Should there be a minimum standard for CCW guns

[gym]

Not a maximum standard, but minimum standard. Like a test to see if the weapon fires? , We used to have it for cars, now I see stuff driving by that is falling apart doing 90, that's just dangerous. Shouldn't the same standard apply to a gun. Not the person just the weapon. Like ok it shoot's next. Or you gotta be kidding the ammo is rusted into the cylinder. Just a suggestion, even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions, like I would check that firing pin, or your culinder head space is off so bad it may blow up if you need it. I would sit at a table and have them lay the wepon on some sort of cotainment area so you don't get shot trying to help. No names no Id just a saftey inspection?
I have over the years seen guns that "god hope they never need them" needed a good cleaning and a few cheap parts of an alignment,spring, mag, etc. Sure would stop a false sense of security getting someone killed with those soaking wet shotgun shells that grandma saved.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Nope....I can see it for things like cars. If they malfunction, they may harm someone else on the road. As far as a CCW goes, if it malfunctions when needed the carrier is the one likely to get hurt (by his assailant). Too bad for him for his negligence.

 

[seuadr]

even though the government has not figured it out yet, you can not legislate common sense.

 

[gatorjames85]

Yes, the government doesn't do a good enough job protecting us from ourselves as is.

 

[kingpin008]

Every time I see a thread like this, I die a little more inside.

If someone is stupid or lazy enough to carry a non-functional gun, that's on them. Not my problem, and certainly not an issue worth legislating. We should be pushing for less governmental intrusion into our lives, not more.

 

[pockets]

Also make sure everyone's lawnmower blade isn't loose, their sump pump works, their glasses are the current prescription, they've had all their shots, there are no rusty nails in the yard, banana peels are all picked up.......
Seriously, where would this end?
.

 

[MtnSpur]

More government intervention regarding firearms? I should pray not. If I carry an "unsafe" weapon for CCW and it blows my hand off, shame on me :banghead: . To have a weapons check by the government would not only be insanely cost prohibitive but downright impossible to enforce. Hey, I passed the background check, I passed the written exam and I passed the range requirement as stipulated by my state. I was issued a CHL. I carry a weapon. That's more than enough.

 

[redbeardsong]

I can only agree with all the comments above. It's a terrible idea to invite further government control with regards to our 2nd amendment rights. This kind of thinking is why we have Massachussetts and California guns with mag safeties, loaded chamber indicators and gratuitous warnings on the sides.

Be a good neighbor and offer to help others who might not know any better, or need help with their guns.
Otherwise, worry about your own business and don't meddle in others'.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Not a government-imposed one, that's for sure!

 

[Manco]

Seriously, where would this end?
.

The only place it possibly could--a massive bureaucracy and national bankruptcy...oh wait....

 

[jiminhobesound]

minimum for ccw

WOW! I wonder about your political and mental bent. You are an adult, you are responsible for your life and that of your family. Because of government take over of our society we have the need to fight every hour of the day to keep our constitutional rights. Think of it this way with sarcasm; there are some pretty unreliable handguns out there and hopefully the bad guys will procure them and either kill themselves or be shot by adult responsible folks who have made wise choices about their guns.

 

[redbullitt]

holy slippery slope batman.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Sorry gym, I'm with everyone else. The last thing I want is MORE government intervention or some halfwit new guy failing my piece because he doesn't approve of my caliber or ammo choice. I can hear it how: "These rangers you are running are junk, I can pass you but only after you buy these Glasers that special-forces-seal-team-5-mall-ninjas use.

 

[gearhead]

No, for one simple reason.

The government has no business knowing WHAT I carry.

 

[TheCol.U.S.M.C.]

NO never No NO NO NO NO NO stay away from my guns NO NO NO you cant see them touch them inspect them NO NO NO

 

[GEM]

Not a maximum standard, but minimum standard. Like a test to see if the weapon fires?

