Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[Treo]

The second ammendment does not all by itself fully define gun law

No it doesn't but it very clearly states that any citizen has an individual right to own and carry a weapon

 

[JR47]

I live in a world where there is no test to obtain a CCW, in Georgia. It took all of an hour to get mine.

So, we've all heard about what we THINK might happen. We've all had a chance to see the predictions of the liberal newspapers about "Dodge City", and "blood in the streets", when the CCW laws were changed from "may issue to "shall issue". That, in many states has been over 20 years ago. Has it happened? Nope.

Latest red herring is "with Obama becoming president, there will be a surge in CCW permits. From people who know nothing about guns". Did that occur with the "shall issue" change? No, it didn't.

There are enough organizations and Congressional delegates around to have picked up on, and acted upon, CCW abuse as envisioned by the alarmists. Yet, not a peep out of any of them.

With the obvious concern about "everyone else" being unsafe, unless a truly rigorous training program is instituted, one has to wonder just how much of this is responsible concern, and how much is smug superiority.

Licensing is a method of control by the government. It is also a means of revenue. Has the licensing of doctors led to fewer mistakes? Or the licensing of pharmacists? You could never tell by the statistics of mistakes made by these licensed professionals. And there, yes, others suffer and die. Perhaps licensed electricians have a better safety record? Or not. Again, people die. Politicians statements have long incited people against others, and people die. Books like Mein Kampf and The Little Red Book of Mao have been used to foment revolution, and punish those who refused to submit. People have died in the millions. Look at the Koran today. It is being used to justify the killing of the elderly, women, and children.

In the end. Unless and until somebody can do more than imagine how something could happen due to a CCW's skill level, it's nothing more than opinion on their part. The proof of CCW carriers, with minimal, or no, required training, has been that they are no danger to society, only to those outside of the law. We have enough problems facing us today. We certainly don't need anyone thinking up anything else to limit us because of what MIGHT happen in their dreams.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I want everyone to have to take a class to get a carry license and I want him to take a proficiency test a part of that class.

When did the Supreme Court rule that what you want trumps the Constitution?

 

[rbernie]

one has to wonder just how much of this is responsible concern, and how much is smug superiority.

Actually, I think that the answer is pretty self-evident.

<sigh>

 

[divemedic]

The second ammendment does not all by itself fully define gun law any more than the first covers slander, copyright and harassment law.

See, that is where many do not understand prior restraint. Other forms of restrictions on expression (such as suits for libel, slander, defamation, or actions for criminal libel) generally involve punishment only after the offending material has been published, just as charges for misusing a firearm are only made after the crime has been committed.

Requiring a test or a class to exercise your 2A rights is the 2A equivalent to telling person he cannot have the right to free speech until he takes a class to ensure that his words will not be used to ham anyone. Throw in a background check for free speech as well.

ETA: I am sure that all of the people who are advocating tests would be happy as long as the test was one that they could pass, assuring that the law would not apply to themselves, but would only apply to "they." Let the test be difficult, say a law that you must shoot "master" on an IDPA qualifier in order to CCW, or that you must graduate from a $5,000 pistol course, and the law would become unfair.

 

[texas bulldog]

The true measure of how much you love freedom is not measured by the freedoms you agree with, it is measure by the freedoms you defend, even though they repulse you. Popular freedoms do not need to be defended. The COTUS is there to enshrine and defend unpopular freedoms.

