Should There Be More Proficiency Test Requirements for CCW?

[labhound]

SeanMTX, I agree with your statement.."I'm of the opinion that anyone who shows up to a CCW class should be proficient in their weapon they are qualifying with. You don't have to be Charles Bronson, but I'd expect they know how their weapon works and how the hell to hit a target from 7 yards." I live in Virginia where you have to take an approved concealed carry class then take your certificate to the circuit court clerks office when you apply for your concealed handgun permit followed by finger printing, State Police background check, signing of application by local Sheriff and finally approval by the Judge of the Circuit Court. I don't have a problem with this. If you're not a felon or have a criminal background then you're approved. Having thought about it, I don't know why Virginia allows open carry without a permit. What's the difference? Covering my gun with a shirt makes me safer? You can try and compare carrying a gun to operating a chain saw or driving a car but that's like comparing apples and oranges. You can also try and justify carrying with no training by saying you should be held responsible for every bullet you fire. That's fine but holding the gun carrier responsible doesn't do anything to help the person you accidentally injured or killed due to you being incompetent in handling a gun. I don't see having to show basic gun handling and shooting skills as an infringement on my 2nd amendments rights.

 

[labhound]

SeanMTX, I agree with your statement.."I'm of the opinion that anyone who shows up to a CCW class should be proficient in their weapon they are qualifying with. You don't have to be Charles Bronson, but I'd expect they know how their weapon works and how the hell to hit a target from 7 yards." I live in Virginia where you have to take an approved concealed carry class then take your certificate to the circuit court clerks office when you apply for your concealed handgun permit followed by finger printing, State Police background check, signing of application by local Sheriff and finally approval by the Judge of the Circuit Court. I don't have a problem with this. If you're not a felon or have a criminal background then you're approved. Having thought about it, I don't know why Virginia allows open carry without a permit. What's the difference? Covering my gun with a shirt makes me safer? You can try and compare carry a gun to operating a chain saw or driving a car but that's like comparing apples and oranges. You can also try and justify carrying with no training by saying you should be held responsible for every bullet you fire. That's fine but holding the gun carrier responsible doesn't do anything to help the person you accidentally injured or killed due to you being incompetent in handling a gun. I don't see having to show basic gun handling and shooting skills as an infringement on my 2nd amendments rights.

 

[hot2trot]

Isn't training ALWAYS a good thing?

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

This is a real tough one for me.

I don't like the idea of any legislation here, but I've noticed the same pattern of people that just aren't any good.

My take on it is that if you can put 20 rounds on target @ 7 yards, there is no real good reason to not grant a CCW license.

That is basically the requirement that my state (MO) has for people who want to get a CCW. (That and an extensive course of MO self-defense law).

 

[rhoggman]

The government has no "right" to qualify people for the "rights" which the government is supposed to provide, not restrict.

 

[2ndAmFan]

Opposed.

 

[Balrog]

Isn't training ALWAYS a good thing?

No. If it is mandatory, it violates my civil rights.

My take on it is that if you can put 20 rounds on target @ 7 yards, there is no real good reason to not grant a CCW license.

What is magic about 20 rounds?

In most self defense encounters, one or at most two shots are fired. Why does sustained fire need to be a qualification for CCW?

 

[smince]

Isn't training ALWAYS a good thing?

Depends on who is conducting the training.

 

[Lee Roder]

YES, rapid fire as a "stress test"

 

[jimmyraythomason]

The government has no "right" to qualify people for the "rights" which the government is supposed to provide, not restrict.

Government "provides" no rights. It is the governments job to "protect" rights.

 

[22-rimfire]

I feel the right to carry concealed should not be regulated with licenses and permits. I do not think there should be a test any more difficult than presently given in the shooting portion of the training. Yes, 7 yards; that is the distance across a room and unfortunately the more likely distance that a gun may be used defensively.

If you want more training, take another class that is more specilized.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I agree with Uncle Ted. The US Constitution should be our concealed carry permit. I want no regulations whatsoever on law abiding citizens. If you're a violent felon, well that's another topic altogether. But until someone proves they can't be trusted, I don't think they should be regulated. It's not about guns. It's about freedom.

 

[texas bulldog]

i am opposed to the current requirements, much less additional requirements! i believe there ought to be no permit nor requirements of any kind. basically, vermont-style carry ought to be the law of the land.

 

[TIMC]

Opposed...however,

I think there should be a class / test that would allow you to carry in areas that are generally not allowed (Post Office, schools, etc...)

