[KaliS-Pugilist]

think about it: to drive a car you need to demonstrate the ability to drive properly. you learn, study, practice, and then your skills are tested in order to get a license to drive. why should a CPL be any different??? i say this because i have seen, on a number of occasions, people who have a CCW/CPL but they have minimal knowledge of their firearm in general and even less knowlege about how to shoot it, let alone carry it properly.

most classes to get your CCW dont really test you at all and basically just have you there as they ramble along, eventually leading to a printed certificate...which is what you really paid the money to get anyways. but is that REALLY safe??? how many people follow up after they get the CPL and do extra training?

i believe that we all have the right to carry, just like we have to right to drive... but even still, you don't want everyone behind the wheel do you? shouldnt there be something even remotely similar for carrying a gun?

your thoughts are more than welcome....

 

[Ron]

I totally agree you should demonstrate how to "operate" your firearm safely before getting a CHL. I don't know about other states, but when I tested in Arkansas, I had to show how to clear a jam, what to do when you have a failure to fire, knowledge of firearm saftey rules at the ramge, at home, and when carrying, and safe operation of my particular firearm, and drilling into my mind how many people have been killed with "unloaded" guns.

Not to mention that even if I'm legally justified in using deadly force, a civil lawsuit will inevitablely follow.

 

[michaelfm]

I am a strong advocate for safety, and I agree that it makes sense to have some kind of training for those unfamiliar with the operation of a handgun. I got into this discussion on another board with one of the honchos who tore into me and called me everything but Hilary Clinton. I almost got kicked out for expressing my opinion. We don't do that here, though. Feel free to discuss your position. I won't call you a radical left wing San Francisco liberal! lol!!

 

[cj]

Gah, it's so tough...I believe that the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right, but the changes in the attitudes and upbringing in our country have gone from 'personal responsibility' to 'it's always someone else's fault or responsibility'. Gone are the days when local charities or organizations assist with disasters: it's now the government's responsibility. Impoverished? Government handouts. Bite down on an M&M that doesn't have a peanut and injure your lip? It's obviously Mars Corp.'s fault.

I WANT people around me to be armed, but I want them to be willing to take personal responsibility. I don't want to get shot by someone who doesn't take the responsibility to follow the Rules (oh yes, it's the manufacturer's fault that we forgot the put on the safety, pointed it at me, and pulled the trigger).

So yes, it's a tough call and I'm torn on it. Given the choices, I'd prefer the 2nd amendment to actually be followed. But I'm also all for an amendment that sets a minimum level of personal responsibility (call it my 'Bill of Responsibilities') that must be followed in order to maintain your rights.

 

[michaelfm]

Well stated, cj. It is a tough call. Gun manufacturers all include some kind of warning or disclaimer on their packaging or owners manual to the effect of " If you are unfamilair with the operation of this pistol, seek the advice of a qualified trainer, etc... Of course, they are trying to cover their own butts in case of lawsuits. There are those that would argue that legislating mandatory training would unfairly infringe on our constitutional rights. That is a valid argument. My advice would be to "cover your own butt" Get as much training as you can, because if you're ever involved in an "incident" be assured that some lawyer will rip into you trying to prove that you we're negilgent because you didn't know how to handle a firearm. The more ammunition you have to fight back with the better! I've been around firearms since I was a kid, but what I know wouldn't fill a thimble compared to what some of these other guys
know. Whenver I get a chance to learn something new, I go for it. And the more I learn, the more I realize how little I really do know. The way the laws are now in most states, a carry permit is a privilege, just like a driver's license. Unless laws are changed, we have to live with it. But we can still vote for our leaders, so support those who support our rights.

 

[Qwiks draw]

Being able to show that one is proficient with a firearm is a good idea on the surface. Do you trust goverment to right such rules or guidelines? I don't. Goverment is intrusive, has an agenda,and is inefficent.Common sense and decency should not be taken for granted that they will always be there. The chance that eventually things could be turned against CCW on the basis of goals that could be written in as unattainable. There may very well be a way to acheive a performance goal to be reached, but who is going to write it and what agency or agencies will be in charge and inforce all this?

 

[Ron]

Unlike a drivers license, owning and carrying a firearm is a RIGHT. But I see nothing wrong with ensuring that, before he can carry a firearm in public, some moron doesn't shoot me accidently with an unloaded gun because he doesn't know which end the bullet comes out of.
I also don't want the mentally ill, minors, and convicted criminals to LEGALLY carry firearms either.
I don't think that's an anti-gun attitude, it's just common sense.
Freedom of speech is also a RIGHT, but yelling "fire" when there isn't one in a crowded theater and causing the death and injury of many people needlessly also makes no common sense.

