere near the top of the list for accidental shootings by anyone, let alone by permit holders.

So you would be wrong and fearmongering once again.

I am sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man. That's the kind of suspicious, uncharitable attitude that gives us gunnies a bad name, you know.

-Herself

Since you're in Indiana it should be no problem for you to check with the authorities and find out how many times CWP permit holders have actually used their carry gun to defend themselves. Then find out how many have actually hit their intended targets. Then find out what percentage of those who hit their targets had received firearms training and compare that with the percentage of those who missed their targets who had also received firearms training. That should give us an accurate idea as to the value of training CWP holders.

Until you have that information saying I am "wrong and fearmongering" is simply your opinion without a basis in fact. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are. Why not do the research and find out?

 

[Moondoggie]

I recognize the libertarian aspects to the arguments against requiring classes prior to issuing a CCW. I don't think the proficiency/safety aspect is nearly as important as the portion that teaches about the law regarding application of deadly force in that jurisdiction.

I understand that a CCW and a DL are two different things, but when you take a DL written test what you're being tested on is your understanding of the law and rules pertaining to driving.

Although I already had a way better than average undrestanding of principles of deadly force, my required CCW training served as a solemn reminder of the responsibilities I was undertaking. The average person, IMHO, doesn't see CCW as a responsibility...some do, most don't.

Even in the Marine Corps, you know...."230+ yrs of rompin', stompin, he##, death, and destruction" you aren't supposed to be armed for security purposes unless you have at least fired THAT weapon for familiarization in the previous 6 months AND had documented use of deadly force training within the past year. A signed "Statement of Understanding" is also required. For the uninitiated, the military has more layers of armor plated CYA than you can possibly imagine.

For those that are dead set against mandatory training, how about if the licensing authority provides a video tape/dvd of a lecture covering the basics of the law pertaining to use of deadly force in that jurisdiction??

 

[USMCRotrHed]

My dad taught me...

He took me out and we shot beer cans with a .22 rifle when I was 8.

My daughter is now 5 and she is a pretty good shot in the back yard with her Red Ryder BB gun, and she always remembers to put the safety on before going to check where every single shot landed on the paper.

I think it is still tradition in some families.



Moondoggie wrote: "I recognize the libertarian aspects to the arguments against requiring classes prior to issuing a CCW. I don't think the proficiency/safety aspect is nearly as important as the portion that teaches about the law regarding application of deadly force in that jurisdiction."


I say ditto!

 

[NineseveN]

I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done.

Um, you are sadly mistaken. PA has never had training requirements; what you say should have materialized under those conditions hasn't. You are wrong, period. Bring some facts next time. Thank you, I would appreciate it.

BTW, is it just me or did a bunch of "different" folks seem to join in December of '05? If you look at the posts subtly trashing the constitution or RKBA rights, it's mostly from people that just joined all of the sudden and seem to know very little about firearms, CHL's, the law and the 2A...keep that in mind.

 

[Herself]

[...] I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.

How long would be long enough, do you think?

How about 70 years? That's how long Indiana has had "shall-issue" carry permits without a training requirement.

--H

 

[Herself]

Misconceptions abounding!

Since you're in Indiana it should be no problem for you to check with the authorities and find out how many times CWP permit holders have actually used their carry gun to defend themselves. Then find out how many have actually hit their intended targets.

Whoa, Nellie! Thats a big leap. The vast percentage of defensive handgun use doesn't involve shooting!

Then find out what percentage of those who hit their targets had received firearms training and compare that with the percentage of those who missed their targets who had also received firearms training. That should give us an accurate idea as to the value of training CWP holders.

...Or it would if that stat was available. No one keeps track of who has training and who doesn't. Why should they?

Defensive gun use is not about shooting bad guysl That's strictly for the movies and TV shows. Defensive gun use is about keeping oneself from being victimized by criminals.

Nationwide, police are around five times as likely to hit persons other than their intended target than are private citizens. (They also do a lot more shooting per capita, often at greater ranges than do private citizens).

Besides, your initial gripe was about safe gun-handling; now you're worried abut marksmanship?

