Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[Treo]

When we're conferring on a person the power to take a life (possibly the wrong life) with the pull of a trigger,

Who said we were conferring anything ? I don't recall ever conferring on the sate the right to decide when, how and if I can defend myself. If the right to life (and by extension the defense thereof) is inailenable then it's already been conferred by God.

 

[Treo]

Requiring someone to display a minimal level of competence while firing a box of ammo at a range isn't onerous.

Requiring somebody to get a permission slip for self defense is

 

[DaveBeal]

My head hurts and I haven't changed the wall's mind at all.

Bailey, I think we've found something we can agree on!

 

[Zoogster]

Absolutely not.
That is no different than a literacy test to vote, which was used to deny rights in parts of the nation by giving great discretion to those involved in the testing process.

I do agree that people should know how to both operate the firearm and shoot well before they should carry, but that is seperate from a legal requirement.
If you really want to be sure people can excercise thier constiutional rights by the time they turn 18 then you should make sure they are taught in school.
A gun safety course should be mandatory curriculum in all middle or highschools, it is after all 1 of only a few specificly listed rights in the Bill of Rights, and therefore should be of enough importance to at least cover the basics.



Vermont does fine.


Do I want a blind man shooting a firearm? No, but...
If I was blind and as a result even more vulnerable to attack would I want to be able to pull a firearm if attacked and discharge it into the violent attacker at contact range? Absolutely.
They should have thier rights even if they can't possibly shoot the bullseye at 25 yards.
They should be held accountable for thier conduct.

Freedom is not certified safe, it is however rare in this world and we are one of the last bastions of it on earth. There is nowhere left to move to in order to be free. Make your stand here.

Many people have good reasons for not wanting various people to have various rights, but they are still thier rights regardless.
There is people who speak things that lead to many problems. Problems that could be avoided if they didn't have the right to say those things. There is thought processess and ideals kept alive many don't like because people can still say them.
There is criminals that are not caught because of thier 4th amendment rights not to be searched, spied on etc just in case they do something wrong.
The 5th makes it harder for officials to accomplish some good things.
In fact all our legal rights make things much more difficult. There is some very good reasons to remove them all, and just make them discretionary abilities some people have rather than Rights.
That is why the founders went out of thier way to list some.


Also as noted test scores could even be used against you. 100% could be used against you to show you were such a good shot there was no reason you shouldn't have ... shot the weapon out of thier hand?
Just passing could show you were just barely legaly qualified, yet you still chose to carry and as a result...
Of course with tests will come periodic renewals at some point.
Test scores could be used to show gradual loss in proficiency as you get older.
Senior citizens with shaky hands should simply depend on others, like the police not required under SCOTUS ruling to defend any individual and who are only minutes away when seconds count.
That disabled person that cannot handle firing 50 rounds repeatedly from thier wheelchair and has some joint or hand injury or arthritis, has severe pain when firing, etc should just not be allowed to carry. That way when some criminal sees them trying to get around they can target them freely without danger.


Society has essentialy a captive audience from 1st to 12th grade to teach and indoctrinate. If they choose not to teach individuals how to be safe with the only item absolutely guaranteed by the constitution, the one government is forbidden from infringing on, then that is thier choice.
The choice is not to infringe on what "shall not be infringed" upon.
Requiring a license is bad enough. Requiring a test for a right is worse. You do not receive an english test when you go to vote. Nobody determined if you had faulty logic or if you even know the history or principles the nation was based on.
You didn't have to pay a fee (tax), or aquire a license either.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Oklahoma is a SHALL issue state. That means that the CCW holder only has to meet a MINIMAL requirement to be granted a carry permit. CCW isn't about LE level training, it is about the individual right to protect myself and my family. That is an INALIENABLE right contradictory to ANY restrictions.