Well, that takes out a lot of high end 1911s, I've seen at matches - including mine!

So do we have state inspection stations? Check your car, check your gun and get a sticker on it?

That's going to be a hoot.

I'll pass.

 

[ForumSurfer]

I retract my previous statement in favor of this one:

NO never No NO NO NO NO NO stay away from my guns NO NO NO you cant see them touch them inspect them NO NO NO

I also feel it would be appropriate to interject with red-faced stomping tirades with each use of the word "no" in that statement.

Many people carry stuff that I don't believe to be acceptable. It is their business, not mine.

 

[Navin R. Johnson]

I certainly wouldn't want somebody’s attempt at self-preservation to fail because of a malfunction due to a poor standard of firearm they chose, but as seuadr pointed out "you cannot legislate common sense."

Individual responsibility is something I highly value. I am not willing to trade my freedom for the smokescreen of safety.

 

[kingcheese]

i can see it now...
required monthly test, have to be performed by federal apointed officals, and it will be for the low price of 1,000 dollars per gun, per month

sound about right?

 

[Loosedhorse]

We have an approved firearms list (I understand CA does also). It was instituted by the AG under MA consumer protection laws, although it took a Supreme Judicial Court case to decide he had that power.

The first effect of "The List" was to make it impossible to get top-end handguns here. Five copies of "each model" (different barrel length or different material--blued vs. stainless--equals different model) had to be rendered unsalable (shot 600 times, dropped on concrete, etc.) in order to be approved. Freedom Arms, for example, noted that the testing requirement would necessitate destroying about $10,000 of inventory--and how many pistols were they going to sell in MA in a given year, to make that up?

It gets worse. Some "approved" models don't meet some of the additional requirements; therefore new ones can't be sold here (ones manufactured before 1998, when the law took affect, can). So, for example, no new Glocks are sold in MA; they're on the list, but they do not have what the AG considers a "loaded chamber indicator," and so cannot be sold new.

And still worse. At first, the AG (apparently--you try to find out the real story) told Glock they were fine to begin selling. So they did. Then the AG told them they were in violation: they could not sell. We had the phenomenon of gun shops across the state contacting recent purchasers of new Glocks, telling them the guns were "defective" per the AG, and requesting their return.

It is widey assumed that the AG handled Glock this way to discourage any other manufacturers from going through the approval process.

Oh--did I mention that Glocks, defective though they are, are the issue weapon for the Boston PD?

You can have a look at our "List" here; you'll note lots of manufacturers missing; and again, some "approved" guns (like Glocks) are not available for new retail sale, despite being on the list.

So, be careful about this minimum standards stuff.

 

[Claude Clay]

bureaucratic oversight by The Ministry Of Silly Walk

only way it could possibly work

 

[788Ham]

And just pray tell are you going to get this "inspector"? Who's to decide on whats acceptable and whats not? Make, model, caliber, see you've already opened a can of worms on how to pick and choose. If you choose to walk the streets of mid America with a non-functioning firearm, you'd best know you maker and have you Aflac insurance paid up! I understand what you're getting at, but then like some others have said also, who're you to tell me what to carry and how?

 

[hso]

No

Vehicle safety checks could be argued that they're protecting other people who might be in the vehicle besides the operator or other drivers/passengers the heap shares the road with. Since others might be directly affected due to a failure it might be a public safety issue.

If MY handgun doesn't work it is just my, the owner's, problem instead of anyone else directly.

You might argue that regulations or laws protecting others from me are reasonable.

Protecting me from me, no.

 

[youngda9]

Caliber must start with a 4

 

[Zonie]

...even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions, like I would check that firing pin, or your culinder head space is off so bad it may blow up if you need it. I would sit at a table and have them lay the wepon on some sort of cotainment area so you don't get shot trying to help.

1. No this shouldn't be legislated.

2. The place quoted above is called a gunsmith. Anyone who needs one should be capable of finding one.