Your thoughts on ccl before ability to operate firearm

[nitetrane98]

Geez, this positively reeks of elitism. I'm going to begrudgingly give you a pass for, what I consider, simply a poor choice of words regarding the whole "master" thing.

I found this interesting, http://listverse.com/2009/10/14/top-10-most-audacious-shootouts-in-us-history/

It is littered with guns fired dry without a hit. Mostly by LEOs. And you want CCers to prove proficiency?

Let's walk down that slippery slope a little and see how far we can get.
Who will be the arbiter of this profiiency? An appointed government bureaucrat, a jury of one's peers? Will they watch a submitted video of the applicant or gather once a quarter at the shooting range? I can hear the comments from 12 different shooters now, if they bother to use shooters at all on the jury. "His grip sucks, his stance is all wrong, he's got one eye closed, he's going to carry in THAT holster?, the gun is way to big/small for him, don't tell me he's shooting a .380, he ought to be using a Glock, no way am I passing a man using a High Point, I could outshoot him on my worst day. etc etc etc ad nauseum.
The applicant says, "But I hit the target 80% of the time! That's more than what is required of most LEOs." "Doesn't matter, this ain't golf where they say, "How many, not how." You have to look good doing it. Come back in three months.

Or of course we can just use the bureaucrat who can say, "Nope, don't like the cut of your sail. Next." "Can I appeal this?" "Haha, to who?"

Carrying a reasonably secured weapon is of absolutely no danger to anyone. There is no law, that I'm aware of, that would require one to ever remove it from the holster/pocket. The decision to bring it into play is one of personal responsibility. What happens after that is all on the individual, as it should be.

I gotta go with the "shall not infringe" theme here.

 

[CoRoMo]

Some people should have their rights denied. ... non-US citizens

Why doesn't a non-US citizen have a right to bear arms? If free men have to prove what they are or what they aren't, before exercising the 2nd Amendment, isn't it more appropriate to use the word 'privilege' instead of 'right'?

 

[nitetrane98]

How about when he misses the guy he's shooting at and hits you or someone you love instead?

If you want to play the "what if" game, how about the BG is distracted by the bullets flying by him and turns away from your loved one just before he was about to pull the trigger?" Stuff happens.

 

[Guillermo]

Why doesn't a non-US citizen have a right to bear arms?

if they are legally I have no problem with a non US citizen keeping and bearing arms.

 

[SSN Vet]

Read the whole quote and you'll see that it starts with "Every citizen"...

In my view, people forfeit the rights of citizenship through certain actions....

Drawing those lines in the sand is tricky, but my view is that our present society is very much for hindering the hard working and law abiding citizen and, by way of pandering for power to the baser instincts of the masses, promoting the immoral, criminal and lazy citizen.

Look to Mexico to see what will happen when criminal elements in society (which have absolutely no moral restraints) are better funded and armed than the government.

I fear that the U.S. will "Balkanize" into organized criminal entities and sectarian militias at just the moment when we see the REAL economic melt down and the government can not respond to it.

There used to be a moral consensus on right and wrong in this country, and we've lost that. Now it appears to be devolving into every "clique" for themselves.

So I'll leave you with a pair of controversial quotes.....

This one is from John Adams....

"Our constitution was made for a moral .... people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."

This one is attributed to James Madison... but has been challenged as being truly his...

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments...."

WE

 

[Guillermo]

people forfeit the rights of citizenship through certain actions

please extrapolate on this

 

[CoRoMo]

I'm actually wondering if shockwave believes that Canadians don't have the right to bear arms. Their country has a modicum of protection to that right, but does he really think they should be denied that right because they are not US citizens?

Hmmm. I've always looked at it as a human right. Oh well, African-Americans used to be counted as three-fifths of one human, so I guess bigotry still lives.

 

[NotSoFast]

I think it should be left up to each individual. At the same time I think each individual should be responsible enough to become proficient enough to consistently hit what they aim (point?) at. Our forefathers were proficient because it meant survival and meat on the table to them and because they likely used that gun several times a week.

I would love to become more proficient at CCW work. the problem is that our range doesn't 1) allow the use of holsters, or 2) allow firing more than one shot per second except on competition night, the one night when I am unable to get to the range. So I do the best I can at home with an airsoft pistol, training off DVDs on the subject.

 

[SSN Vet]

please extrapolate on this

In many (if not most) states, if you receive a felony conviction, you lose the right to vote.
A felony conviction can also forfeit your right to posses firearms.

 

[shockwave]

I'm actually wondering if shockwave believes that Canadians don't have the right to bear arms

Possibly a poor choice of wording on my part. I meant people here who are not US citizens.

 

[CoRoMo]

I meant people here who are not US citizens.

Currently, many non-US citizens are able to possess firearms depending on the state they reside in.
That's the way it is now, and you oppose that arrangement.

So, tell me how that is a bad thing. Show me the harm in it, and explain your opposition to it.

 

[Guillermo]

A felony conviction can also forfeit your right to posses firearms

I am okay with that. What I am NOT okay with is when the ACCUSATION of a crime results in the forfeiture of rights.

 

[Zundfolge]

Some people should have their rights denied. Violent felons, the mentally ill, non-US citizens, children, etc. However, citizens in good standing can exercise their right to own a firearm.

The problem is, time and time again the rules laid out to prevent the bad people from having guns get tweaked to make it impossible for those "citizens in good standing" to exercise their right to keep and carry a gun.

Considering the current administration thinks veterans returning from combat, tax protesters and white Christian gun owners are all potential terrorists you can see how easily the rules can be abused.

 

[SSN Vet]

What I am NOT okay with is when the ACCUSATION of a crime results in the forfeiture of rights.

