Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?

[Mello]

I would argue that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right of the people to keep and bear arms, including those of a military nature which encompasses all rifles, shotguns and handguns. It becomes something of a gray area when you get to the constitutional limit of the government to pass laws concerning how citizens carry those arms on their person.

I submit that there should be a two part test to any proposed law or regulation.
1) Is there a conflict between two or more persons or legal entities rights to life, liberty or property? (Liberty includes Constitutional rights in my premise)
2) In the event that there is a conflict, where in the U. S. Constitution is the power given to the government to act?

My analysis is that there is no conflict with anyone's right to life, liberty or property if some incompetent shooter conceals a weapon on his person. therefore, you don't get to the second part.

Whether that person's acts result in damage to someone is another matter.

 

[heavyshooter]

Wrong again. The issue, as raised by you, is not about the constitution...it's about lenient Colorado CCW training laws. You attempted to use a poorly thought out straw-man argument and it's not gonna fly. Your example of poor shots endangering others is totally off topic because you're obviously not talking about permit holders, but, in my estimation, gang-members and criminals who would be prohibited from legally obtaining a gun, much less a CCW permit.

Bailey Guns,

Straw Man? I don’t think so. You are not factoring in the consistent position that we have here. The CCW class is unconstitutional. It violates the second amendment. I do not have to take a class to speak, etc. etc. etc. I guess I could see how you would think straw man due to the limitations of this communication medium. I apologize if I made assumption in my post. I believe it is my response to an obvious secondary topic that has presented itself throughout the thread. Have you noticed how many times the answer to the opening thread was something like, "No, there should be no shooting test, and the permit itself is wrong." If I am not mistaken, you said that yourself. Review the posts and notice that it is the majority vote by a broad margin. The consensus is, "I do not need permission to have a right." Really? Should I not infer that any regulation of firearms is inappropriate and all U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms without regulation (CCW or shooting test)? That is a near quote of some of the posts. With that in mind I found myself intrigued by the position that regulation is a solution in search of a problem. We are under the impression that no one is being shot by the untrained because “that would be on the news and we would all know about it.” In response to that I (probably by myself) stumbled over the intersection of the two comments: 1) Everyone has a right to have a gun 2) no one (or very few) are being harmed by ill trained shooters. That troubles me because that is not true. Think about the logic. People are being accidentally shot by idiots all the time and we are saying that the 2nd amendment gives them permission to be idiots until they shoot someone. "Civil Liberties are dangerous." That is great in theory, but what about the person who was shot. According to this thread, each man who carries a gun in South Dallas should be able to do so legally because it is “a right.” It must be nice to live in a community where everyone can be trusted with a gun. Tell me where you live and I will move there. But until I move, I want everyone to have to take a class to get a carry license and I want him to take a proficiency test as part of that class. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, it parallels a driver’s license. Take you test, get you license. Just my opinion.

 

[zammyman]

It must be nice to live in a community where everyone can be trusted with a gun. Tell me where you live and I will move there. But until I move, 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. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, it parallels a driver’s license. Take you test, get you license. Just my opinion.

+1

I couldn't have said it better

 

[heavyshooter]

How about if I changed the last part of what you wrote to, "Essentially, you can drive until you prove incapable of driving. But if you have to harm someone to prove that, I don't know if I am willing to take the risk,"?

It's a proven fact that more people are killed by persons driving cars who violate some traffic law than are killed by persons misusing guns. Far more. Why is it you're willing to accept the risk of getting out on the road with these people and putting your life at much greater risk than you are of sharing the streets with law-abiding CCW permit holders who've proven over and over, on a nationwide basis, of being some of the safest and most trustworthy members of society?

From where I sit, you are making my point. I am aware of the risk of driving. We all are. That is why we insist that the unlicensed do not drive, and the licensed must pass a proficiency test. We even require that the driver be insured because we are aware of the risk. All I am asking is that you take a test to carry a gun.

 

[SuperNaut]

It must be nice to live in a community where everyone can be trusted with a gun. Tell me where you live and I will move there.

The name is Utah (and pretty much the whole Intermountain West/Four Corners) and yes, it is nice. But we are getting too crowded and the Relo's don't know how to drive in the snow...

ETA: See, I think there should be a test for those wanting to live in Utah. If you can't drive in the snow, you can't live here.

 

[GTFord1]

My CCW class in Florida did not have any live shooting whatsoever.

 

[Treo]

It must be nice to live in a community where everyone can be trusted with a gun. Tell me where you live and I will move there.

Vermont. When's the moving party?

Or for that matter come 80 miles south to the Springs

 

[K3]

That seems like a completely self defeating statement. Do we really want bank robbers being able to carry concealed though they have two felonies on their record? If a person has bumped over a gas station once before, I really don't want them walking around with a concealed handgun. If a person has a clean record, I have no problem with it.

So, yet another LAW is going to stop this career criminal from going astray? I'm not buying that. If we're so worried about Mr. Dangerous, why is he on the street in the first place? He's already got two felonies per your description. Clearly he's chosen his path. Rather than craft yet another supposedly reasonable (read:commonsense) measure that will only affect those that play nice, why don't we do the obvious and remove the rubbish from society?