I think this might be a good idea. Let anyone carry but to carry in places with lots of people in close proximity like an airplane, buss, subway, post office, municiple building, ect. you should be rquired to at least demonstrate a proficiancy like being required to spend (X) amount of hours shooting IDPA. To me that would be fun and it teaches you a lot. I have had a lot of training and years of shooting experience. I personally see no reason why I should not be able to carry anywhere; even on an airplane. I would not have a problem taking extra training for unrestricted carry.

 

[mack]

The only training I would support would be universal training available to everyone - want to take a firearm safety or shooting class - then have at it. But absolutely no training requirement ever to own or carry (keep and bear) arms.

1. no training requirements

2. no prohibition on felons or mentally ill unless incarcerated, on parole/probation, or adjudicated mentally incompetetent.

3. no gun free zones - except in places where armed security is provided and on personal private property - no gun bans on commercial property open to public.

4. no registration and no licensing

5. no waiting periods and no background checks.

6. no prohibitions on open or concealed carry.

7. no bans on semi-auto or full auto weapons.

That would be a start anyway. The RKBA is inalienable since the right to life implies the right to defend that life and the right to defend one's life implies the right to the effective means of doing so - just as the right to liberty implies a means to protect that liberty - the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That right stops when I use a gun to violate someone else' s rights. An individual does not have a right to feel safe - feeling safe is a subjective emotion and is in no way, shape, or form a right.

As has been pointed out, one cannot legislate stupidity away. Freedom has its costs and risks.

 

[wishin]

I agree with a variation of what someone here suggested. Teach gun operation and safety in our pre-college schools. Make it a part of the curriculum, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Guns. There was a time when parents did this as a part of raising responsible children.

Now, who has any idea on how to make this fly? If you think walking uphill in sand carrying 100 pounds is hard......................

 

[possum]

i opposed to it as well. and like many of the members said above, it is up to the individual to be proficent with thier ccw. i take my level of training, and saftey very seriously, therefore i shoot approx 30,000rds and year, and take a few training courses a year. is this a must for everyone, do i think that everyone should do that or be as proffecient as people in my same mind set and skill level? no it is on them. in a fight for my life they will be no where around, i know what i am capable of, and i train to maintain those capabilities, but in no way do i think you have to be a seasoned, well trained shooter to carry. i really wish more people would take carrying and life and death more seriously and thier shooting and safety too, but i do not think that it should be a requirement.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

CCW training and hunter safety courses are not the same. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, and there is no constitutional right to hunt. Hunting is heavily regulated and taxed.

 

[RKRCPA]

I was not required to take a class or pass any kind of test and would oppose any attempt to require either.

How is a CCW test any different than a test for people who want to vote? You don't lose your rights just 'cuz you're a dumbass.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

No more restrictions we need less. Personal Defense is a God Given Right. Why can't people understand SHALL NOT part of the 2nd Amend.

 

[wilkersk]

...
Out of curiosity....are ya'll in favor or opposed to generally tighter proficiency tests for CCW?

I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone 2A rights. But, I think the NRA's "Basic Personal Protection" courses ought to be more widely encouraged and even subsidized by permiting authorities.

 

[wilkersk]

..
Now, who has any idea on how to make this fly? If you think walking uphill in sand carrying 100 pounds is hard......................

I know it'd never fly in this country. But, I like Switzerland's mandatory service scheme.

 

[lions]

But, I like Switzerland's mandatory service scheme.

I don't like mandatory anything from the government. Regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Laissez faire for me please.

 

[Firethorn]

Personally, I think this is mostly a solution seeking a problem. IE is there a rash of CCW holders shooting things/people they aren't supposed to? Is it at a rate higher than the police?

No? Why would they need more training?

Personally, I'd teach firearm safety and basic marksmanship in public school, I figure that'd be pretty popular here.

Standard liability rules are in place - you're responsible for your bullets, unless/perhaps the criminal you're shooting at becomes responsible because he's done something worthy of you shooting at him.

While I'd prefer the bullets hit the criminal, well, the police don't even have that great of a hit rate in actual combat...

 

[IdahoLT1]

I think that the right to bear arms is different than the right to free speech or freedom of press or religious freedom. You can't kill someone with your words (now you might drive them to suicide, but speech or freedom of press or religious freedom. You can't kill someone with your words (now you might drive them to suicide, but firearm can accidentally kill someone. Accidental discharges can be avoided with proper safety training. avoided with proper safety training.

It's only been 70 years but it strikes a nerve when people forget or are just not well informed on human history. DO NOT underestimate the power of words. Do I have to remind people that Adolf Hitler was very influential to the German civilians? He literally murdered some 17 million civilians with his powerful speeches. He spoke about how he was the savior to Germany and convinced millions to follow his evil ideals. I'll say it again. Do not underestimate the power of words. A person like Hitler is exponentially more dangerous than an incompetent person with a firearm.