Critique of Proposal for Universal Carry Law

[phoglund]

Proposed scheme for Concealed/Open Carry of Firearms

1. Comprehensive and Reciprocal Shall Issue Permit System for Every State
2. To receive a permit an individual MUST have certificate of training in firearm safety and function.
3. Certified Training is required curriculum in all middle schools public and private.
4. School based training includes extensive training in firearm safety and the function of different types of firearms as well as education in the moral and societal issues of self defensive use of deadly force and the history of firearm usage in the U.S. as well as the constitutional background of the right to keep and bear arms.
5. Free Certified Training Courses are available to anybody who does not have a certificate from school for whatever reason. (Immigrant, Home Schooled, Desire to begin carrying after law passed, Etc.)
6. Testing to obtain certificate is not written but oral and demonstrative of skill. (i.e. Must simply show the instructor that the lessons were learned by properly handling a firearm in a safe way and being able to show a functional knowledge of firearm operation.)
7. All current gun owners grandfathered in as certified trained.
8. Permits are issued for life upon presentation of certificate to issuing agency.
9. Database of those certified kept in lieu of certification so lost certification can be re-issued.
10. No record kept of issue of concealed weapon permit.
11. No restrictions on where weapon can be carried concealed.
12. Current restrictions on ownership of firearms by convicted felons and those with serious mental illness are maintained.
13. Felons and those with past serious mental illness can recover their firearms rights through a process to be developed under this proposal.

I've been mulling this over in my head for a week or so and thought I'd solicit comments from forum members. My thought is that the ability to carry a firearm should not be restricted but that education in firearm safety is important to minimize the dangers of firearm carry and usage. Making the training in firearm safety and function required for all public and private schools and having free training available to those who might not have received their training in school for whatever reason obviates the argument of a barrier to a permit.

I doubt such a scheme could ever be enacted but if the political will were there to support and pass a law to support such a scheme, what changes would you propose? Also, would you support such a scheme?

Please keep in mind this is a broad outline of a proposal and many details would have to be worked out. That being said, any suggestions on the details of implementation would also be appreciated. Also, any ideas of how such a scheme would be funded are of interest.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

- Paul

 

[Yellowfin]

I like it. Some stipulations I'd like to add is that the cost of the permit and the cost of the training must be kept affordable and not inconvenient to the average citizen, and the training be adequate but not arduous and commonly available and readily accessable. There are far too many anti gun politicians and bureaucrats who would gladly accept this but then raise the training requirement to 20 hits out of 20 on an envelope at 25 yards with a snub, training course be at one location, once a year, max enrollment of 20, $1000 in advance no refunds, and if you miss the date too bad.

 

[Flyboy]

10. How would you tell if it's a counterfeit permit, without a list of the permits issued?

Mind you, I favor VT/AK carry, and the removal of many of the Federal restrictions on top of that. I don't think any permit system is a good one, but if the system is going to exist, you need to address the question of validity.

7. would seem to nullify the value of a training requirement. You have no idea how any particular individual who currently owns a firearm was trained, and I can assure you, many never were.

4. Do you really want government schools (think California) teaching the "moral and societal issues" of self-defense?

9. This database would be an outstanding list of gun owners. Therefore, it is a bad idea.

I could probably pick it apart further, but I'm on my way out the door.

 

[Yellowfin]

4. Do you really want government schools (think California) teaching the "moral and societal issues" of self-defense?

They already teach it the wrong way, so we need to require them to tell the story right for a change. But I agree that's supposed to be dad's job, but too many fathers across the country have let us down. (Of course in my opinion anyone who isn't up to the task of teaching their kids to be familiar and safe with firearms isn't qualified to be a parent in the first place, but that's a whole nother can of worms.)

 

[GRIZ22]

Mandatory firearms training in school sounds like the Hitler Youth or Young Octoberists.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

How about not having any regulation about what firearms you can or cannot carry? You know, kind of like Vermont, which doesn't have any problems whatsoever?

Sorry, friends, but you don't have a right to decide what I can or cannot carry, either acting on your own or vicariously, through voting. You have the power to do so, certainly. But you have absolutely no right to do so.

You do have a right to punish me if I use a firearm unjustly, however.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[bogie]

Don't bother. Concealed is concealed.

 

[Standing Wolf]

To receive a permit an individual MUST have certificate of training in firearm safety and function.

How about a certificate of training before you can get married? How about a certificate of training before you can vote? How about a certificate of training before you can buy books and magazines?

Government needs to leave our civil rights alone, not regulate them.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The training requirement wouldn't be constitutional in PA.