Which shouldn't happen given "due process"

what complicates this is that our legal system is broken...

got money, political clout or a vocal and feared minority group to advocate on you side.... you get plenty of due process.

the rest of us get treated as a "potential conviction statistic" to bolster some politician or DAs resume

 

[nwilliams]

OK everyone step back and take a deep breath!

The OP is not asking whether it should be required by law that there should be mandatory training or a certain skill level involved if you carry a gun. He is asking whether it is a good idea to be proficient with a firearm before you start carrying.

My answer is no, I think it's a benefit to be proficient with your firearm once you start carrying. Does this mean that you need to start taking classes and training every day, no. However I think that getting to the point where you feel comfortable handling your gun is an important point to reach for nobody's benefit but your own.

You don't have to take classes and spend lots of money to get training and it certainly shouldn't be required by law. The benefit to getting proper training is that it will help build confidence in your ability to operate you handgun in a high stress situation such as a self defense scenario. I think of it this way, anyone can get into a fist fight, however the person with Martial Arts training is going to have the upper hand.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The question is, "what problem are we trying to solve?"

Are significant numbers of "untrained" CHL holders having accidents, shooting innocent people, or causing other problems?

The answer to that question is no.

Another question might be, "Is there a difference in accidents, misuse of firearms, and so on between states that have stringent training requirements and those that have none at all?

Again, the answer is no.

 

[mljdeckard]

"Mastered" is to say the least, a subjective term.

The army pistol qualification is a joke. (For those of you who aren't familiar with it,) You have man-size pop-ups from 5 meters to 30 meters, with segments that have a magazine switch. It is timed, but the time isn't very stringent. To get expert, you have to hit 38 or 36 out of 40, something like that. (I don't think I've ever missed one.) I tell people who do it with me that this is a VERY low standard. They should be able to zap all of these targets TWICE in the time provided before they fall down. They look at me like I'm crazy.

Training is an ongoing process which is never finished. If you start saying that there should be a minimum standard to let people carry, remember that it would be based on YOUR idea of 'mastered'. Then, someone else could say that YOU need more training and take YOUR permit away.

If I decide to be a Utah CCW instructor, I would likely make recommendations to my students, things they should work to attain before they carry. I like the 3 shots, 3 meters, 3 seconds rule, it's a fair place to start. I will also give them links to videos demonstrating malfunction clearing, weak-hand training, retention training, etc. I think that these skills are critical to anyone who carries as well, but no, I would not support efforts to make them legal requirements to get a carry permit.

As far as I can remember, I never learned retention, malfunction clearing, or weak-hand training before the army called me an 'expert'.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:

people forfeit the rights of citizenship through certain actions

please extrapolate on this

Among our rights are the right to life, liberty, and property. But . . .

Amendment V (1791)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

. . . the Constitution says you can be deprived of all three through due process of law.

 

[IdahoSkies]

I'm going to weight in and say I agree with nwilliams. Training is a good idea but considering that the presence of a fire arm is often the deciding factor on whether someone gets victimized or not it should not be an absolute. And there are many levels of mastery, so who is to say when that has been reached.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Okay, a lot of the time a lot of LEOs do a lot of missing. That may be an argument for more and better training of LEOs and tougher qualification standards. But it doesn't mean that it's a good idea for private citizens to be going about in public with loaded guns they can't use safely or competently.

And this isn't necessarily about governmental requirements. What do you do when you know someone who carries a gun but is a lousy shot with it and perhaps has some safe handling "issues"? Do you pat him on the back and tell him what a splendid fellow he is? Or do you continually urge him to get some training or offer him guidance or offer to help him improve his skills? Do you set a good example for other shooters by continually striving to improve your skills?

I suggest that it's appropriate for us, as responsible members of the shooting community, to consistently encourage people to train, practice and improve, and to set a good example by doing so ourselves. Denigrating training and minimizing its utility doesn't help.

 

[NG VI]

I still don't understand how to unload my pistols without firing them.

 

[sideways]

Thanks for your input folks, I agree with many if not all of you this is a matter of self regulation and in no way do I think that any type of govern regulation is appropriate or needed ,I also think I chose wrong word when I said master my meaning was proficient which I used later in thread I just urge folks to be honest with their self and make good judgments and not rush into something that may do more harm than good. Thanks again ,Your brother in the fight for our second amendment rights.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But it doesn't mean that it's a good idea for private citizens to be going about in public with loaded guns they can't use safely or competently.

What evidence do we have that the public with loaded guns can't use them safely and competently?

Is the incidence of accidental shootings going up?

No, it's going down.

 

[David E]

Hello all, I have recently been accused of being harsh in a reply I made to a post now looking back maybe I was I would like to here from you on what you think is best, should people start carrying firearms that have not yet mastered the use of, I am well aware that there is a introduction to firearm carry in CCL class but we all know that these instructors do not have time nor resource to make each student little more than acquainted with there carry arms so my question is do you start carrying and then spend the range time to become proficient with your firearm ,I got a bud that got his CCL he literally could not hit a full size silhouette target regularly first time we went to range since he has improved greatly but I am sure that in a high stress situation he might have done more harm to himself or someone else and surely not have defended himself or someone else had the occasion arose when he first got CCL so lets hear your input.

I think there should be a law against run-on sentences! That's the longest one I've ever seen ! Whew !

As far as competence with a gun prior to CCW, I think the prudent man would seek to acheive a certain standard, but I have a problem with mandating one. That said, most states that issue CCW licenses do have a minimum standard the applicant must acheive.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Amendment II
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as one passes handling, marksmanship and intelligence tests.

Who likes the sound of that?