 

[Qwiks draw]

Ok. Devil's advocate time. If we have to prove being proficient with guns what is next? Baseball bats,kitchen knives,computers? We cannot protect ourselves completely from the stumble bums out in the real world. Would be nice.In this part of the state it is a common daily occurance to have a car cross the median on a four lane highway and kill or seriously injure others.These people have driver's licenses, have had to prove they can drive with a written and road test, yet manage to pull a boneheaded stunt and cause major harm.This happens every minute of every day with objects,tools, and to many other things to list. Laws on the books know will punish dolts who cross the line if enforced. So what is the plan to enforce this that isn't being done already other than not enforcing harshly enough the consequences for this kind of thing? Someone has to be the authority to run and enforce the rules and laws. We have that already with the police and other agencies like theirs. Do we need another bloated goverment agency at Federal or state level for this? Where is the money going to come from? Taxes are already high as it is. Things to think about. Ideas and opinions as to how to go about this all please. Thank you and will quit with this. :soapbox: I can here you doing this. :clap: :yipee: :yipee:

 

[NativeTexan]

Texas requires a 15 hour course, initially, then 3 hour updates every 4 years. Safety, concealed carry and penal codes on use of deadly force, and non-violent dispute resolution are covered and you are qualified on a range. I have no problem with it, but having to get a new picture and new finger prints EVERY TIME is a bit of a PITA. The course is 70 bucks I'd rather not spend, of course.

I wouldn't gripe if they made it easier to renew, but I think the course is a good thing for new licenses. I think you maybe should have to qualify each renewal and they should make the target a little more challenging. I've seen some amazingly poor shooters, air heads that had no business handling a gun, shoot the required 70 percent by the skin of their teeth. I think people like that are more at risk WITH a firearm than without. I'd like to see the scoring ring sizes cut in half on the Texas qualification target. That way, you'd HAVE to be able to shoot half way decent if you're going to get a license and, if you can shoot that well, you more than likely are quite good at safe firearms handling.

JMHO, though.

 

[pgreen7436]

think about it: to drive a car you need to demonstrate the ability to drive properly. you learn, study, practice, and then your skills are tested in order to get a license to drive. why should a CPL be any different???

I totally agree with others here that the 2nd amendment grants a right, not a priveledge like a driver's license. Although I would argue that the constitution allows us travel between and within boarders without restriction.... but that's another topic. As to the part that I qouted above, even after all that testing, study, etc. we still have people her killing with their cars and they have a perfectly valid drivers license. I wish there was a way to test peoples ideals, purposes, etc. in regard to carrying a gun. "Are you doing it to show off?", or "What will you do when you loose your temper in a bar after having too many and remember you have a gun?" would be a couple of the questions I would ask..

 

[Qwiks draw]

Native Texan. I think you are on the right track. Some states have well thought out and rigorous training and the NRA courses in self defense, as well as commercial shooting schools(read that reputeable ones) cover this well. Refresher classes are not a bad way to go, either. How long and when are still open to debate somewhat, but that has been addressed as well in print.

 

[Michael]

think about it: to drive a car you need to demonstrate the ability to drive properly. you learn, study, practice, and then your skills are tested in order to get a license to drive. why should a CPL be any different???
(snip)
i believe that we all have the right to carry, just like we have to right to drive... but even still, you don't want everyone behind the wheel do you? shouldnt there be something even remotely similar for carrying a gun?

your thoughts are more than welcome....

With all due respect:
Absolutely, unequivocally, and without exception, NO!
The right to be safe and to ensure one's own safety is just that: a RIGHT, granted by God Himself, and not subject to human interference nor override. Try, for example, taking a lion's teeth or a tiger's claws without benefit of tranquilizers.
We who do so have earned a privilege to drive. Privileges can be given and taken by those who grant them. He who controls a thing can destroy that thing.

I'm even torn on the issue of Licenses To Carry (LTCs): While they are clearly unconstitutional and morally wrong (much as one does not get or need a license to go to church, speak his mind, or use a printing press, nor does one need a license to refuse to consent to a search; rather, those wishing to search or otherwise infringe on your rights must get a license (warrant) to do so.), they do serve a purpose: Criminals don't get or even apply for LTCs. Those of us who do and who pass the background check are among the most law-abiding and peaceable members of society, thus the least necessary to doubt and restrict. A better method would be to follow the 2A and restrict no rights until and unless someone proves a need to be restricted-that is, commits a violent crime. Whether or not an ex-con should be forever barred the rights of citizenship is a conversation for another day (or at least another post! )

I don't mean to sound contrary or nit-picky, but this is the type of thinking that the anti's love to hear from us, because if we're willing to stipulate to their argument of "reasonable regulation", the next step is "reasonable "gun control"", followed by "reasonable bans", etc., etc.
That said, I do completely agree that proper safety training is a good idea and in fact, I think it should be mandatory for something on the order of passing 5th grade, as should knowledge of how to use a fire extinguisher, as should first aid and CPR-but none of these are or should be mandatory for the citizen to exercise his/her right to protect him/herself!! I further think that such training should come from or be arranged for by parents, not by the government.

