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

[Elza]

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.

geekWithA.45: 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 agree with both of these posts. There have always been rules tempering the rights of one against another.

What gripes my butt is having to pay $140 to exercise a right! Our other rights are free. The government is effectively holding our 2nd Amendment rights for ransom. Poll taxes were held to be unconstitutional as it infringed upon the right of the poor to vote. Why should the 2nd Amendment rights be any different?

 

[Soybomb]

I don't believe that the training required, at least in Ohio, is sufficiently rigorous.

Can you show your belief is supported by actual statistics showing that the people in Ohio are having concealed carry related accidents that aren't happening in other states or are you just letting your imagination take over?

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.

Lets expand it even more and consider not only the states that don't require permits to carry but also the states that require permits but no training. And then we shouldn't be looking at the violent crime rate, we should be looking to see if people carrying in these states are causing a problem with ND's everywhere, or shooting people when they shouldn't, or whatever people are worried is happening.

The brady group plays make believe when they try to dream up justification for gun laws and we try to nail them to the wall for it every time. As gun owners we should be able to do better and actually look at the real world data. I suspect the problem here is only imagined or we'd have been hearing cries to have the carry policy in these no-training/no-permit states changed long ago. Its a shame that while so many gun owners will jump at the chance to say "there won't be shoot outs in the streets over parking spaces, look at the states that already allow people to carry" they don't even consider looking at the states that don't require concealed carry licensing or training before deciding thats just good common sense gun control.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I don't see how the Second Amendment could possibly involve a right of Americans to keep and bear arms if there's a training requirement for it.

If an American who refuses to take a formal training course--a CWP course--is denied the ability to carry a firearm, it's not a right but a privilege.

Privileges can be granted, denied, or withdrawn. The basis for granting or denying any privilege can be arbitrary or it can be an instrument of social policy. For example it was at one time the policy in several states to deny black people the ability to carry self defense firearms. Only the police in Washington, DC, can even own handguns much less carry them. Only certain people in New York City are allowed to carry concealed handguns legally.

All such policies are legitimate if the ability to carry is a privilege instead of a right. And if it is a privilege, it can be withdrawn at any time or granted under such restrictions as to make it irrelevant to just about everyone. For example, it could be granted only to people in the regular state militia while they are in active service. That would be roughly no one.

The question in the original post is timely. Just a few days ago Jim McCloskey, the political cartoonist for the Staunton (VA) News Leader, published a cartoon that depicted gun owners as irresponsible Bubbas. When people complained about it one of his responses was that he thought of firearms ownership as a privilege. If gun owners agree, there's no point in protesting McCloskey's cartoon or the newspapers that publish lists of concealed weapons permit holders. There's also no point to Heller v. DC and there should be no interest in it. Privileges have strings.

Rights don't have strings. Many people remember when black people in Southern states were required to pass a literacy test before voting. The argument in favor of literacy tests was similar to arguments in favor of training requirements for concealed weapons permits: they were necessary to avoid misuse by untrained people.

You also need to decide whether having the means to defend against deadly attacks by people with superior force is a privilege or a right. If it's a privilege, you certainly can argue the need for training. But then you deny that ability to people who are too poor, for example, to pay for a course or to take time off from work for one. If it's a right, how can you possibly justify imposing any restrictions on people who want to exercise it.

I understand that nobody sensible wants irresponsible people running around the streets with hidden guns. But who here is capable of determining who is irresponsible and should be prevented from having the means to preserve his life? I know people (some of whom are poor rural white men) who have never taken a course in firearms safety but could teach such a course at the drop of a hat. I also know a few people who have taken the mandated CWP course and scare the hell out of me. There are a few cops I know whose arrival at a shooting range is the signal for me to pack up and leave--fast. Those people are scarey dangerous in their gun handling.

Sometimes we treat concealed carry as a kind of exclusive club. I don't think that's a good idea, or right either. Most people--nearly all--who have a concealed weapons permit never have the occasion in their entire lives to draw their gun, thank God. Why deny it to the person who might be in a situation in which there is desperate need.

