When they say "you must be trained and tested to get a CCW", should we correct them?

[TearsOfRage]

I'm in a discussion about CCW on reddit. Several people have posted that getting a carry permit requires training, passing a test etc. (without mentioning a location, thus implying that this is true everywhere). Of course, we know this is not true in all states.

My first thought was to correct them, as I would any factual inaccuracy. But is that a good move? Perhaps it's better to let uninformed fence-sitters think that all permit holders have had training and have been tested. Then they might be less likely to decide that they are anti-CCW.

I'm not advocating lying... just not responding to inaccurate posts.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

No matter where you are, you have to do a whole heck of a lot more than criminals do to carry. Those are the ones people need to worry about.

 

[st_albert]

well, it's certainly true enough in TN, even though the amount of training is minimal.

I'm aware of states that don't require a license to carry at all, but are there states that will issue a formal license WITHOUT any training or test? Including a "background check" in the concept of "test"?

Just curious,
Albert

 

[TearsOfRage]

I'm in New Hampshire, which does do a background check, but requires no training and no test of knowledge or skill.

 

[Geronimo45]

but are there states that will issue a formal license WITHOUT any training or test? Including a "background check" in the concept of "test"?

Pennsylvania?

 

[bogie]

Fun part is that the folks who are worried about the states with no testing probably think that those states are places like Tennessee, Alabama or Texas...

In Missouri, no test, but the instructor can choose to not hand you the certificate... And you have to actually demonstrate firing proficiency.

 

[yhtomit]

but are there states that will issue a formal license WITHOUT any training or test? Including a "background check" in the concept of "test"?

Pennsylvania?

At least theoretically, PA does undertake a background check; the people I listed as references tell me they were never called by the Sheriff's office, though.

timothy

 

[hankdatank1362]

Heck, I had to sit in a cold, hard, metal chair for 8 hours and listened to some guy drone on about the ABSOLUTE BASICS of firearms.

But on the plus side, I'm sure it would have been very informative for a beginner. It taught the basics of firearm stance, firing, operation, SA/DA/DAO, revolver vs. auto, etc.

 

[bogie]

Heh... I sat in a cold hard chair and listened to John Ross tell me reasons not to shoot bad guys, and then tell me how to. And then I qualified in 1.5 seconds, dumping a mag out of a full-auto glock into a Q target...

There's ccw classes, and there's CCW CLASSES THAT FEED YOU BBQ!!!

 

[NG VI]

in maine you must either take a handgun safety course, I think there is a list of approved ones or something, or do like me and porduce your DD-214

then there is the background check and form, which is very tedious to fill out and nearly dissuaded me several times, and they take your picture and fingerprint you. not sure if those go on the card, I'm still waiting for mine.

 

[akodo]

it is true enough not to clutter the conversation with the varying details of state-to-state differences

 

[hankdatank1362]

Woah, full auto and a pig-pickin! I got gipped!

 

[yhtomit]

Context is everything.

If you can mention it politely and without disrupting a perhaps otherwise good exchange, then great! If it sounds like you're so willing to speak plainly and truthfully that 'conceding' points which could potentially harm your argument is a stronger force than your desire to win a particular argument. The truth will out; you look reasonable if you encourage it to. Also, how do you know you're not being led into a straw-man argument? If you grant points you know to be false, it might be awkward to say "But I *did* know that!" if you're confronted with your own disgusting ignorance of the shocking and scandalous reality that some states rely on knowledge not specifically instilled or tested by them.

If saying it turns you into Mr. Philadelphia Lawyer nitpicking naysayer obstreperous jerk (in the context of the exchange), then it's a bad idea

I think of it as rule-setting; if you're pleasant and amiable, even if firm on important points, you can look legitimately aggrieved if your counterpart is crass, or rude, or sarcastic, etc. In some conversations, I'm happy to be a bit less polite, because the totality of the circumstances says that's the appropriate tone. (Talking with old friends, for instance, I might cut to the chase sooner and with less honey than if talking with someone whose parameters I don't know.)

Examples:

"Yes, you're right, in almost every state with concealed carry permits, there's a system like that."

"Ha! Your mighty ignorance is appalling. There are a handful of states where what you think is true enough to describe without qualification IN FACT ISN'T TRUE! HA HA!"

timothy

 

[Soybomb]

But is that a good move? Perhaps it's better to let uninformed fence-sitters think that all permit holders have had training and have been tested. Then they might be less likely to decide that they are anti-CCW

I see harm in telling people that some states require training, some just require some paperwork and a permit, and some require nothing at all for a person to carry a concealed weapon. Challenge them to show you that the "accidents" that people have in the states without any requirements at all. If you're going to talk pro-gun stuff to them you might as well make them realize that gun owners are safe and a 5 hour state mandated class on a saturday afternoon has nothing to do with concealed carry holders behaving safely.

