Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[moooose102]

well, it was a part of my ccw class. it was more about gun safety, rather than shooting ability. still, it really might not be a bad idea. have a minimum marksman ship level at close range. in mich., the magic distance is 20 feet. anything further than that and it may not be considered a necessary shooting, unless you were already under attack and being fired upon. circumstances usually dictate. but if you are within that 20' circle, and someone can prove that your life, or the life of someone else that you decided to defend was indeed in peril, your chances of going to jail go way down. so if you had to hit 6 shots, oh, say out of 10, into an 12" circle at 20 feet, that would seem reasonable to me. this isnt real acurate, but as a government standard, it should be ok. that way, if you could not hit that well to start off with, you could get (hopefully) the right kinds of tips and help to make you a better shooter. now, if you could do that with 3 ounces of adrenaline rushing through your system would be another thing.

 

[bikerdoc]

Amen Treo

On the matter of unsafe handling;

If any of us comes accross unsafe handling, Is it not our obligation to educate?

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

I haven't read through all the posts in this thread. My opinion...

Licensing is UnConstitutional and should be done away with. Need support? Check out my signature.


P.S. For all the posts here that support carry licensing and the requirement for a handling/shooting test, rewrite what you wrote and replace every instance of "CCW license" with "the ability to defend one's life and the lives of loved ones"...
I picked an excerpt for an example. The bold text was substituted by me:

You should have to safely shoot a gun to get the ability to defend one's life and the lives of loved ones.

That poster's quote went on to finish with "Simple common sense goes a long way when preventing accidents." Yeah, and that type of common sense goes a long way to prevent people from defending their lives and the lives of those they love!

ETA: Most of those in this discussion who are in favor of testing for licensing speak of a CCW as if it requires that you carry the gun around in your hand. It cannot be compared to driving in the least, EVEN IF driving were a protected right (which it isn't). When I drive a car, at every instance of the drive I am performing duties which require me to prevent a crash. Conversely, almost everyone who would carry can go for years or even a lifetime carrying a gun in public, without putting a hand on the grip, drawing from the holster, removing the safety, aiming at a threat, or proceeding with the steps required for a shooting test. It should be obvious that every step I outlined, even before aiming at a threat, would be illegal if that threat did not exist (i.e. brandishing). Perhaps not "putting a hand on the grip", but I hope I made my point. It seems to me that those who support licensing and testing are FEELING more than THINKING. Just my opinion.

 

[hso]

I have see-sawed back and forth on this question before, but came to the conclusion that a simple shooting test isn't going to make someone competent to carry a firearm. The bigger questions of whether to use a firearm and when are much more important than whether the individual who will probably only ever handle the firearm on the day of the training. That can be dealt with in the classroom.

 

[Oro]

Like HSO, I am also on the fence, but what I think is a good compromise is what Florida does or used to do. This is what it did when I got a cc license there about 15 years ago:

The applicant sits through a four to six hour class that is basically a lecture on safe gun handling and the legal situations where using it is allowed, and where using or drawing it is a bad idea. No shooting/testing requirement.

Thus, you sit through the course and are at least exposed to the law and responsibilities. No test written, no test oral, no shooting or comeptency test. Bascially, you can't fail. But you've had the information.

I've also lived in:

1) VT - no laws whatsoever. Nice
2) NYC - no chance whatsoever. Very bad.
3) DC - ditto
4) WA - just take your prints and pay your fee. Pretty nice.

Of all those states, I'm most comfortable with the way FL did it - safety and legal education and nothing else.

I like the education I got in the course in FL, and think it's good to know. It's the basic law about what you are getting into, just like driver's ed. And again, you can't fail, and there's no subjective handling or shooting test (or at least this is the way it was in the early 90s). I do not view that as an unreasonable restriction. The only way to argue that that is unreasonable is to also argue that learning traffic laws before going out driving is unreasonable - ignorance of either can get you and others killed.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

hso, among all the reasons why I oppose testing for licensing (or even licensing alone), you have managed to bring up another very good reason!