 

[black ridge]

Anyone planning to carry should have general knowledge before even thinking about getting a permit. There were people in my class that had never even fired a gun before. The class instructor had to teach them at the range. I take this pretty serious, when you go to the firing range and see people slinging guns around with no concern for themselves or the people around them something needs to be done before they recieve a piece of paper saying they can carry a gun around in public.Most people have to be treated like kids most of the time.

 

[zammyman]

So, yet another LAW is going to stop this career criminal from going astray? I'm not buying that. If we're so worried about Mr. Dangerous, why is he on the street in the first place? He's already got two felonies per your description. Clearly he's chosen his path. Rather than craft yet another supposedly reasonable (read:commonsense) measure that will only affect those that play nice, why don't we do the obvious and remove the rubbish from society?

I wasn't debating what should happen to criminals, only that supporting no limit concealed carry's has its real issues.

 

[K3]

I wasn't debating what should happen to criminals, only that supporting no limit concealed carry's has its real issues.

Statistically significant ones? Or possibilities that make the nervous among us worry about what MAY happen?

I'll take more freedom with less government oversight regardless of the risk it (supposedly) entails.

I guess we're just wired different.

 

[K3]

I wasn't debating what should happen to criminals, only that supporting no limit concealed carry's has its real issues.

Actually you were, as you brought up the bank robber how to deal with said criminal and his access to a gun.

 

[divemedic]

IMO, all or nearly all laws against carry are unconstitutional. As far as felons and other prohibited persons:

We remove other rights from people, such as speech, freedom to associate, freedom to assemble, and others when we throw them in prison, issue restraining orders, allow suits for slander, etc. Each of these processes has a trial, hearing, or some other method for ensuring that justice is served and the rights of the accused are respected and protected.

A test for exercising a right is not due process. We cannot require a test for you to have free speech, to vote, or to assemble. Likewise, to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of all humans.

There are books full of racist hate. Free speech. Books on how to molest children. Free speech. Satan worshipers, witches. Free religion.

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.

 

[Treo]

I personally think that the mere posession of of a firearm by anyone should be a crime, period

No Permits
No Restrictions
No NCIS
No Exceptions

 

[heavyshooter]

A test for exercising a right is not due process. We cannot require a test for you to have free speech, to vote, or to assemble. Likewise, to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of all humans.

There are books full of racist hate. Free speech. Books on how to molest children. Free speech. Satan worshipers, witches. Free religion.

Freedoms of speech, vote, assembly, and religion will not result in the harm or others. On the off chance that it will, the police are present to monitor and disband it if necessary. There are many religions in the world that are not welcome here in America because they are harmful to human beings.

I have discovered the dividing line between the two schools of thought in this thread. Some of us are willing to endure the dangers of civil liberties and some of us are not. I am in the latter. I’ll hand guns out all day (especially if they are Sig Sauers), but take your proficiency test first.

Heavy

 

[divemedic]

So what happens when you can't pass the test? Say, a 1" group at 25 yards, 5 shots, 5 seconds.

To me there are two groups here: Those who value freedom, and those who wish to impose their will on others.

 

[DaveBeal]

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.

Heavy, I share your concern about Colorado's non-requirement for shooting proficiency. If you'd like a reference to a good CCW class in the Denver area that does include range time (albeit at a crummy range), send me a PM.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

No, I don't agree with a test! The govt can make the requirements arbitrary. A state like California, which hates the 2nd Ammendment, will make the requirements as difficult as possible. A state like Wyoming, probably pretty easy, if they had a test.

I agree that it is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to become proficient with a gun, if you're getting a CCW, that should be a no brainer. The govt does not need to babysit people, that's a principle that is prevalent today, we really need to get away from that.

 

[yeti]

PermitsTests No thank you.

 

[TAB]

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

best post of the thread.

 

[mljdeckard]

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."

 

[okespe04]

No shooting test required in Oregon, however it is highly recommended. It mostly a judgment call by the instructor.

 

[slim76]

There is so much disagreement because there are so many different reasons people want to have ccw.
Some want it just for self defense, others because it represents the "keep and bear arms" in the 2A, and for others it helps them buy a nice bass boat eventually with the money they make on the fees, regulations, classes they teach, etc. Then there are all those people who like the exclusivity of it, they don't want just any old joe to be able to carry, you know the coolness factor. Probably the reason that only rich guys can now afford to buy a $15K shot-out, beat up M-16. And don't forget the nervous nellys who stay up long winter evenings grieving over the fact that something might hurt somebody at some time, oh no.
To me, I can't help feeling that they put that part about the 2A not being infringed on, for some reason. But what do I know. Those founding fathers made the constitution up so long ago that no doubt they weren't far removed from cave men grunting and gesturing. Right guys, right...

 

[Treo]

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

 

[logical]

I am not opposed to a class. I don't live in the world some of you do where everyone on their own will be responsible enough to learn CCW law and proper gun handling practices on their own. Any class worth having would include range time. I don't think there should be a pass/fail target shooting test but asking them to demonstrate they know how to safely load, unload and handle a gun, why not?
The second ammendment does not all by itself fully define gun law any more than the first covers slander, copyright and harassment law.