Blessings, all.
M

 

[9x19]

When I was stationed in Colorado, the requirement for a DL was to pay a fee, get a learner's permit, learn at home, then pay another fee at age 16 and get a license...

Texas allows home study for DLs as well.

Vermont allows all adults to carry concealed, no permits, no tests, no rigorous training, and we all know how many times we see that state in the news due to unsafe citizens with guns! ;D

But you're right in one respect, CHLs shoould be just like Driver's Licenses in that they should be good for all 50 states without exceptions... in fact the US Constitution mandates it. Its commonly referred tp as the "The Full Faith and Credit" clause:

"Article IV

Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

 

[michaelfm]

RE: Repeal All Gun Laws?

http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/index.php?topic=421.0

Since the Second Amendment grants us the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, do we need any other gun laws besides that?

 

[BoneDigger]

I would tend to agree with Ron's post. I would like to see anyone that carries a gun take a proficiency training course. I would like to see the process streamlined, but not eliminated. I think that if a person takes a training course, and gets their fingerprints taken, they should only have to renew by mail and send in a new phot with a small charge for processing. I also believe that a permit should be legal in all 50 states.

Todd

 

[ToroTriggerman]

Both motor vehicles and guns are lethal weapons. Most states require a driving proficiency test, as well as a written test and eye test.

In this state a CCW permit requires a 15 hour course (including target proficiency qualification), background check, and fingerprints. I'm in favor of all of these.

The safety and legal portions of the course lecture were EXCELLENT; I believe everyone should be required to take this portion (no written test was given, although I believe that would have been OK). The taget test was TOO EASY; I'd prefer smaller target and a rapid-fire shorter timed requirement.

In the course I took there was too much militia-style training involving scenarios that I found questionable: e.g. how to engage 3 or more armed assailants (if I saw that many armed threats, I'd be heading for exit or cover, as my 17-shot 9mm may not be enough, and I don't usually carry my 8-shot 12 gauge shotgun or 32 round 7.62mm rifle).

Personally, I think the Feds somewhat over-regulate firearms already, and the states should retain the right to regulate weapon use....BUT...I do NOT favor laissez-faire completely wide open access or carry of firearms (too many idiots and criminals around).

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I've been told from a legal standpoint that somewhere along the way driving has been ruled a right now, not a privilege. Yet we still have to pass tests. A vehicle is far more of a killing machine than a handgun. It's a tough call, but I'm not opposed to having to take and pass a course for a handgun before getting a license.
I suspect if the national carry bill ever comes through, that will become part of the requirement anyway.

 

[Thunderhawk88]

I think Ron hit it right on the head. Granted the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" but when it comes to concealed carry I think some standards must apply. Sure N.H. allows all it's citizens to CCW, but show me a city like NY, L.A., in N.H. ( I truly would not like to see unrestricted carry in cities like those)
Our Sheriff believes in CCW, so it's not hard to get one. Background check and a four hour class, with a course of fire to make sure you can hit an INTENDED target, and you've got it made.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I've had way too many guys sweep me with either unloaded or loaded pistols with their fingers right on the trigger over the years to not want to require passing a course to get a ccw permit.

 

[Michael]

At what point do you draw the line that City X is "too big"/"too crime-ridden", etc? What about the fact that when CC laws are relaxed and more people carry, violent crime (and some non-violent as well) numbers decrease? Any law limiting the RKBA is the first step toward "reasonable regulation" aka restriction of our individual rights. I don't like the term "slippery slope", but that's what that kind of thinking leads to.
To put it in other terms, what other individual right would you want to see limited thusly, simply because it might in some way threaten other individuals or society in general? Free speech? Free press? Unreasonable search and seizure? Habeas Corpus? Self-incrimination?
I understand what you're trying to say, you and the poster who described being swept by the clueless gun-handler, however, while I disagree with classes, tests, fees, etc. as a condition of receiving the (unConstitutional) "CCW permit", I do most certainly support the idea of gun safety education for everyone, right up there with "stop, drop, and roll" and "look both ways before you cross the street". I think that knowing how to not be injured by a deadly device (and let's face it; we wouldn't carry them if they weren't dangerous and/or deadly) is vital information for every member of society.
I think, however, that the teaching of those lessons should be mandated not by law, but by common sense and a desire for one's own offspring to live long, healthy lives. In short, I think it's up to parents to educate themselves, then their children.

I think Ron hit it right on the head. Granted the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to "Keep and Bear Arms" but when it comes to concealed carry I think some standards must apply. Sure N.H. allows all it's citizens to CCW, but show me a city like NY, L.A., in N.H. ( I truly would not like to see unrestricted carry in cities like those)
Our Sheriff believes in CCW, so it's not hard to get one. Background check and a four hour class, with a course of fire to make sure you can hit an INTENDED target, and you've got it made.