When/if a license holder has to use their firearm to save a life, 3 or 4 years after going through the class, while they are under life-or-death stress levels, does anyone really think they are going to resort to their "extensive" training from the CCW class? There are probably people out there reading this thinking "well, the training couldn't hurt". Wrong! It could hurt a lot if it prevented a victim from carrying a gun, enabling another low-life criminal to take advantage of CCW laws!

Another P.S.: Regarding the gun/car licensing analogy... There must be at least 10 controls on the most simple car out there, and those controls are used at every step of the way while driving a car. A gun? On the most complicated handgun, I can count 6 controls (trigger, mag release, slide lock, de-cocker, safety, hammer), but I don't know if any guns have both a de-cocker and a safety. My handguns have 3 controls. ...and a gun's controls are used MAYBE once in a lifetime (on average, it's about ZERO times in a lifetime).
I think we can drop the car/gun license comparison.

 

[Dragk913]

I do think each CCL/CCW should have to be proficient with their weapon of choice, however I would rather they cracked down on people getting their driver's licenses..because there are a lot of idiot drivers on the road and I'm more scared to get hit by someone on my motorcycle, than getting shot by CCL-ee.

 

[rbernie]

but came to the conclusion that a simple shooting test isn't going to make someone competent to carry a firearm

This is exactly what I was going to write. Firearms proficiency is not gained via a single class nor measured via a single test.

As was stated at the beginning of this thread:

With rights come responsibilities. These responsibilities are your burden, and not the government's job to regulate it.

And so it should be.

 

[lions]

I don't think there should be a pass/fail test but I think there should be a shooting portion. I don't think anyone here would be opposed to a little more shooting.

That way the instructor could identify anyone who may need a little more help operating the gun (loading, unloading, controls, firing, etc.) and offer them the instruction they need.

Not everyone may be fortunate enough to run into a THR member at the range or have a knowledgeable spouse/family member to teach them.

 

[Deanimator]

Just make basic firearms safety a REQUIRED course in high school.

 

[Deanimator]

I don't think there should be a pass/fail test but I think there should be a shooting portion. I don't think anyone here would be opposed to a little more shooting.

The required CCW course in Ohio is usually the NRA Basic Pistol course. You basically have to not shoot yourself or anyone else in the shooting portion. We don't seem to have a lot of people CHLs shooting up the state.

 

[Treo]

No Classes
No Permits
No Restrictions
No Exceptions

 

[wccountryboy]

I'm all for having to pass a test before being allowed to carry, just like I think you should have to have a permit and pass a test to exercise free speech rights, and to be allowed to attend the church of your choice..... As a matter of principal, licencing and permiting shouldn't exist.

Now, to return to the real world:

I have CCWs in both WA and NC, and the differnces are staggering. WA was almost too easy, submit prints, pay your money, Sheriff is REQUIRED to issue within 30 days, assuming you come back clean. No class, no training. I think this works for WA because their CCW/deadly force law is very simply written, and you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it.
NC....Not sure what to say, 8 hour class, very confusing CCW/use of force laws, silly "qualification". Probably worth it just ot have some understanding of the laws here.

Prohibitions against carrying weapons have been a fact of life in this country for well over 100 years. No SCOUTUS decision has struck down any of these laws. Even Heller, while it identified the 2A an individual right, did not address carrying of weapons, as it was outside the scope of the issue before the court.
To continue moving forward in the fight to restore the 2A, showing that CCW holders are "trained" only bolsters our position. It took a long time to dig the hole we're in, it'll take a while to get out of it.

 

[rhoggman]

Freedom is a Lost Art

I don't think people understand how freedom works anymore.

Why are people always wondering wether other people should be required to do something?

Why are so many "good ideas" transformed into requirements?

Sometimes you have to wonder why people recieving governemnt assistance are blamed for being lazy.... There are so many rules, regulations, requirements, taxes, fees, dues, et cetera that you might actually need governemnt to help you pay government.

Case in point. The right to keep and bear arms and or defend youself and your property is a God given right. Lets pretend you are 87 years old, and you worked on the railroad all the live long day up until about 27 years ago. You raised your kids, paid off you mortgage and aquired some things like cars, guns, and some other material possesions. You also saved a hundred thousand dollars hoping it would carry you to the grave with a full belly and warm hands..........

