Should there be a minimum standard for CCW guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

You're proposing a solution. The general rule is, before you propose a solution, you should have a problem. And, ideally, there should be some relationship between the problem and the proposed solution.

What's the problem? How many guns fail in the clinch in a given year?
 
Post #20 sums up what happen when big brother or anyone else starts getting into this standards nonsense.
 
This is similar to the motorcycle helmet debate. If your brain isn't smart enough to protect itself... I don't want another government organization telling me my ammo doesn't cut it because someone has determined the shelf life on 9mm bullets is 657 days.

Guardrail
 
I did not see anything in the constitution about a minimum standard linked tot he 2nd amendment. So I would have to say no. In fact I don't agree with them limiting what guns people can have, again the constitution does not differentiate between military guns civilian guns or sporting guns. It just gives us the right.
 
Hey guys I'm glad to see you all in favor of small govt., But Govt dosen't need to be involved at all here. What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here. I would volunteer for a day to help out my fellow ccw carrier. No lists or madatory anything just a check for folks who were not experienced enough to even clean their gun.
How many times has someone asked "I took my pistol apart and can't get it back together". I wasn't meaning this to get political, just as a helping hand to the millons of non espert gun buyers. Maybe an NRA sponsored program. And for the fellow who said 'isn't my problem" well it may be, if he pulls a gun to defend someone you know, and put the recoil spring in backwards.
 
What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here.

You mean gather a whole bunch of non informed and armed people together? Sounds like a recipe for disaster with the brady bunch waiting to youtube any ND's for the world to see. So no, I wouldn't volunteer for a public event like this, no way no how. :)

If you are going to carry concealed, then you should have enough sense to know your firearm and know when it is safe for carry and operation. If you don't know, then you should have the common sense to learn. The person has enough sense to legally buy a firarm, s/he can go back to the store and ask for advice on classes...which are usually posted all over the store. If they are too lazy to do that then they'll bee too lazy to come to your day at the park, too.
 
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,
They are called gunsmiths, but they aren't volunteers.
 
I guess it's a bad idea, I just see so many posts where the person has no idea what they are talking about, Gun wise, and already is carrying a licensed handgun that I thought this would help, but I guess I was wrong. Leave them to their own demise.
 
Hey guys I'm glad to see you all in favor of small govt., But Govt dosen't need to be involved at all here. What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here.

I would think liability issues would be off the scale.
Again, NO.
Take a malfunctioning weapon to a qualified gunsmith or return it to manufacturer for repair. Don't believe for a second that "joe gun dude" can fix it. He might know xyz mfg/model but not yours.

If liabilty is at all involved the insurance folks/government folks/lawyers are sure to arrive en masse.
 
Look - your heart is in the right place, but what you're suggesting is a logistical and legal nightmare.

For the sake of argument, let's say that what you propose actually happens. A group of volunteers set up "safety check" tables at gun shows, public parks, wherever.

Who's going to decide who is knowledgeable enough to perform such checks?

What sort of checks do you perform? Why only those and not more?

What will you do to ensure that the recipient of said check actually understood what you said? Will you require they sign a form or some other document to record that the weapon was checked?

If so, was that form legal? If so, who paid the lawyer to draft it for you?

If not, who is responsible in the event of a faulty check or an accident due to the owner failing to follow instructions?

And on and on and on.

See why we're against it? It's a solution in search of a problem, and much, much more complicated than you seem to think it is.
 
Just what I need more government interference in my life. I imagine it would be run by a politician who never fired a gun. I would like to finish my life with the watered down freedoms we still have, wouldn't shave 50yrs off my age and start over today. I was drafted after I volunteered, couldn't even get that right.
 
Yes King you are right, sometimes trying to help can be worse than doing nothing at all.
 
Like I said, your heart is in the right place. You just gotta accept that sometimes a little personal responsibility is a good thing. If people WANT to learn how to be safe, they will. If you spoon-feed it to them, they have no reason to try, and will probably pay even LESS attention to it in the future.
 
Great idea and let's go ahead and have an entrance exam prior to being granted access to The High Road. Lots of potentially lethal information here so let's screen users and perusers to make sure they're qualified to make rational decisions relevant to all of this readily available dangerous information.

GIVE ME A BREAK!
 