The more hurdles we construct the fewer people will carry. We're all smart enough to create a lot of hurdles and requirements, all of them well intentioned, but why do it?

Of course it's possible to argue that people who carry concealed weapons need to know the law. The trouble with that argument is revealed by the number of people here and in other gun forums who have a CWP but need to ask about it. They have the permit so they must have taken the course and passed the test. But they don't know the law or don't understand it. What they got was exposure to it, not knowledge of it. It's easy enough to give people exposure to the laws in their state by sending them a booklet with it to accompany their permits. The ultimate point anyway is whether someone violates the law. Why should anyone care how it's done? If the laws are too complex to be intuitive for a decent person, the proper approach to them is to fix the laws instead of requiring permit holders to be unlicensed lawyers.

How many CWP holders know and understand the case law anyway? If they do understand it, why are there interminable and innumerable discussions of hypothetical situations with legal implications in these forums? If there's some need to punish people, punish them for a failure to do right instead of punishing them in anticipation of it. We're good but we're not that good.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Of all the things for the Texas CCW requirements, I found the class about Texas law the most useful. The shooting test was a joke. On the other hand, some people DO fail the tests and you do have to wonder if that person should be carrying a gun for SD if they can't hit a target at 3 meters.

 

[Hank Dodge]

Maybe I look at things a bit differently, but I think that carrying a weapon is serious business. I take it upon myself to seek out knowledge and training for anything that I feel requires a great deal of proficiency. If I choose to carry a weapon to protect my family, that should be my right and my decision. The fact that I live in a state that restricts my ability to do so bothers me. Vermont and Alaska have the right idea, if there are no violations or issues on your background then I feel it should be allowed. This particular part of California that I am stuck in does not issue permits to the common working class. I have formal firearms training and an exceptional background, but this does not matter to them. The fact that I want the ability to protect my family is not enough justification for the issuance of a permit.

 

[Constantine-p89]

I agree with the concealed carry law but disagree with some of the others lately.

 

[Mannix]

Yes, let's pay and be forced to prove our worthiness to exercise our rights as human beings . I was under the impression that we were citizens, not subjects, though after reading some of the responses here, I'm not so sure.

Robert Hairless hit the nail right on the head, a right licensed is a privilege granted.

 

[sacp81170a]

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

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

Freedom of speech is a responsibility. Proving you're up to the task is important.

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

Not being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process is a responsibility. Proving you're up to the task is important.

Being secure in your person, papers and property from unreasonable search and seizure is a responsibility. Proving you're up to the task is important.

Freedom of religion is a responsibility. Proving you're up to the task is important.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Zen21Tao]

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

I agree with the laws in most states.

No, owning a gun and being able to employ it to defend your life and/or the lives of others is a right. How you exercise this right is a responsibility. This is much the same as having the freedom of speech and freedom of press, but having to pay the price if you slander or libel someone.

I am sorry, but a person shouldn't have to prove they are worthy of exercising a right unless they have already done something grave enough to lose that right. Seriously, where to we draw the line when we start making people have to qualify for their rights? How about an initial 60hrs of weapons training taken at a state or federal run weapons training course to purchase a firearm then a mandatory 10hr a week training to keep that weapon?

 

[Hokkmike]

I think it is hypocritical to insist that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right and then tack the requirements of passing some government designed and approved course BEFORE you can exercise it.

Many here have compared the RKBA to driving. Driving is a privilege. It is NOT a right referenced in the constitution.

A good training course in pistols (dad's used to do this stuff) is a good idea but lets not make it a requirement.

For those of you stuck with a mandated courses as part of your states status quo I am sorry. Don't compound the problem by excusing these prerequisites away.

 

[Eric F]

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.

I beleive this may be a direcr coralation of the fact both of these stated are at the bottom 5 for population

 

[joffe]

I support Vermont carry and can support CCW prerequisites only as a stepping stone from a completely denied right. It's better than nothing, but ideally the natural right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

 

[Foosinho]

Can you show your belief is supported by actual statistics showing that the people in Ohio are having concealed carry related accidents that aren't happening in other states or are you just letting your imagination take over?

