How do you feel about the prerequisites about obtaining a CCW permit

[Winchester 73]

How do you feel about the prerequisites of obtaining a CCW permit

I bring this up because of a recent thread where a poster repeatedly emphasized the need for training before being able to obtain a carry permit.
Yet Vermont(since 1902)and Alaska require no permit of any kind to carry open or concealed and their violent crime rates are in in the bottom 7 of the 50 states.
Texas and New Mexico and many others on the other hand require hours of classroom training and live fire at the range before one can receive their license.

 

[The Unknown User]

Owning a firearm is a responsibility. Proving you're up to the task is important.

I agree with the laws in most states.

 

[starshooter231]

I agree with some of the requirements. I think the only way to get some people to learn the laws in regards to concealed carry and the use of force is to make it a requirement. I don't think that you should be required to shoot during the "training", but if all somebody has to do is take an 8hour class to get a permit I don't see the big deal.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Owning a firearm is a responsibility.

Yes, it is.

It is your responsibility to be proficient, because you will be held accountable for each round you ever discharge.

Whether your state requires training or not.

In PA, a human excercising their rights is presumed competent, and is held accountable accordingly.

As for placing training conditions on the LTCF, well, we take the whole "shall not be questioned" thing fairly seriously.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Rob87

Proving you're up to the task is important.

I agree with the laws in most states.

Who sets the standards for "up to the task"? What keeps the standards constant over time?

starshooter231

I don't think that you should be required to shoot during the "training", but if all somebody has to do is take an 8hour class to get a permit I don't see the big deal.

Would you still be okay with a 24 hour class? How about 1 week, 40 hours?

Suppose you needed 40 hours for a revolver, 80 hours for an autoloader. What kind of requirement for a shotgun or a .30-06?


At what point does all of this become an "infringement"? :banghead:

 

[def4pos8]

I don't believe that the training required, at least in Ohio, is sufficiently rigorous. The basics are covered, and that is good. The training shouldn't prevent citizens from exercising their Right and that's the balance point.

The folks in my class (of twenty) included six or seven completely new to firearms. They were trained sufficiently to not hurt another citizen inadvertently, but they weren't trained to use a firearm effectively for defense.

I'm a long-time shooter and NRA rifle/pistol instructor. I'm not totally confident that I'll be effective in a "me or the perp" shooting situation. More instruction in situational scenarios would have been useful. Legislating such is awfully tough, so I do understand why things are as they are. We all have our roles in The Great Play.

 

[geekWithA.45]

We all have our roles in The Great Play.

Indeed we do.

I keep telling people that permits have a lot to do with the public's acceptance of people being armed in public, and to some extent, the training requirement facilitates that acceptance.

I'm not thrilled about that, but I am calling it the way I see it.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

Would you want some one to walk in and out of the DMV fully licensed having only been a passenger?

 

[The Unknown User]

I'm taking a firearms safety course next year, and I'm looking forward to it. I look forward to learning how to be safe with firearms, and not shoot myself or another person accidentally. I look forward to learning about the laws, so that I behave within both my rights and said laws. I look forward to being educated enough to not become a statistic that will become part of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence's so-called "arguments" for banning firearms.

This is what separates me from irresponsible citizens and criminals. I have no intent of committing a crime. I have no intent of being an irresponsible idiot. The right to keep and bear arms is not the right for stupid, irresponsible people, citizens or otherwise, to accidentally put others' lives at risk.

We can sit here all day and argue about how it's a "right" and not a "privelege," but frankly, an irresponsible gun owner is still a bad thing.

 

[Raijin]

I'd say at least require you to pass your Hunter's Safety Course in order to get your permit. It's been ages since I took mine (only perfect score in the class ) but they covered all of the basics for firearm safety and then some.

Or maybe a short written test on how to properly handle a firearm. But 40 hours of classes? No. Live fire exercises at a range? No. That's YOUR responsibility and I shouldn't have to pay higher taxes to fund someone else's handgun training.

 

[nwilliams]

People need to be trained in gun laws and gun handling if they intend to carry in public. Remember that many people who carry guns for protection for some reason don't see the need or don't have the desire to shoot their gun, all they want to do is just carry it around with them.

They need to understand the laws regarding the right to carry in their given State and what it means to use deadly force to protect themselves or others.

People need to show some proficiency with a gun if they intend to carry in public. If they buy a gun with the intention to protect themselves they need to show that they aren't putting everyone else around them in danger by not being able to hit what they aim at. IMO far too many people carry and have no skills whatsoever with their firearm, they don't seek further training to improve their skills nor do they even practice like they should.

Carrying a gun is like driving a car, people have a right to do it, but they also need to know how to operate that device safely and know the laws that govern that responsibility.

That's my ¢2

 

[jqbagley]

I'm a bit dumbfounded by most of the responses to this thread. Man has a right, but must undergo training to exercise it? So the prevailing wisdom is that we have the right to keep arms, but to bear them only if we permission from the government?

 

[skarpenz]

Haven't read this whole thread, but...

In my county all I needed to obtain my CCW was get fingerprinted and NOT be a felon. Granted, I can handle a firearm well, can hit what I aim for, and plan to take more than my fair share of training classes. Beyond criminal background, why should the govt regulate to hell and back, our rights to carry?

