Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[heavyshooter]

Brethren and Sisteren,

Next week my wife and I will be attending a CCW class in the Denver metro area. The class comes highly recommended and of course it is taught by an NRA certified instructor. The thing that surprised me was the lack of range time. I moved here from Dallas a couple years ago. In Texas we had to pass a shooting test using a CCW (in Texas it's called CCL) specific target. We had to achieve a shooting score of 70% to pass the class. But here we only cover the theory aspect of concealed carry and take a written test. There is no hands-on practicum in which the theory is applied. This surprised me because of women like my wife. She had no firearms knowledge when we got married. The class with no range time will be sufficient for her because she is married to a man who will require a degree of hands on proficiency before I will be comfortable with her carrying. I will conduct my own range test (she feels more comfortable with me teaching her so it works out for us). But what about those who are not married to gun savvy spouses? I mentioned this to the woman who took our registration at the class and her response was,

I am an American citizen so I have the right to carry a gun. Requiring me to take a shooting test before I am allowed to carry is Un-American. I did not even own a gun when I received my CCW. You do not have to own a car to get a driver’s license do you?

My response to this was, "No, you do not have to own a car to get a driver’s license, but you do have to drive one don’t you?" Guys, no one screams second amendment more than I do. But I have seen a few “non-smart” goobers handle firearms in such a way as to make me run for cover. I recently saw the range marshal expel two young men due to their absolute gun ignorance and disregard for safety. I may be in the minority here (and I am sure that I am rehearsing a common topic of discussion), but I believe you should show some practical proficiency before being issued a license to carry a firearm. Just as we do not hand a 2,000 pound car over to an untrained (driver's ed.) teen, maybe we should not hand a Glock and a holster over to a novice. Comments?

Heavy

 

[TexasRifleman]

In Texas we had to pass a shooting test

A blind person could pass that test and in fact a blind person DID pass the shooting test in North Dakota.

And no, you should not have to pass a test to exercise a right.

The difference between the car and the gun is twofold;

1) there is no Amendment protecting the right to drive and

2) the gun should only come out in extreme circumstances, the car is used every day.

Once you open the door there is no limit is there.. today you have to score a 70%, tomorrow a 99%. And then they start storing the scores and your score of an "imperfect" 98% comes out in a lawsuit when you use your firearm in self defense. It could lead anywhere.

No, it shouldn't be part of this exercising a right.

 

[General Geoff]

Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

No.

With rights come responsibilities. These responsibilities are your burden, and not the government's job to regulate it. This includes becoming proficient and maintaining proficiency with your sidearm.


edit; as a side note, we don't require knowledge tests before voting. Nor do we require swimming tests before owning a pool. We don't require parenting tests before having a child. Yet you suggest we should require a shooting test before being able to exercise a constitutional right?

 

[halfbreed808]

[Quote:
Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?
/QUOTE]

Yes. You need to safely drive a car before you get your license. You should have to safely shoot a gun to get a CCW. Simple common sense goes a long way when preventing accidents.

 

[TAB]

I think so. I'd also like them to make sure you can safely load and unload the gun. Since you will be doing that alot more then shooting it.

 

[Kind of Blued]

No.

Civil liberties are dangerous. That's the point. It makes it really easy to find out who cannot handle such freedom. Once they demonstrate their lack of respect, they lose their rights and everybody else carries on most of the time.

Sometimes innocent folks will fall victim to the criminal's neglect by losing their life, but that's inevitable, and the freedom is worth the occasional pain.

You, as an American, do not have the right to "feel safe". You have the right to keep and bear arms in order to create your own safety.

That being said, I think if you're going to carry a gun you should know how to shoot it, load it, unload it, and follow the four rules at all times. Driving a car has never been a right. It has always been a privilege and is treated as such. Bearing a firearm has always been a right and is currently treated as a privilege.

 

[Doc_Jude]

I agree with the General. However, I would like to think that anyone who decided to CC would be responsible enough to learn to shoot, so that if their 2nd Amendment right is ever "actualized", they will pose as little risk as possible to their fellow law-abiding citizens...

 

[Kind of Blued]

Simple common sense goes a long way when preventing accidents.

You just put the words "common sense" in a sentence which advocates making the Second Amendment less accessible.

 

[heavyshooter]

General,

I hear ya. I can defintely appreciate your point. But poor voting is self-destructive. Inability to swim will result in self-drowning. The parenting argument is pretty strong, but even then you will lose your children if they are poorly cared for. The problem is you can not be sure of how lame a parent will be until the children are born. But with a firearm, we can know about poor skills that may be life threatening to others. You have to take a test before you can be a barber. That's funny to me because hair grows back, lives don't.