Anyone who carries a handgun, supposedly for self defense, who doesn't know whether or not their gun works or their gun and ammunition work together, or whatever other bizarre combination isn't going to work deserves whatever ill falls upon them. Too bad for them.

It's gotten so that people expect the government to hold their hand, kiss their boo-boos, pay their bills, wipe their noses and other end as well, and hesitate to take any responsibility for themselves or their actions. Then they stand around and wonder why the whole works is going to heck in a hand basket.
 
The only minimum standard for firearms should be against defects in workmanship or function from the factory, which from what I understand is the standard for pretty much all new commercially sold products.

The government does not need to draft up silly minimum standards for sidearms.


Hey guys I'm glad to see you all in favor of small govt., But Govt dosen't need to be involved at all here. What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here. I would volunteer for a day to help out my fellow ccw carrier. No lists or madatory anything just a check for folks who were not experienced enough to even clean their gun.

Issue there is civil liability in the event of a malfunction of a gun that has been checked by these good samaritans. If there was an ironclad way to absolve these volunteer function check folks from any liability, I'd be all for it. But you know that someone is going to have a gun either malfunction, or say it malfunctioned when they were really just being negligent, and sue the heck out of whomever organized, endorsed, or participated in the volunteer gun checking event.
 
Last edited:
Only if you think people should take a (insert favorite test here) before they are allowed to vote.
 
Look - your heart is in the right place, but what you're suggesting is a logistical and legal nightmare.

For the sake of argument, let's say that what you propose actually happens. A group of volunteers set up "safety check" tables at gun shows, public parks, wherever.

Who's going to decide who is knowledgeable enough to perform such checks?

What sort of checks do you perform? Why only those and not more?

What will you do to ensure that the recipient of said check actually understood what you said? Will you require they sign a form or some other document to record that the weapon was checked?

If so, was that form legal? If so, who paid the lawyer to draft it for you?

If not, who is responsible in the event of a faulty check or an accident due to the owner failing to follow instructions?

And on and on and on.

See why we're against it? It's a solution in search of a problem, and much, much more complicated than you seem to think it is.

That sums it up pretty well. You have the noblest of intentions, but it is a recipe for disaster.
 
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of this thread don't you understand?

The OP's plan (flawed though it may be) has nothing to do with restricting or prohibiting people from owning or carrying guns. Therefore, your comment is just a teensy bit off the mark.
 
Gen Geof i already agreed but there are several ways of getting by the issue of liability, things like surity bonds for the day, are very inexpensive, please don't lecture me, we have security patrols here and are abloslved of all liability from the builder who covers us under his policy. It can be done but apparantlly there is no intrest in it so I dropped it. If you want to continue I assusre you I can lay all your fears to rest and refute all your arguments. Same with infringe, helping someone is not infringing. Let's get out our dictionarys and legal books. If you provide a free voluntary service for the good or public safter with the intent to educate and help someone you are not infringinging on their rights as a public service. And if you don't know how to vote there is someone there to help you so don't get dramatic. You also aren't warateeing work simply giving advise on a volatary basis. Like is this the right cartridge for this gun, I have several and I don't know which are the proper ones, like you can't see some senior not knowing that.
Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
No rights are meant to be violated apparantlly you need the definition more than I
And although there are no standards for firearms, there are for stupidity, as many people who have them are not educated in their use. so mistakes get made.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Kingpin for the most part. I'd hate to see us as gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, or 2nd Amendment supporters give up that type of control to the Government. They have their hands full breaking all of the programs that their running now.

On the other hand, I really do not think that it would be a bad idea if some of the organizations that did support RKBA were to teach free CCW classes. Maybe some already do? I also like the Appleseed idea even though it isn't CCW specific, it does promote safety. From what I understand it's free to the military. Since many in the mil have already been introduced to firearms I'd rather see those free spots go somewhere else. I'd happily pay my way in if it meant that someone else who otherwise wouldn't have been able to go could benefit from it.

Personally I think that if anyone could manage something like that, it would/could/should be the NRA or someone along those lines who already have legal teams, gunsmiths, instructors, etc on standby. I would modify your proposal by saying "yes" if the NRA would do it. They could fund it by not sending out gifts or massive amounts of mail. I wouldn't mind going without my gifts and in the end I'd think that the money was probably better spent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top