Ohio's CCW went into effect in 2004. In 2004, Ohio had half the accidental firearm-related death rate that Vermont did.

Unfortunately, there aren't really enough datapoints yet to be able to make a determination about that factoid's significance. The CDC only has numbers thru 2004 available on the web. And, of course, those numbers don't take into account the number of guns (only the size of the population). But...

I'm actually kind of shocked that so many people would think that requiring basic competency training is an infringement of liberty. If the cost born by the individual citizen is a concern, then provide government-funded vouchers. In which case, we might as well implement Switzerland's model - make everyone part of a trained militia force.

I imagine most folks here get training anyway. So why the "I want my guns and I don't want to be trained!" attitude?

 

[1911 guy]

Economic infringement.

My beef with CCW training requirements is the cost involved. Here in Ohio, it's a minimum of $100 for the class, another $55 for the five year permit. Mine's only good for four, since I got it several years ago, before the revamped law in April. That's a lot of money to some folks. Personally, I can work a day of overtime and cover it, some can't. It boils down to the right for those who can afford it. That's wrong.

 

[romma]

I wish we could Vermont carry everywhere... However I hold CT,FL,NH permits!

 

[Henry Bowman]

So why the "I want my guns and I don't want to be trained!" attitude?

Where do you see an "I don't want to be trained?" attitude? Do you really not understand the difference between wanting to be trained and a requirement to do so?

 

[redneckrepairs]

I dont personally see training requirements for ccw as an infringement . With that i do agree that its an economic hurdle for many that is too high . IMHO if a state is going to require training then the state should provide said training free of cost to any and all who pass the fingerprint check . Also i feel that a ccw permit should cost about 5 bucks ( to cover the cost of the lamanating machine ect.. ) and be same day issue as the completion of the requirements .

 

[AZAndy]

I can see a legal (though perhaps not rational) distinction between "keep and bear" and "carry hidden." I don't think that having to get the state's permission to carry concealed is an infringement of rights, as far as the law goes.

I'm grateful for my experience with the concealed carry class. I learned a lot about local law that would have taken a lot of wading through dense verbiage otherwise. I don't feel as though I had any rights infringed upon in going through the process, though of course I could have carried openly if I chose to, which I gather is not the case in all locales. ;-)

A.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

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

So someone born on May 7 1959 is a lot better hunter than someone born on May 8 1959?

"I beleive this may be a direcr coralation of the fact both of these stated are at the bottom 5 for population"

Probably Not.

And I am getting sick of the Drivers license issue.... Driving is NOT the same as shooting. Look around at the range how many people do you see texting or eating a big mac firing a pistol. End Rant.

 

[skwab]

Personally I take my CHL very seriously. We can argue all day whether or not it is an inherent right but the fact of the matter is that having training requirements further validates that those who carry it have a great respect for what it means. In Texas we have several hours of lecture with a shooting qual - it's not that difficult - if someone can't pass that, or take the time to learn the laws, I'm not sure if I would want them to pull out a weapon under stressful conditions. I wouldn't argue if the qualifications became more difficult.

I agree totally with the right to bear arms, but it takes discipline to properly use that firearm in a public setting to protect yourself or others - I also feel that the training requirements will help protect you if there's a case where you use your weapon - legally, the more stringent the qualifications to get a license, the more difficult it will be to tear it down in court.

When my wife and I took our course, our shooting quals were alongside a group of people who were trying to get their security guard certifications - the highest scores came from the CHL candidates and renewals (my wife who had only fired a gun a few times before that course out shot every single one of those trainees) and 3 or 4 of them had to remediate the shooting portion. These people were trying to get a job, and didn't have respect for what they were getting into - I would say most of the CHL holders I have met do, and so yeah, to have a CHL, I think there should be training involved.