We do not universally apply the 2nd Ammendment. We do not allow the metally challenged or disabled to fully benefit from the bill of rights (BTW - I have met a man who is legally blind who was licensed and my immediate thought was - how the hell did that happen). Felons and minors are not benefiting from the 2nd ammendment. I am assuming that it is because we have concluded, right or wrong, that they are unable to use a firearm skillfully or wisely. It is interesting to me that an 18 year old who is no more skilled or wise would have full access to carring a firearm without confirmation of proficiency.

Doc_Jude said, "I would like to think that anyone who decided to CC would be responsible enough to learn to shoot..." I have that same hope, but we all know that not everyone is that responsible. Have we just concluded that "constitutional rights" require the occasional bad moment? To use Kind Of Blued's language, are civil liberties dangerous?

I don't know. My opinion on this changes from week to week. Today I firmly hold the position that shooter's ed. should be a prerequisite for CCW.

Heavy

 

[HK G3]

I don't necessarily think a shooting test should be a requirement.

However, I think everyone should be required to actually SHOOT under some instruction.

This way, the newbies can learn some proper techniques, and be more effective in defending themselves should the time come. I see it as more ideal for the permit holder's own benefit.

 

[woodybrighton]

a meaningful test and training regime would be prohibitively expensive to run and pay for.
anything else might just weed out a complete numskull but there unlikely to bother with a class anyway like the "hero" who thought a pistol was the right response for being annoyed in a cinema

 

[SniperStraz]

Yes. You need to safely drive a car before you get your license. You should have to safely shoot a gun to get a CCW. Simple common sense goes a long way when preventing accidents.

+1 on that

 

[Treo]

HEAVY SHOOTER,
You may want to check & see if your previous instruction will fulfill the state requirement ( why pay for a class you don't need?)

NOW ON TO THE QUESTION

Not only do I not think there should be a shooting requirement, I don't think there should be a permit requirement. If my right to life ( and by extention my right to defend that life) is truly God given & inailenable ( means "Can not be transfered to another" ) Then the state shouldn't be able to regulate my exercise of that right so long as I don't infringe the rights of another.

IOW the mere possesion of a concealed hand gun infringes on no ones rights and shouldn't be regulated by the state period.

Are civil liberties dangerous?

Not as dangerous as their absence. We have a member here called "Officer's Wife" her sig line reads :

Freedom means, saddeling your own horses, shinning your own boots and, when necessary, killing your own snakes.

Freedom isn't safe, it requires you to take responsiblity for your own life, your own safety, and your own sucess. It carries with it the possiblity of failure and the understanding that you're working W/out a net.

If you give the state the responsibility for any of these you also give up the freedom that accompanies the responsibility

 

[housedad]

All this is what the family used to teach. Family taught family how to handle and use firearms.

Nowadays, It ain't so.

If a person carries a firearm, whose responsibility is it to use it wisely? Is it the government? should they be required to be his mother?

No, the rightful responsibility lies with the person carrying the gun.

We have given too many of our responsibilties and rights over to the government to act as our parent.

It is sad that as the USA culture grows older, it is actually acting younger and waiting for Daddy and mommy (government)to fix everything.

 

[General Geoff]

housedad, spoken like a true patriot.


People are too childish. They expect too much coddling from the government. They want to be safe, secure, and well-fed, with minimal responsibility. This is the antithesis of freedom, the founding principle behind this great nation.

There should be no license or permit whatsoever required to carry, let alone some stupid government test.

 

[woodybrighton]

Which is fine but you don't live in a libertarian paradise you live in a country where people sue if they get scalded by hot coffee they tried to balance on there lap while driving and win
demonstrate you can load unload and draw and carry your handgun safely and understand the four rules is probably the minimum you can get away with.
its teaching shooters to suck eggs.
but non gunnys who want protection need to be safe

 

[CajunBass]

A shooting test? You're kidding? I don't think a permit should be a "requirement," much less a shooting test.

 

[heavyshooter]

Welcome cereally. It's good to have a new guy here. For future reference, keep the insults and address the topic.

Heavy

 

[Treo]

Not bad 18 posts before Godwin got here

WOODY,

demonstrate you can load unload and draw and carry your handgun safely and understand the four rules is probably the minimum you can get away with.

Vermont has no requirement for a permit & gets along just fine thanks.
Also as I mentioned earlier Colorado allows open carry W/out any permit or safety test requirement and we don't have a noticably higher instance of shooting ( negligent, accidental or otherwise).

To clarify my earlier statement:

If my right to life and liberty is truly inailenable then the state shouldn't be able to transfer that right to themselves by virtue of a permit system.