The ONLY reason I see for the shooting portion of the CCW test is to make sure the licensee CAN SHOOT THE GUN PERIOD ! To make sure that the day it is needed is NOT the first time the holder has shot the weapon. Many people simply cannot afford to go to the range and shoot to competency or proficiency levels of LEO training.

CCW is about anybody and everybody, not just a few. All are equal.

Also, quit using the car / automobile argument.

Any 16 year old with a license and enough money can buy a Ferrari or a 200 mph motor cycle. Same testing requirements for either one.

Or, more sensibly, get a scooter, or a Geo Metro.

Ask any teenager which they would prefer, yet there are no requirements to restrict the purchase of these vehicles.

Far beyond the utopian dreamstate lies the concept of freedom, and freedom can be defined far more easily.

 

[rbernie]

If I did apply for a permit and was denied because I couldn't demonstrate a safe level of competence, I probably wouldn't be happy about it but I'd understand that there's a public safety issue at stake.

Good thing that no public official ever established an unreachable performance quota to further a political agenda.

Yup.

That'd never happen.

<sigh>

You ever hear of "the Black Codes"? It's how state politicians created barriers to prevent blacks from voting in southern states. You know how they did it? Poll taxes (legal until 1972), literacy tests, and other 'common sense' qualifications that effectively denied a segment of the population access to what we consider a basic right (albeit not as basic as something enumerated in the Bill of Rights).

Why would we EVER want to confer the power upon the government to do such a thing with such a basic human right, e.g. the right to effective self-defense?

 

[hnk45acp]

This question always breaks down into absolutists vs. realists and there's never a satisfactory answer.
Absolutist will never allow the camel's nose into the tent and realists are viewed as sell-out slippery slopers. Pick a side and lose

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Oh, a 200 mph motorbike only costs 10,000 dollars. any kid with a job can afford one !

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

No.

Except that a course in Guns, Gun Safety and Shooting should be required in High School, along with the three Rs. To that extent, it should be "mandatory". The only license one needs to exercise a fundamental constititional right is the constitution itself, and of course, you don't have to actually carry a copy around with you.

This question always breaks down into absolutists vs. realists and there's never a satisfactory answer.

I disagree. The absolutist view is QUITE satisfactory, both in real and theoretical terms, thank you very much. Is there some huge problem in Alaska and Vermont? No, I don't think so.

Absolutist will never allow the camel's nose into the tent and realists are viewed as sell-out slippery slopers. Pick a side and lose

And the absolutists are absolutely right about that - IMO.

 

[Ironjarhead]

There should be no test!!!:banghead:

Even if it was just a handling test, what is there to stop the antigunners from making it an impossible test.

Something along the lines of field strip and clean your weapon to thier specs.
(of course there would be a time limit and it would never be clean enough)
Draw your weapon and present on target in .001 seconds.

If given the oppurtunity some people will use any excuse to take away our right to bear arms.

 

[MaterDei]

This one's easy... NO.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Amen Doc !

How did you change your screenname ?

 

[tblt]

You don't really have to pass the course you just have to take it.
The course is a joke
They need to teach more gun safety and when you should draw your gun.They need to pound this into peoples heads.
Too many people that have a ccw want to draw there guns.

 

[zammyman]

I'm also very pro first amendment, at the same time, it's like a drivers test: How would you feel if a drivers license was given only from your results on a written test, no driving test required? I don't think any score should be given for a CC shooting test, just a pass/fail. A specific target set at a specific range- can you hit it? If not, get ready for a later retake. Let's be honest if, if a person cannot shoot straight and pulls out their gun in self defense, who knows who else will get hit? It's not unreasonable to want people who carry to shoot well, and I certainly don't expect navy seal level shots... but at least a reasonable (standard half sized silhoutte) target at say... 10 yards.

Yes carrying is a right, but it carries with it a responsibility; the person receiving it needs to practice enough they are competent in their own abilities. Anyone who can shoot well at the range who doesn't know how to deal with the adrenline won't shoot as well without lots of practice in a self defense situation.