 

[strat81]

I'm not thrilled with the permit system in Nebraska. It's expensive, between the class and the permit fee (gun & equipment not withstanding). However, I am very thankful I was forced to learn the law, and many other things (thanks to my instructor, Paul Horvick). My biggest gripe is with the money required. Registering to vote is free, why not a permit?

I see both sides of the argument:
The RKBA is enumerated in the constitution and we should not be required to pass tests, get training, and pay fees to exercise that right. Imagine if you needed a journalist's license (or similar non-sense) to write a letter to the editor for your newspaper. Or maybe a tiered system for books: A Class 1A license lets you read non-fiction published after 1960, a Class 2A allows fiction and non-fiction but no periodicals, etc etc.

The other choice is to let people "Vermont Carry" at any time, presumably with an age limit (like voting, signing a contract, etc). However, you then will have uneducated, untrained, irresponsible people with guns. But, those people already have guns and the Constitution doesn't say we have the right to bear arms except for idiots.

I'd be more likely to support a system that requires a written and practical test. Both are administered for free, and your permit, license, or whatever is issued for free if you pass. Training is not required. But, if you don't know the laws of your state, you won't pass. If you have no idea how to load your gun, or line up the sights, and can't hit a refrigerator at 15 yards, you won't pass.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Hmmm.. a little musing on why I think at that at least minimal ability to use the firearm should be demonstrated before a license is issued. Remember, we are talking about the right to carry a firearm in public, not around your own house or property. That particular right should never require any form of licensing. As such, talking about the right to carry in public we must consdier the ultimate extension of that right, using a firearm in public, which is really the right we are talking about licensing since no one is just carrying for style points.

As with any discussion on rights and the Constitution we need to remember that there is no such thing as a right that can not be eclipsed or infringed. Even the ultimate right, life, can be removed when it is found to infringe on the rights of other people... which is why you will never find self defense in the Constitution. It's an understood basic of how our rights interact with each other. That being said, it's perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution to place a limit on RKBA to ensure you exercising that right doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Namely, that you aren't likely to kill grandma if you ever have to exercise fully your right to bear arms. That is why I think there should be a class teaching the law and ensuring at least minimal marksmanship, so that the state can say they have taken steps to assure the rights of others, while allowing you to exercise yours.

Is there any level of course than can absolutely ensure nothing untowards will ever happen? Not that the average joe could ever afford to take. But then again, we have to balance making the exercise of the right available to the most people versus the actual effectiveness of the limitation. Hence, a minimal class that most competant people should easily pass with the least disruption.

As for fees... they are too high. It should only be what the state actually pays to process the license. If the state clerk makes $20 an hour and processes five apps, the fee should be $4.

 

[Vaarok]

I have nothing but loathing for the NY state pistol permitting system, which is why I have not yet taken the course. Signed up for the next one, but not taken it yet.

I do believe that for concealed carry one should be required to take at least minimal training. Firstly and foremostly, as Gw45 said "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."

Life is compromise, absolutists can beat their head against a wall from here until doomsday holding out for their miraculous transition to a completely perfect situation, but in the meantime I'd rather make slow progress through negotiation with the opposition or incremental improvement of the situation.

Yes, open carry everywhere might be nice. But likewise, there are and always will be idiots out there exercising the same rights as you and me, and other idiots who can't or won't tell the difference and want to block everyone.

I don't advocate some form of mandatory training because a short course will make the person a more proficient shooter, that's not really that likely. I advocate it because it provides a reasonable buffer of due dilligence that helps protect the use of that right from fearmongering and hysteria.

Much as I like the Ben Franklin quote, absolutism is a pretty unworkable negotiating tactic in a democratic society.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Hank Dodge:

Maybe I look at things a bit differently, but I think that carrying a weapon is serious business.

What makes you believe that other people don't treat carrying a weapon as serious business?

 

[Liko81]

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?