 

[TAB]

define training.

lots of states have diffrent reqs. hell in CA diffrent issuing agencys can have diffrent reqs. the law simply says no fewer then 8 hours and no more then 16 of "instruction"

 

[hobgob]

I for one am a fan of training simply for the fact that there is always something to be learned. I grew up with a hunter for dad, so I was introduced to firearms at an early age, yet for the hell of it, i took a beginners pistol course at a local range with a friend of mine a year and a half ago. Most of the people there were older and had never fired a gun in their lives(most were taking the course to get their feet wet before taking a class on concealed carry). Even I, who has been hunting since age 10, learned something and found the experience enjoyable. Training is for the betterment of our skills in the operation firearms and it should not be taken lightly. I am glad that I had to take an 8 hour course on CCW before I got my permit because I learned a hell of a lot of stuff that I would not have learned otherwise. So to me training is fun and informative, some may say "I've grown up with guns and no one can teach me anything that i dont already know". Ok, thats fine, but you never know until you take the training course and find out.

 

[phoglund]

I think perhaps the point of all this has been lost. Protesting the requirement for training is odd since everybody is trained. Protesting the training on the grounds it is like "Hitler Youth or Young Octoberists" is a bit of a stretch. We teach the fundamentals of our society in school, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of our particular society. I'm not talking about paramilitary firearm training, simply training in the safe handling of firearms. Being able to handle a firearm safely is no different than learning how to handle an automobile safely. They are technologies that are a part of our society, not indications of intent.

The entire point of this scheme is universal right to carry and universal education in firearm safety to support that universal right.

Yellowfin
Training is provided in middle school. There is no cost.
Training for those who missed it in middle school is free as per #5
Testing requirements are outlined in #6. Very simple.
Permits are issued for life.

Flyboy
There is no real need to tell if it's valid. Everybody can get one. If you want to double check, simply see if the individual has the required training in the training database. If the individual does, it's assumed the permit is valid.

#7 is included as a written "grandfather clause" so the scheme cannot be used to strip current owners until they receive certified training. The upcoming generation would be the one that has universal gun safety training.

#4 The training curriculum would need to be standardized and fundamental. The truth is there are moral issues to be discussed regarding the use of deadly force. Dialog is good. Indoctrination is bad.

#9 The database in this item is not a database of gun owners at all but a list of those who have had training. Since essentially everybody would get training in middle school, it would be a poor way to track gun ownership. Note that #10 stipulates no database of actual permits is kept.

Sans Authoritas

I don't disagree. However, the sad truth is many laws do exist all over the country restricting what you carry. This scheme is designed to replace all those restrictions with a paper tiger that removes the restrictions. The only concession to those that would restrict is that education is a good idea.

Standing Wolf

I think you are missing the point. The points are as follows. Everybody gets the training. Training is good. Since training is universal and free it offers no restriction or barrier. Maybe "education" would be better than "training". If you are about to operate an unfamiliar and dangerous piece of mechanical equipment, wouldn't you like a safety briefing before you push the start button?

In truth this would never pass. We have far more restrictions on our civil rights now. But if it could pass, would it not be far better than the hodge podge of confusing and variably enforced restrictions we currently live with? Training is the bone to throw to those who fear the risk of a dangerous technology in ignorant hands.

geekWithA.45

I have no answer to your objection.

TAB

Training details would have to be worked out of course but the idea is to focus mostly on safety. See #4 for an outline. Suggest details.

hobgob

I agree.



Sometimes I think we approach this from the wrong perspective. For the record, I've always been against a training requirement. I think folks need to be responsible for their own actions. If you are going to operate a device that might harm those around you, you have a personal obligation to understand it's operation. If you do not and another individual is injured you are responsible for the harm you have caused and should face the consequences. I do sometimes wonder about this paradigm however. We live in a complicated society full of potentially dangerous technologies. Electricity, internal combustion, chemical poisons, acids, bases, explosives, accelerants are everywhere. Should society protect itself by requiring basic training in safe operation and usage of these technologies to those who will operate and use them in proximity to other individuals? Are electrical codes, driving education, MSD Sheets, restrictions on explosives and accelerants reasonable? I want anybody driving an automobile near me at 75mph to have a fundamental understanding of the steering wheel, gas pedal, and brakes yet I don't think people should be required to have any training before they carry a loaded firearm down the street. Either technology can kill me just as dead. Either one can kill me through intention or accident. I would like everybody to consider guns just like any other technology and not the "demon spawn" the antis like to portray them. I don't just treat guns like a technology though. I think there is a tendency to think of guns as the right instead of guns as the physical manifestation of the right to defend ourselves and our rights against personal physical attack and general tyranny.

After all is it guns we have a right to or the means to defend ourselves and our rights? Are guns the ends or the means?

 

[GRIZ22]

No record kept of issue of concealed weapon permit.


How would anyone know if your permit is valid without a record. It seems that gangbangers would create a market for counterfeit permits if there was no way to check on one.

All current gun owners grandfathered in as certified trained.


I know some current gunowners that are not "trained". What about them?

 

[ctdonath]

People know what the product is, and what happens if you pull the trigger. If they want more details, they can ask the seller to show how it works. Do you REALLY need to require more "training" than that? (And that's coming from someone with >300 hours of comprehensive training.)

Adding basic training (Four Rules safety, how it works) to public school curriculum is a good idea as just another "life skill". No permit or certification is needed.