 

[hnk45acp]

No.
Except that a course in Guns, Gun Safety and Shooting should be required in High School, along with the three Rs. To that extent, it should be "mandatory".

that's stlll a requirement.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

When I first heard "shooting test" I cringed at what might be required skill level. Then when I saw HUGE target a few steps away I almost started laughing and thought to myself "Its in the bag!"

 

[heavyshooter]

No. The license is about carrying, not shooting. If a person can carry safely, his shooting skills are his own business.

Uhhhhh, okay??? I don't even know what to say to that. I would think that the point of attending the class is to prepare yourself for the moment when you have to draw your carried gun. And if you draw a gun in my proximity, your skills are not just your business, they are mine as well. You are focussed on the gun, I am focussed on the projectile.

 

[cat9x]

you dont have to take a test for the right to vote

 

[heavyshooter]

To the original question,

just ban guns and be done with it already.

Drama.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Originally posted by zammyman:
I'm also very pro first amendment, at the same time,...

That's nice. Just a little lukewarm, though, on the 2nd Amendment it seems.

 

[Tirod]

The purpose of Government is to prevent evil. Obviously, Constitutionally guaranteed or not, to get a driver's license, you need to show basic safe operation and proficiency. Anything less creates loss of life. Unintentionally killing someone with a car is just as dumb as doing the same with a firearm. If you can't drive, don't be on the street. If you can't shoot safely, don't bring a gun around me.

RKBA? Yes, absolutely, until it infringes on my basic right to breathe air. YOUR rights do not supercede mine. WE have to have some compromise in which to coexist peacefully. I have to demonstrate safe gun handling so that you won't get killed accidentally.

MO requires a shooting test. Locally, the only ones to fail were an older woman who didn't have enough hand strength to pull the trigger, and a older man who constantly adjusted his hearing protection with gun in hand and finger on the trigger. As my son would say - Epic Failure.

I agree any certification can be misused to exclude certain groups - but to disempower a group takes their willing participation. We saw the end of Apartheid in America in the '60's, and CCW has gone from "The Few, The Proud" to 48 state acceptance. It was done by hiring legislators who understood what the citizen wanted, not selling our birthright for pottage.

If anything, I fear some Americans will do exactly that, again, as they did in the '30's. I'm not worried about the shooting test, I passed it not having been on a range in five years, on 4 hours sleep. Some people there had been practicing for weeks and barely kept it in the black. A shooting test really means your state government is considerate enough of you to hold your neighbor to a standard for your protection, and theirs, too.

 

[Treo]

The purpose of Government is to prevent evil

The purpose of Government is to secure the freedom of it's citizens

Godwin Alert
The purpose of the NSADP certainly wasn't to prevent evil

 

[K3]

RKBA? Yes, absolutely, until it infringes on my basic right to breathe air. YOUR rights do not supercede mine. WE have to have some compromise in which to coexist peacefully. I have to demonstrate safe gun handling so that you won't get killed accidentally.

How does ownership or possession of an object infringe on another? It is not an overt act. It's like a book sitting on a desk.

The purpose of Government is to prevent evil.

Maintain some semblance of order, maybe. Prevent evil? Where did you read that?

 

[Sniper X]

That is very basic K3. In fact, no one carries a cocked loaded deadly book. And a book sitting on a desk is not going to shoot an innocent bystander because of the lack or training.

 

[Odd Job]

I guess I am in the minority because I am looking at things from a generic perspective. I don't think a written test will help, but a practical one that proves that the new owner can operate a firearm while respecting the Four Rules can only be a good thing.
It doesn't have to be centrally regulated, it can be done by an independent body, even the gun shop or the manufacturer.
The new owner gets to try as many times as he likes until he passes.
Is it unreasonable for other members of the public (whether armed or not) to expect that gun owners aren't going to be a potential risk to them because of unsafe handling?