You are exactly right that with rights come responsibility, and in an ideal free society the citizen takes upon themself the responsibility when they exercise the right. However, neither humans nor society are ideal. The right to keep and bear arms brings with it some of the highest responsibilities of any right enumerated in the Constitution, because that right, when in the wrong hands (criminal, insane, ignorant, lazy, physically incapable), can cause a lot of pain and destroy a lot of lives. Many citizens, unless they are required to do so, will not take a gun education course, perhaps because they think they already know the law (which is varied and fragmented and has important elements at every level of government), or more disturbingly because they take the attitude that the law does not apply to them.

Further, ignorance is not a right. School attendance is compulsory for every individual between 5 and 18, and truancy is a crime. In most states you must either pass a driver's education course or a state-administered driving test, or both, to receive a driver's license. Without a DL, you have little or no autonomy (you are totally dependent on others to travel), which is quite simply a reduction of your liberty as the ability to travel where you wish, when you wish is a basic right of a free society, but made practically impossible in modern cities without a motor vehicle. Why do we do this? Because ignorance breeds crime. The lack of knowledge in general is a barrier to gainful employment. Ignorance of traffic laws and motor vehicle operation causes death and destruction. Vehicular manslaughter, by its very existence, specifically defines a car as a deadly weapon. Why then does it not make sense to require education regarding the first deadly weapon that comes to mind when you hear the term?

We Texans are very proud of statistics regarding gun crimes. Of the crimes committed with or in relation to a weapon, or where a weapon would facilitate or escalate the crime whether used or not (mostly violent crime), here are the stats for 2005:

CHL population = 248,874
TX general population = 22,859,968
Major crimes litigated = 34,791

% of the general pop that were convicted of a major crime = 0.00152%
% of CHL holders who were convicted of a major crime = 0.00052%

By these numbers, a CHL holder is 66% LESS likely to be convicted of a gun crime. Now, there are other variables (those who bother to get CHLs are following the law, thus separating them from those who carry concealed illegally in the first place). I don't have "control" numbers - similar stats from a state that does not require a training/qualification course - but it would appear that education on gun laws, compulsory or not, would have some affect on these stats.

The connotations of "right" and "privilege" are often placed at opposing ends when decrying regulations of the RKBA. However, when it comes right down to it, We the People have granted ourselves rights, and can, in certain circumstances, revoke them. The connotation of a "right" is that it is irrevocable; we however do so all the time to those who have not shouldered the responsibilities that those rights imply, and therefore, in our opinion, are unworthy of the right. We do not extend many rights in the first place, even to citizens, until they have met certain criteria (usually age). If they are basic human rights, or rights of citizens, then we either need an adjustment of the connotation of a "right", or a new definition of "citizen" (as citizens are those who have rights).

Rights also conflict; you have the right to free expression, but if I do not want to see or hear your expressions I have the freedom to choose not to, and therefore if you act in such a way that I cannot do so, your actions are a violation of my rights. You have the right to privacy, but I have the right to refuse to let you risk my home and life by cooking meth in the apartment under or next to me, which is enforced by granting the police the right to invade your privacy under suspicion of a danger to the public welfare. You have the RKBA, but I have the right to say you cannot bring a gun into my home or business. And even though your have the right to bear arms, the government has a mandate to promote the public welfare, and in doing so can require you to prove you have shouldered the responsibility implied by your granted right.

You are not infringed in your right to carry unless you refuse to prove you will shoulder the responsibility, or have in the past proven yourself incapable of doing so; anyone of legal age and no criminal or mental history, thus possessing full rights under the Constitution, has the right to apply for and recieve a CHL. "No-issue" state/local laws and "May-issue" states/municipalities that are "No-issue" in practice because the licensors use their discretion to reject everyone are, IMO, unconstitutional. And I think that a license to carry a concealed handgun should also grant the right to carry openly in states that do not allow open carry; a person with a CHL has, in attaining a CHL that requires qualification, proven both their ability and willingness to shoulder responsibility, and therefore no matter how they carry, society can be as sure as of anything that they pose no danger to the public welfare. And society should be educated of that fact; guns visible in society are carried by responsible, law-abiding individuals. A carry license and/or mandatory education and training simply validates that.