Until you have that information saying I am "wrong and fearmongering" is simply your opinion without a basis in fact. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are. Why not do the research and find out?

Because I don't do heavy lifting for fear mongering gun-grabbers, is why! Come up with numbers proving your thesis, that states which require training have fewer accidents by permit holders than states that do not. Then explain how that trumps the Second Amendment.

After that you can take on preemptive regulation of subversive and poorly-written literature along with silly or wrong religions. Gosh, there's just so much to sweep onto the ash-heap of history, isn't there?

--Herself

 

[taliv]

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.

usmc, while i think it would help for a 'judge gone wild' i really believe it's for a legislature gone wild. i.e. if you've got a shotgun with a 15.9" barrel and the ATF charges you with violation of the NFA'34, IDEALLY at least ONE of the twelve on your jury would think... "hey, wait a minute... that law's not constitutional!" and acquit you.

when a judge takes it upon himself to misinform the jury, The People lose a very valuable check/balance.

frankly, if the concept of jury nullification was common knowledge, i'd bet roughly 90% of people in prison on drug charges would be free.

 

[USMCRotrHed]

JNOV

I know I was a "just a little" agast when we covered post trial motions. A motion for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict just didn't seem right to me. Why should a judge have the power to vacate a jury ruling if he and he alone believes the jury did not act in a reasonable manner.

Jury nullificaton restores a little of my faith that there is still a little hope left in our judicial system.

Thanks to you and to Herself. I've learned my one thing you are supposed to learn each day. I can now go to bed.

 

[springmom]

Love it

I know I was a "just a little" agast when we covered post trial motions. A motion for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict just didn't seem right to me. Why should a judge have the power to vacate a jury ruling if he and he alone believes the jury did not act in a reasonable manner.

Jury nullificaton restores a little of my faith that there is still a little hope left in our judicial system.

Thanks to you and to Herself. I've learned my one thing you are supposed to learn each day. I can now go to bed.

USMCRotrHed, can we bottle the essence of humility in that last paragraph please? And spread it around the internet!!!!!!! +5 to you for that one thing!

(And I agree with you about learning something: I did graduate constitutional law courses, but it was the judicial activist '70s and we weren't taught that either. +1 to those who knew to share it with us!)

Springmom

 

[Herself]

I've done some research on the CDC website http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html getting the "rate" (gun deaths per 100,000) for several states. Picked 2000-2002 data to start. I'm using packing.org for carry-permit requirement information.

New Hampshire (no training).6.29
Indiana (no training)..........11.40
Nevada (training)..............17.75
Nebraska (no data!)............8.61
Mississippi (no training)......17.27
California (training, no spec).9.74
Texas (training)................10.80
Maryland (training)............11.52
Arizona (training)..............17.79
Massachussetts (training)....3.12
Vermont (no training)..........9.58
All U.S............................10.41


If there is correlation between the rate of handgun deaths and training requirements, it escapes me. I don't have time to do all 50 states right now.

--Herself

 

[pax]

Herself ~

Add Oregon & Washington to the ones you research. They've got very similar demographics and similar carry laws, but Oregon requires training and Washington does not. Washington has had shall-issue, no-training carry permits since just about forever.

BTW, I'll go with the original poster on one point: if you have a permit to carry a gun, and don't get training, I think you're a fool.

(But it should be legal to be a fool.)

pax

 

[Herself]

Thank you, Pax!

Washington (no training)........8.92
Oregon (training).................10.47

Any questions from the peanut gallery?

I agree with Pax; if you're going to carry, you should seek instruction. I simply do not believe you should be required to do so.

--H

 

[TABING]

If you're carrying concealed, you better be REAL CLEAR about the laws regarding using deadly force. That was the most important part of the training I received in AZ. Using a weapon should only be the absolute, irrefutable last resort. The law will be on the dead or injured persons side, especially in a situation outside your home.

 

[LAK]

Training?

That depends; if you do not know what you are doing, can not find out what, why, where and how you should - and should not - be doing; perhaps you should get training.

You can carry a handgun in some states without delay, government permission, photgraphs, fingerprints, "background checks", taxes (fees), recurring taxation (renewals) and all the paperwork. Let alone training.
---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org