+1 on that, sir. may be my favorite passage in this thread.

these threads seem to pop up here every couple of months, and there's always a common theme. the folks who feel testing and licensing is necessary for the good of society can never come up with evidence that there is actually a problem in need of solving. since we're talking only about people who are eligible purchasers in the first place (the felons having been removed by due process), the evidence of 20+ years of CCW laws is that concealed weapon carriers are NOT a danger to society.

again for the 321,236,575,935th time...many states do not have a testing requirement. some states don't even have a class. you just go down to the sheriff's office and get the damn thing. in alaska and vermont, you don't even need to do that. and to the shock of nervous nellies everywhere, these states DO NOT have a higher instance of problems with their CCW-holders. if you don't buy that, then go find the evidence!!

to argue that there is a need for these laws flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. it is argument based on opinion and hypotheticals, which is exactly the type of logic that the anti-gun crowd employs.

licensing and testing, as already mentioned, only grants power and revenue to the state. reliance on them to solve all problems (even the perceived but unsubstantiated ones), while willfully ignoring the idea of personal responsibility for one's own actions, is exactly what has gotten our society into the mess it is today.

we can fix it at any time by returning to the ideas that made this country great to begin with.



once upon a time, i too thought a class and test wasn't a bad idea. then i wised up. i beg you to please not empower the nanny state any further than it already is.

 

[heavyshooter]

I don't want to read the whole thread, but there is a distinction between making sure people know how to shoot their guns without blowing their own toes off, and making the requirements so restrictive as to be unattainable by the average shooter, such as, "You must complete a week at Thunder Ranch before you know enough to carry."

I do remember reading an article about this debate when Utah was considering "Shall Issue" many years ago, the advocate said something to the effect of; "If there is a shooting competency requirement, it must be a test that an 80 year-old woman with arthritis can pass with a gate-loading revolver, because she is the one who needs this option at least as much as everyone else."

I can affirm this post. Should we be sure of competence before we issue a CCW? That is a less controversial question.

 

[heavyshooter]

My issue W/ the permit requirement is all it does is empower the state. It's a ridiculous law. Many states that don't regulate open carry require a permit to conceal the same weapon. Example : In Co Springs I can walk down the busiest street in town openly displaying a handgun ( for that matter I could sling carry a rifle W/ out breaking any laws. Someone would call the cops but I would be W/in my rights ) completely in compliance W/ State Law. No Permit, no fee, no class and no background check.

But, if I were to conceal the same weapon without a permit under similar circumstances I'd be guilty of a 2nd degree misdemeanor.

Now if someone can explain the logic behind that or tell me why empowering the state to require a permit makes everyone safer, I'll show up at Barack's inauguration in a klan robe

Treo,

It's illogical! You won't get any argument from me on that. Do not get fitted for that robe! It's a bad (and not funny) idea.

Heavy

 

[WVMountainBoy]

Hmm I had never put much thought into this before, but after reading only a few of the comments I believe I have formed an opinion. While I believe it is good for the instructor to provide hands on training with a weapon as that is what the class pertains to, I don't think one should have to "Score" something to obtain the permit. Simple operational teachings with a few shots to confirm ability to handle the weapon, but no score or accuracy testing.
Further as another member said, absolutely no storage of the targets or record of ability should be kept for several reasons.
When I took my CCW class, the instructor allowed us to bring our own weapons, he also provided several of his own .38 revolvers. He spent time with everyone in the class and discussed weapon choice and critiqued several people's choices on the basis of over-penetration and control issues. (I didn't mind at all, we were paying for his expertise) He then took us to the range and made sure we could function both a semi-automatic if that is what we intended to carry or a revolver, if we stuck around after everyone had a go, he would show us the other. He then said we were free to leave but anyone to wanted to stick around for tips was welcome. He stayed for another 4 hours helping folks familiarize themselves with practice, ammo selection, and some concealment ideas. I was quite happy with my 35 dollar investment in his class.

 

[wherestheham]

This post made me think. Thank You.

My first reaction was- "yes, they should have a test." This is because I am safety minded.

However, after reading and thinking I changed my mind.

Rights are not earned by taking a test. Rights are inherent.

Unfortunately this is not the opinion of most.

Also the "safety" laws often make no sense. Here in Florida the law requires you to wear a seatbelt for your safety. However, the law recently changed so you can right a motorcycle without a helment.

So: no....no test.

 

[Dominus]

Its incumbent on the individual to have their shooting proficiency and accuracy at a personal satisfactory level not the governments role to do that.