 

[geekWithA.45]

but are there states that will issue a formal license WITHOUT any training or test? Including a "background check" in the concept of "test"?

Alaska & Vermont do not require licenses for concealed carriage -at-all.

Alaska will issue a license to someone who requests it, I presume they perform at least a minimal background check.

If you accept that at the bare minimum, the issuing authority will run NICS as a background check, then there are several states that issue carry permits without classes or tests.

In these states, the model is that it is your -right- to carry concealed, and your -responsibility- to do so in a manner that does not present a danger to the public.

Furthermore, I might point out, that there is a large number of "open carry" states that do not require any sort of license or background check for the open carriage of arms.

-----------------------------------------

Having said all that, I -again- point out that the presumption that we've undergone some sort of training and testing has done a -lot- towards the public acceptance of concealed carry. It provides those who might object with at least a plausible way for them to square their objection away in their minds.



.

 

[ctdonath]

Georgia has no test or training required.

New York's requirements vary by county, ergo part of the state doesn't.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Michigan approx 2004
1 quick evening meeting (Friday) w/no weapon then a full day Saturday and Sunday with weapon and range time. Man I got a real case of CRS today but I believe we fired less than 200 rds.
They took every fingerprint and full palm prints at the sheriffs' office before I recieved my concealed pistol license.
The next year I took a 3 day Farnum course. For whatever reason there were only two students and about 6 instructors. We got a boatload of personal help from the instructors plus a generous amount of time with John and Vicky. We ran off just under 1000 rds each with the trainers barking like drill sergeants... Now THAT was intense.

 

[xsquidgator]

I would change tacks in the discussion with people. Sure, in a perfect world, one would want everyone trained and competent etc, we surely want this to be the case of everyone who shoots near us at the range. But, we don't want to make exercise of a fundamental right subject to some government test where they could move the goalposts at will to deprive us of our rights (like the old "intelligence tests" that were required in the Jim Crow era to vote, intended to deprive blacks of the right to vote.)

If I happen to be around when this issue comes up in a discussion on CCW, I try to shift the discussion as follows. To the uneducated, untrained people = lots of gun accidents and bad stuff. Sure. But we don't want to go down the road of passing a govt test to exercise your rights.

Point out that a license to carry a concealed firearm is simply that, and no more. It is NOT in any state I know of, a license to USE the gun. Any use of a gun, even simply withdrawing the weapon from its holster, exposes the gun owner to police investigation for criminal violations. ANY time a gun comes out, the gun owner is accountable to the police and the justice system. What this means is that any untrained or foolish gun owner's CCW experience is bound to be a short one; do something illegal or dangerous, and you'll quickly find yourself with a revoked CWP and the issue is fixed, plus whatever penalties the law might bring down on you.

So, certainly, EVERYONE carrying a gun should be trained in safe and proper firearm use, as well as the law and the correct way to approach use of a gun. But, the best mechanism for ensuring this is the one I just described, don't mandate "competence" because that's wide open to .gov abuse. Having CCWers accountable for their actions is the best way to assure that people carrying can handle the responsibility.

I also point out that making some sort of competence mandatory isn't going to do squat to the bad guys who illegally carry anyway.

 

[Dorryn]

New York's requirements vary by county, ergo part of the state doesn't.

In Ontario county, where I got my CCW (but no longer live), you have a background check and that's it. No test. No demonstration of knowledge. No exam or anything.

 

[jakemccoy]

I'm in Solano County (CA) where a CCW license is basically impossible. I wish all I had to do was train and pass a test.

To answer the OP, no, do not inform. You'd introduce a level of complexity that will neither advance your cause nor be understood.

Experienced gun owners crack me up sometimes. Some of you are far from understanding the mindset of the sheeple that we’re up against.

 

[geronimotwo]

Quote:
New York's requirements vary by county, ergo part of the state doesn't.

In Ontario county, where I got my CCW (but no longer live), you have a background check and that's it. No test. No demonstration of knowledge. No exam or anything.

delaware co is the same. so you can be a total idiot, as long as your not a criminal.

 

[Wedge]

In Ontario county, where I got my CCW (but no longer live), you have a background check and that's it. No test. No demonstration of knowledge. No exam or anything.

That is how Monroe county was when I got my pistol permit (unrestricted I might add and delivered to me in 42 days).

However, there was a "recommended" class by the Monroe County Sheriff's Dept. that covered use of force. They gave a certificate and recommended including a copy of that with your application. So no test/class was required but I think that by taking one it really sped up the whole process for me.

And to the OP, I would not correct them.

 

[gym]

Look at it this way, everyone takes a driving test, and we all see people every day who shouldn't or can't drive worth a damm. I don't know how much "testing" actually helps or not. It just sounds good, Even with a "test" there is just so much you can test, before people start to fail.