 

[garymc]

In Missouri several years ago we started requiring hunters born after a certain year to take a hunter safety course. At the same time, hunter orange was required for firearms deer season. Hunting firearms injuries dropped significantly. I don't like the idea of legal requirements, but it worked here. (Turkey hunting doesn't require orange and accidental shootings during turkey and other seasons also dropped.) Unfortunately the lowest common denominator makes life difficult for the rest of us. But having fewer injuries and deaths from careless, stupid, or ignorant gun handling has to be worth something. You don't see it written about on these forums much, but I think having and exercising rights are decisions most people are best allowed to make for themselves. We all have probably heard people say "It's a good thing I don't have a gun or that guy who just cut me off would be dead." Most of the time they're kidding, but for anybody who knows himself or herself that well, I won't criticize their decision not to carry or be around loaded guns.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Raijin

I'd say at least require you to pass your Hunter's Safety Course in order to get your permit.

I have no desire to hunt.

 

[The Unknown User]

I see nothing wrong with a couple of small "hurdles" in the way of law-abiding citizens from legally purchasing or using firearms.

It makes you think.

"Do I really want to spend $65 and the greater part of a Saturday taking a class?"

"Do I really want the responsibility of a firearm?"

It weeds out the irresponsible people who would otherwise contribute to the already high accident rate involving firearms. (More then zero accidents is too many, in my book.)

 

[Doggy Daddy]

garymc

In Missouri several years ago we started requiring hunters born after a certain year to take a hunter safety course.

But having fewer injuries and deaths from careless, stupid, or ignorant gun handling has to be worth something.

Benjamin Franklin

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

 

[Nitrogen]

I always thought weapon carrying laws should be repealed, period.
Commit a crime, do the time. Commit a crime with a weapon, get your time extended, as well as the amount of time till parole.

Now I realize this makes people nervous, so here's my concession:

Open carry, unlicensed, most any places, with current restrictions for places like schools, bars, etc.

Then, if you want to carry concealed, or carry in places that are usually not allowed, get a ccw permit/chl/whatever. Get your background checked.

If you have no felonies ever, and no class A/B misdemeanors for ~5 years, you're eligible. This lets you carry anywhere, including airplanes, federal and state institutions, etc. (Maybe not prisons, I'm sure there are a few places we'd have restricted to LEO's only, but they better have good reason for it.)

EDIT:

Would you want some one to walk in and out of the DMV fully licensed having only been a passenger?

That's pretty much how it works in most states these days! You pass a written test, and take a driving test.

IF you've been on the road for any period of time, you KNOW that this really keeps the poor drivers off the road. [SARCASM DETECTED]

 

[Lurp]

I agree with Doggy Daddy and see the requirements of CCW as an infringement. What regulations do is decide who is worthy to be allowed to defend themselves. No one is more or less deserving of the right to self defense and it should be offered to all equally with no preferential treatment. I know my father has wanted to get a handgun license in NY for the past couple of years, but has not gone through with it because of time restraints in taking the course and all of the stupid paper work. He works long hours and commutes to work along with being the owner/land lord of an apartment building and has a family of 3 daughters still at home, one of which is handicapped. He has little time to do anything he wants to do and rarely gets out to shoot (maybe 3 times a year) let alone take a long class to obtain a pistol permit. Sure he could do it if he really wanted to, but why should he have to make sacrifices and work extra hard to exercise his RIGHT to self defense? I can't believe that people here are actually supporting requirement to exercise your right...

 

[garymc]

Well, I didn't have much problem with the 8 hr course I had to take. I don't remember if I had to take it or pass it, but nobody flunked. Even a couple of people that would make you shudder to think of them handling guns a lot. That said, it is definitely what I would call an infringement, but a political necessity in many states. The best argument about the question, however is the example of Vermont where there is no requirement and no apparent problem caused by the lack of it.

 

[Cavalier Knight]

That's pretty much how it works in most states these days! You pass a written test, and take a driving test.

If some one who has never driven gets in as the driver & you as the passenger already knowing how to drive.... you'll know instantly that they have no driving skills way before you flip over, lol.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Run a background to make sure they aren't a felon.

Give them a class to make sure they know the law.

Simple shooting test to make sure they can hit MOBG at ten paces.

Issue license if passed all three, no ifs ands or buts.

Allow licensed people to carry anywhere and everywhere they can go. People who don't get a license, but can still legally own get to carry on their own property

The end.

 

[Lurp]

Would you want some one to walk in and out of the DMV fully licensed having only been a passenger?

The right to drive isn't garaunteed by the Bill of Rights, else I would. ;-)

 

[Cavalier Knight]

The right to drive isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, else I would. ;-)

The funny part is all these laws historically were actually created to "stop me" from having firearms & not you so I'm not really going against the venue here it's just funny how every one else gets worked up I just got six permits & said try something else to "stop me" I'll wait. Until then stop by Small Armz. What's the point of being a Juggernaut if I have nothing to walk through, over & crush..lol.

 

[Telperion]

Would you want some one to walk in and out of the DMV fully licensed having only been a passenger?

Do you think passing the DMV qualification makes a person a competent driver for all situations? Take a course from Skip Barber if you want to learn to really drive.

Similarly, state-mandated CCW courses and quals generally fall short of the mark for training for deadly force encounters. That's what gun skul is for.

Training should be something you seek out on your own.