 

[Mello]

Think in terms of whether you want some bureaucrat to determine whether you may carry a concealed weapon.

Once you place the government in charge of setting standards and raising revenue you reduce what was a right to a privilege.

You must distinguish two things:
1) the right to keep and bear arms
2) the liability for your actions with those arms

Fear of the second should not prohibit the first.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The test for carrying a firearm should be exactly the same as the test for voting.

 

[goon]

Nope.
Add one requirement that someone else gets to control and pretty soon, you'll have a whole list of requirements.

So I vote we stick with "Does he pass the background check? Ok, then give him the permit."
Or better yet - no permit necessary.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Nope.
Add one requirement that someone else gets to control and pretty soon, you'll have a whole list of requirements.

My point is, there used to be a test for voting in some states, a literacy test. That was struck down as unconstitutional.

Hence I say, "The test for carrying a firearm should be exactly the same as the test for voting."

 

[heavyshooter]

My point is, there used to be a test for voting in some states, a literacy test. That was struck down as unconstitutional.

Hence I say, "The test for carrying a firearm should be exactly the same as the test for voting."

Literacy is not necessary for understanding and voting. Practical experience with your weapon is a necessity for gun safety.
A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.

We're in the same camp, we just disagree on this one issue.

 

[Treo]

We're in the same camp, we just disagree on this one issue.

It's a pretty big issue

 

[Audrey]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[goon]

Literacy is not necessary for understanding and voting. Practical experience with your weapon is a necessity for gun safety.
A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.

There is no education requirement placed on the first amendment.
Your spelling and grammar can absolutely suck but you still have the right to speak or print your point of view.
Why should the second amendment be treated any differently?

Also, who gets to determine whether or not you're a good enough marksman to carry a firearm?
And do you really want to grant that power to the government?
How much would you like it if one day you went to renew your permit (unconstitutional as they are) and found that the requirements had changed? In order to increase the safety to the public, all CCW holders are now required to be able to hit a 2" circle consistently at 50 yards with any handgun that they may carry for self defense.
Can you shoot a handgun that well?
Even your NAA mini, P-32, or J-frame? Every time at 50 yards?

Sound unlikely?
Give the government an inch (even with the best intentions) and eventually, someone is going to take a mile.

 

[zammyman]

We're in the same camp, we just disagree on this one issue.

I think this is an issue we best leave alone now on a thread best left for dead. A lot of people (myself included) have posted wayyy too many times here. Let's go leave comments on the 9MM versus 45 and the Glock versus 1911 threads instead!

 

[heavyshooter]

I think this is an issue we best leave alone now on a thread best left for dead. A lot of people (myself included) have posted wayyy too many times here. Let's go leave comments on the 9MM versus 45 and the Glock versus 1911 threads instead!

Deal! BTW - 1911's are immeasurably superior to Glocks.

 

[divemedic]

Literacy is not necessary for understanding and voting.

Hahahaha. I live in Florida, the state made famous in 2000 by people in the Miami area who are too stupid to vote. They couldn't even manage the relatively easy task of pushing a metal rod through the hole next to their candidate's name.

A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.

I see the trend here. Many (even on this board) think that the right to arms is less important that their right to feel safe from something a person MIGHT do, even when real world evidence indicates that the fear is unfounded. In other words, their imagination is more important that my rights.

People who think that all gun owners are potential killers and want to restrict or eliminate gun ownership to eliminate this "threat" even when the facts show the threat is an imaginary one have the nerve to tell me that I am paranoid for carrying a gun.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Is there a training requirement hidden in the 2nd Amendment?

No?

Then the answer is easy, no training or education is necessary to enjoy the basic human right of self preservation. Only a closet fascist would even ask the question.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.

If what you say is true, you ought to be able to prove it. For example, Vermont, with no restrictions, ought to have lots of accidental shootings during defensive firearms use than states with more rigid standards.

 

[zammyman]

This thread needs to die a respectable way.. not by being beaten.