Now all of the sudden you owe 4k/ year in property taxes even though you've owned your house outright for 40 years. Basically you are paying rent to the government because you exist.

Personal Property tax is owed on that nice car you own. You bought your Chevy in 69 and now it is worth 30k, so you PPT is 1k/ year.

So now your lousy old fart butt is nothing but a burden to Society who has been paying the government their dues with his Social Security Check for the last 7 years.

The same principle applies to the CHP. If the government want to shove a bunch of requirements down people's throats they should have to pay the cost. Sooner or later all the money the .gov forks out to meet/ enforce all the BS laws they make up is going to bank rupt them. Then they will understand why freedom was such a good idea in the first place.

 

[CoRoMo]

I'm also in the crowd that believes that these 'requirements' have become modern day infringement. My signature speaks my true belief. It is pretty cut and dried; plain and simple. I have the right to own and carry self defense weapons, period. Vermont and Alaska seem to get that and don't bother getting in the way of it.

As Treo pointed out, open carry is legally accepted as an inalienable right, permitting for concealment is nonsensical.

What's odd about Texas is that you qualify to carry a certain handgun. At least this was the case for my mom & dad who live there, and I only know this modicum of information that has been mentioned over the years. Mom qualified with a revolver so she is unable to carry anything other than a revolver. Dad qualified with his 1911, so he is not allowed to carry any of his revolvers. I don't understand how the state doesn't think you are competent to operate a revolver after qualifying with a semi. You can always pay for a second go'round and qualify with the other, but again, more infringement.

 

[GBExpat]

Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

IMO, no, it should not.

 

[slim76]

No restriction

I have seen people in an academy setting who have never even touched a gun go from no proficiency to becoming very proficient. I was great to see.
However, the 2nd Amendment is not about having well trained people although that would be nice and we can encourage people to educate themselves. It is about the right to keep and bear those weapons without any restrictions placed upon it by government. Every law in this respect needs to be revoked, yeah even those machine gun laws.

 

[nofishbob]

My perception is that the shooting proficiency test required by some states got there as a way to defuse arguments made by the anti crowd. It was a way of demonstrating that CHL's would have a minimum level of competency.

Not that it makes it right, but I could see how it might be required to pass legislation allowing CHL's.

Bob

 

[Sniper X]

Here is what I think.

If one is not willing to take a shooting test to get a CCW they are not likely to be one who is profecient at shooting or willing to go to the range to train, like they all should do. This is one thing I think is sorely lacking from the repitoir of most CCW holders. I would guess most only go train at the range once a year after receiving a CCW if that often. I go at least once a month, and I have been shooting all my life.

Another thing, if someone doesn't want to take a shooting test at CCW training, they probably can't shoot well enough or don't know the carry piece well enough to be carrying a gun.

Just my take.

 

[mcdonl]

I say no. Often times CCW's are requried by victims of domestic violence, and the person in need of the CCW may not have the luxury of practice, range time, etc.... they need protection ASAP...

Now... that being said, the first thing I did as a responsible gun owner wanting to get a CCW was sign up for the classes and spend 1 or 2 hours a week shooting my weapons.

Leroy

 

[rbernie]

If one is not willing to take a shooting test to get a CCW they are not likely to be one who is profecient at shooting or willing to go to the range to train, like they all should do.

I agree. People like this have no right to effective self defense whatsoever. We should deny them the right to effective self-defense based upon their demonstrated lack of commitment.

Good call.

 

[heavyshooter]

I do think each CCL/CCW should have to be proficient with their weapon of choice, however I would rather they cracked down on people getting their driver's licenses..because there are a lot of idiot drivers on the road and I'm more scared to get hit by someone on my motorcycle, than getting shot by CCL-ee.

I must admit that you make a good point here! I am about pass out from laughter.

 

[heavyshooter]

I don't think there should be a pass/fail test but I think there should be a shooting portion. I don't think anyone here would be opposed to a little more shooting.

That way the instructor could identify anyone who may need a little more help operating the gun (loading, unloading, controls, firing, etc.) and offer them the instruction they need.

Lions,

You have put my thoughts into words. This is exactly what I am saying.

heavy

 

[Bailey Guns]

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?