Again if I can openly display a firearm sans permit what purpose is served by requiring a permit to cover it?

All it does is empower the state by enacting another mala prohibita statute that infringes the rights of law abiding gun owners while having zero effect on the criminals.

No permits
No restrictions

 

[heavyshooter]

Treo,

I was completely unaware of the open carry law in Colorado. You mentioned that this does not apply to Denver (my guess is that Boulder is allergic to that law as well). It does seem inconsistent to allow free open carry and then require permit for concealed. We are on the same team doc, I promise. Having said that, let's remove the government from the discussion for a moment. Have you ever seen an individual handle a gun and found yourself thinking, "Oh my god he's going to kill someone." And I am not referring to stupid behavior, I am refering to ill-informed behavior. I witnessed this with a young lady at a range in Aurora, CO (no range marshal). She was in the stall next to me and had recieved her CCW that week. She waited until it arrived before going to the range to learn how to shoot! She had a Springfield XD40 subcompact. I witnessed the very first time she fired the weapon. The recoil made her cringe and she nearly dropped the it!!! She fumbled it and regained control before it hit the ground. Some of us came to her aid and gave her the gun 101 class. The thought I had was, "Why did she not learn this in the CCW class?" That is more the point of the question. If we have to take a class anyway, why would we leave out gun handling, the most crucial part?

P.S. - Who is Godwin?

heavy

 

[Bozo]

Whether a state has a shooting test along with class room instruction is really not the point. If it is truly a "right" then there should not be any test or ID required to be carried upon one's person.

Some states will not recognize other states concealed carry permits when you are passing thru. What sense does that make, they recognize an out of state drivers license.

 

[Regular Joe]

We have open carry in NV as well, but CC requires a permit, which does require a shooting test. Regardless of how it plays into anyone else's agenda, I am all for a shooting/proficiency test. It is my belief that people in general are not anywhere near as aware of what used to be taken as "common sense" when the Constitution was written. At that time, Self Reliance was a fact of life. People lived much closer to the cause and effect that determines whether you continue to live, or perish. Living with that awareness, one was more likely to appreciate the fact that anyone who had lived through all that life throws at you was worthy of respect.
People who carry guns in public need to know what bullets do, and how to make them do unto the bad guy, rather than any nearby innocent person.
Having to qualify on paper dispels any myth about magic guns, calibers and loads. It's on you, and anyone who wants to carry concealed in public needs all the reminders of this fact that a training situation can provide.
In Nevada, each applicant pays a fee and covers all costs that way. I have no problem with that.

 

[bikerdoc]

I seldom respond to these type of of posts but here I go;

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE
No permit
No test
It is up to YOU to keep you and yours safe.
To educate yourself and learn what you need to know.Then pass it on. My dad and granddad taught me. Uncles and neighbors were also involved, I taught my son and we taught the grandkids - not just gun safety, but driving, fishing, hunting, working with tools, MANNERS, faith, in god, helping your fellow men, working hard, and to take resposibility for your own actions.
I think we need to get back to the concept of parents being parents, grandparents being grandparents, and neighbors being neighbors.
We dont need Government at any level doing the job of the family. I
Dont care if you disargee, Thats your right, and I will defend it. Im done and will not get into an agruement over this, Its only my opinion. And over the years, I have learned that the only thing that counts is results not opinions.
Sorry if I offended anyone, It was not my intent. You are all still my brothers,
God bless you all
Rant over.
Doc

 

[Oro]

P.S. - Who is Godwin?

heavy

I am guessing what Treo meant was "Godwin's law." It basically is interpreted to mean the first person to invoke the Nazi's in an online argument loses. I gather that's not what Godwin originally stated, but it's how it's now interpreted nowadays.

I guess the reference was to Cereally's Hindinburg send-up, or maybe there was a Nazi/hitler comment that was edited out subsequently.

Google "godwin's law" and you'll find some more discussion of it and it's history.

 

[Treo]

Godwin's law

Definitions of Godwin's law on the Web:
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
That any Usenet discussion will eventually mention the Nazis or Adolf Hitler
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Have you ever seen an individual handle a gun and found yourself thinking, "Oh my god he's going to kill someone." And I am not referring to stupid behavior, I am refering to ill-informed behavior.

Yes I certainly have (now to put the state back into the disscusion)

If it's her right to purchase and carry a gun it shouldn't be the states responsibility to ensure that she's proficient W/ it.

Once it becomes the state's responsibility the state becomes empowered to set an arbitrary proficiency level and use it to deprive any or all of it's citizens of the right.

Rather than give the state more power because we're required to take a class, we (IMO) need to use every legal means at our disposal to take bake the power we've ceded to the state.