 

[phoglund]

Grizz

No record kept of issue of concealed weapon permit.


How would anyone know if your permit is valid without a record. It seems that gangbangers would create a market for counterfeit permits if there was no way to check on one.

All current gun owners grandfathered in as certified trained.


I know some current gunowners that are not "trained". What about them?

Gangbangers could have a license unless they were prohibited by being a convicted felon or the like. Is there a law that says a "gangbanger" can't carry?

Current gun owners are exempt primarily because of the concept of "grandfathering" of a law. If an individual is currently a gun owner and can carry legally in his state, a new law should be prevented from taking away that status because he obtained it before the law came into effect. Besides, would you have all current gun owners have to go down and take a test to prove they have the skill? Your point does have merit however. What would you suggest to bring current owners into the fold?

 

[phoglund]

ctdonath

Adding basic training (Four Rules safety, how it works) to public school curriculum is a good idea as just another "life skill". No permit or certification is needed.

I actually don't disagree with you. Perhaps a more limited educational program such as you suggest would be more appropriate. I guess I have a certain cynicism when it comes to the base intelligence of a large portion of the population. After all, we live in a society that finds it necessary to teach "sex education" in the public schools. That is basically a class in the safe use and potential consequences of inappropriate use of parts we were born with!

Should a certification simply be replaced with required curriculum and call it good? Then we can dispense with a permit all together and go from there.

 

[ctdonath]

Yes, just teach it as part of a normal curriculum. Don't make a big deal out of it any more than teaching how to use fire extinguishers, power tools, household chemicals, etc.

 

[TallPine]

There is no real need to tell if it's valid. Everybody can get one. If you want to double check, simply see if the individual has the required training in the training database. If the individual does, it's assumed the permit is valid.

How about everbody can just carry without a permit, unless you have a violent felony record...?

 

[phoglund]

Tallpine,

I'd like to keep the educational part in the way ctdonath suggests. Not because it's a gun per say..but because it's a dangerous thing to pack around without at least an enumeration of the basic rules of firearm safety and the potential consequences of ignoring them. Kind of like drivers education where they teach you safe operation and have nasty films of the results of drinking and driving. It might be my personal bias, but as I said in Post #16"

I guess I have a certain cynicism when it comes to the base intelligence of a large portion of the population.

I also think if more people understood firearms there would be less of a tendency for people to believe what anti-gun folks say about guns. It is easier to induce fear through propaganda about something many of the general public know nothing about. Knowledge is the best weapon we have against the anti-gun crowd. Adding the educational component helps us in my opinion. Most anti-gunners don't live in Montana like you and I do TallPine. Guns are a mysterious killing machine to them, not the tool we know.

 

[anygunanywhere]

Gangbangers could have a license unless they were prohibited by being a convicted felon or the like. Is there a law that says a "gangbanger" can't carry?

When Texas finally clarified the car carry issue, part of the law states that gang activity makes posession of a handgun illegal under the statute.

Anygunanywhere

 

[TallPine]

I'd like to keep the educational part in the way ctdonath suggests. Not because it's a gun per say..but because it's a dangerous thing to pack around without at least an enumeration of the basic rules of firearm safety and the potential consequences of ignoring them.

That's a great idea ... now how do we get the criminals (who routinely do things like rob, rape, kill, and carry without a permit) to take the classes ???

 

[Kentak]

The chances that this proposal or anything remotely similar will become reality is about the same as the chances of the 2008 Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders Squad lining up outside my bedroom door taking numbers.

But, hey, makes for a good wet dream.

K

 

[cloudedice]

7. would seem to nullify the value of a training requirement. You have no idea how any particular individual who currently owns a firearm was trained, and I can assure you, many never were.

John Lott would probably point out that there is no evidence that requiring training has prevented any gun related deaths.

Also, isn't KEEPING and BEARING arms a RIGHT that "shall not be infringed?" Where does it say that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed, except if you don't have the proper training?"

 

[cloudedice]

Yes, just teach it as part of a normal curriculum. Don't make a big deal out of it any more than teaching how to use fire extinguishers, power tools, household chemicals, etc.

I don't know about you, but none of those were taught to me in school. I learned about each of those items at home, from my parents and my grandmother. The only one of those even illustrated in school was power tools. But, by the time shop was offered, I'd been working with power tools for several years.

 

[phoglund]

TallPine

That's a great idea ... now how do we get the criminals (who routinely do things like rob, rape, kill, and carry without a permit) to take the classes ???

Some of them must at least get to middle school, yes? Perhaps even teaching it earlier would be good. I'd not expect education of this type to decrease crime. It's not designed to. The fact that it would make it easier and more comfortable for more law abiding folks to carry legally would be the thing more likely to decrease the incidence of violent crime. The other benefit in my view is simple understanding by the vast majority of the populace of what a gun is...a simple machine focused on accomplishing a single task, i.e. to eject a projectile consistently along a known trajectory. That this machine is safe to operate if a few simple rules are followed and that it does not kill of it's own accord.