NOTE: heavyshooter, the below rant is not directed specifically at you so please don't take it personally. You did start the thread, however, and I also have to take issue with some things you wrote.

Now, I'm gonna try to keep emotion outta this (yeah...like that's gonna happen), but some of you people make it really hard. And I'm not knocking realistic, competent, hands-on gun training. I think that is important. I don't think that's important, at all, for the issuance of a CCW permit.

But I gotta tell ya, once again, you people that p**s and moan about infringements on the 2nd Amend in one breath and then call for more government regulation in the next, are really getting tiresome.

First of all, we started out talking about CO in this thread. If you prefer the way the law is in TX, or wherever you are or were, that's fine. But we're not in Kansas (or TX) any more, Dorothy. We in Colorado (some of us) fought long and hard to get a CCW law we could live with. I don't think it's perfect, but it's pretty good. And I really get tired of people leaving one state because they don't like one thing or another then coming here and trying to change things to the way things were in the state they just left (that's not a reference to anyone, in particular, just things in general). We have a term for that here in Colorado...it's called, California. And I've got news for some of you...you'd better be careful what you wish for in terms of government regulation because Colorado is moving further and further to the left all the time. Your prospects for easily obtaining a CCW in Colorado may not last too long at the rate things are changing. Then when the state mandated restrictions are so difficult to meet for obtaining a CCW that the average guy can't get one, will you be happy then?

Secondly, yes, I have seen really poor gun-handling skills demonstrated over and over. Most frequently by people who claim to be "trained" and "experienced" in gun handling.

Third, do some of you really want to try to make the lame comparison of driving a car with carrying a gun? If so, then I would suggest you make the comparison of driving a car with having the gun in your hand, loaded and ready to fire, constantly pointed at people all around you, while multi-tasking by performing other complicated mental and physical tasks, all the while interacting with others doing the same thing with their guns. Otherwise, shouldn't you compare having a driver's license and a CCW permit with having a car and keeping it in the garage? Oh, and let's not forget how honed the average driver's skills are from the "driver training" they've received. Firearms are involved in 0.7% of accidental deaths nationwide. Motor vehicles are involved in 37.6% of accidental deaths nationwide. Still want to stick with the driver license/CCW comparison?

Fourth. The 2nd Amend confers a right, not a privilege. Personally, I think written words are oftentimes more dangerous to the average citizen than guns are. You've probably complained more than once about stupid politicians writing stupid laws that affect your life far more drastically than the average guy with a permit carrying a gun after minimal training. Do you want to have to pass a proficiency test prior to exercising your 1st Amend rights? Frankly, for most people, I think that would be a better idea than having to pass a shooting test for a CCW.

Next...if you think any training you've been through in a typical CCW class in any way resembles what you're likely to face in a lethal force encounter or in any way prepares you for that moment (with the exception of legally being able to carry a gun in public for self-defense) then my guess is you've never been in a real lethal force encounter. Sitting through a couple of hours of classroom lecture and then going out to fire 20 rounds through a handgun, under no real stress, in a controlled environment, with no one trying to hurt you, in good lighting conditions and then "qualifying" if you don't make yourself or someone else bleed doesn't really prepare you for anything. If that kind of "training" would make things so much better, why do police officers, who constantly train and retrain under conditions as stressful as possible, have accidental shootings and then still have great difficulty hitting their target in a gunfight?

Furthermore...for some of you who "feel" that more training should be required, why not provide some sort of real evidence that it would make a difference? Got any statistics? Has there been a rash of bad shootings by CCW holders with minimal training? Two states, VT and AK, allow their residents to carry with no permitting or training process at all other than the person is legally allowed to possess a firearm. Now I don't know about you but I haven't heard of any issues with people there causing great mayhem in those states because they didn't have government mandated training.

Aww, crap. This is the second day in a row I'll need to double-up on blood pressure meds. I don't even get this fired up when I ready the Brady Bunch website.

BTW, heavyshooter, where are you taking your class?

 

[Bailey Guns]

Just make basic firearms safety a REQUIRED course in high school.

Now that makes more sense than anything else I've read in this thread.