PDA

View Full Version : Training, a prerequisite for CCW


Pages : [1] 2 3

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 9:45 AM
I'm just trying to get a feel for how people feel about training being a prerequisite to receiving a CCW. If you think that it should be a prerequisite, why?

halifax
03-21-2010, 9:50 AM
You'd be surprised at how many applicants can't even work their firearms. They show up for CCW live fire and they can't even load the magazines without being helped. Their shooting skills usually need a great deal of work also. Yes, I think live fire is a good prerequisite.

nn3453
03-21-2010, 9:54 AM
Should be a prerequisite. Every right is associated with a responsibility and you need to be responsible enough to handle your firearm. If you are not proficient with it at the range, it is going to be a lot worse in a real life situation.

Quiet
03-21-2010, 9:56 AM
The training also covers the how/when/where you can legally carry/draw/shoot. Something not everyone knows or thinks they know.

CitaDeL
03-21-2010, 9:57 AM
First, I dont believe 12050 is constitutional. Applicants are required to surrender their 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendment rights and pay a tax in order to obtain a privilege from the State government.

It wouldnt however be unconsitutional to hold them accountable for their actions if they happen to mishandle or commit a crime with a firearm.

That being said, training should not be a prequistite for any form of carry.

Clinton
03-21-2010, 9:57 AM
You'd be surprised at how many applicants can't even work their firearms. They show up for CCW live fire and they can't even load the magazines without being helped. Their shooting skills usually need a great deal of work also. Yes, I think live fire is a good prerequisite.


Exactly. Also, some people don't have a clue about when to draw a weapon. It's no OK to point a pistol at someone for flipping you the bird!

HCz
03-21-2010, 10:02 AM
It's one of those catch-22 things IMO. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and unfortuantely training requsite can be used to violate the right.

However, on the practical level, as halifax mentioned, it is sometimes so sad that a lot of people do not know how to propery operate firearms. Problem is when those people actually get to use the gun it could do more harm than good. Training reduces that.

I guess one solution is to hold a class about legal aspects of using a firearm, and then have a shooting session or two, and teach those who needs help. It is not mandatory and the shooting portion will not negate CCW eligibility, but hopefully will fix a problem or two.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 10:02 AM
Ok, let me tweak this a little. How much training should be required? Do we leave it to the issuing authority? Should the state make a standard guideline for training to prevent abuse? What about the states like Alaska, Vermont, and soon Arizona who don't require a permit to carry open or concealed?

Taking this into consideration, does that change your mind?

Full Clip
03-21-2010, 10:07 AM
I'd be fine if CA went shall issue provided you have a training cert -- something like the hunter's safety certificate.
I don't hear many people complain about the hunter's safety course. It's just a few hours and you only take it once.

BluNorthern
03-21-2010, 10:10 AM
I think it’s a good idea, sure doesn’t hurt. Like some of us here I’ve been handling firearms for over forty years, and may have narrowed my focus or become a little set in my ways a bit. The instructor I took my training with put me through my paces with point shooting, timed shooting with my normal stance, weak hand drills, things I am aware of but frankly don’t practice near enough. It was an eye opener as far as my skill set was concerned. He covered home defense, low light, situational awareness, and legal definitions of deadly force while always keeping safety up front. Discussed different holsters and carry methods, his thoughts on magazines and various reload scenarios. Also critiqued my shooting habits, not a bad idea to have someone with professional knowledge offer you his experience. Definitely gave me some areas to work on as far as technique and all in all a positive…glad I took it. For someone new to shooting, I’d say it
should be a prerequisite. They will learn a lot and be a safer, more confidant, responsible and able shooter if they get a good instructor and listen and practice what he says.

N6ATF
03-21-2010, 10:17 AM
Absolutely not. Get government involved and you can be sure it will be made as onerous, expensive, and corrupt as possible.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 10:30 AM
I agree that training is necessary to defending yourself in a safe and legal manner. So, what kind of training should be the model to satisfy everyone? With the exception of the Army, Marines, Coast Guard, Security Police in the Air Force, and Navy Seals, most Air Force and Navy personnel are given minimum firearms training. From what I've read about police firearms training, they get training in their academies, but qualify a minimum of once every six months. So what criteria should be the model to satisfy a training requirement? What about security guards? How much training do they get?

darkshier
03-21-2010, 10:32 AM
Training should not be a prerequisite or a requirement.

Shall not be infringed.

OleCuss
03-21-2010, 10:34 AM
The current training requirement for CCW is appropriate. It is not overly onerous but gets the basics across.

Alternatively, if we all actually belonged to a local militia, the militia could set the training standard locally.

RomanDad
03-21-2010, 10:34 AM
I agree that training is necessary to defending yourself in a safe and legal manner. So, what kind of training should be the model to satisfy everyone? With the exception of the Army, Marines, Coast Guard, Security Police in the Air Force, and Navy Seals, most Air Force and Navy personnel are given minimum firearms training. From what I've read about police firearms training, they get training in their academies, but qualify a minimum of once every six months. So what criteria should be the model to satisfy a training requirement? What about security guards? How much training do they get?

You can learn the law of self defense in an hour.... Two if you're particularly slow or want to discuss various scenarios and possibilities (which is a valuable exercise- How many "Is this legal" hypotheticals do we see on the various gun forums? I personally think its better to discuss those with an instructor who knows what they're talking about rather than a bunch of faceless guys on the internet.) You might need one more hour to discuss the intricacies of California CCW law and some common sense (where you cant carry, booze, notify the cops or not? etc)

Then- Can you hit a man sized target at five yards? Yes? Good enough.

Window_Seat
03-21-2010, 10:44 AM
Get the Govt out of the process, I agree. Give the process to CGF, CRPA, SAF, GOA, Etc. If you want a CCW, you go through them to get your license. Anything wrong with that?

HST, I agree that one needs training to get a CCW.

When I made my first purchase, I would not touch the FA other than to know how to load the "dummy round", load the mag, etc. on initial purchase and pick-up.

I then called Reeds Indoor Range (http://www.reedsindoorrange.com/) and set up a training run with an NRA Instructor.

Playing devil's advocate here, I can understand why one would say no to any kind of "requirement", because of how all of the good rules have been nothing more than precursors to bad regulations that do nothing but infringe.

Get rid of the infringements (as we are making progress in here at CGF/N), and more responsible GOs will be running the same lap in the same race (it's a NASCAR "I've got it bad" thing for me today just today).:eek:

Erik.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 10:49 AM
You can learn the law of self defense in an hour.... Two if you're particularly slow or want to discuss various scenarios and possibilities (which is a valuable exercise- How many "Is this legal" hypotheticals do we see on the various gun forums? I personally think its better to discuss those with an instructor who knows what they're talking about rather than a bunch of faceless guys on the internet.)

Then- Can you hit a man sized target at five yards? Yes? Good enough.

So, with the legal and practical aspects of training and self defense, you're saying that 3 hours of training is sufficient?

halifax
03-21-2010, 10:53 AM
I think it’s a good idea, sure doesn’t hurt. Like some of us here I’ve been handling firearms for over forty years, and may have narrowed my focus or become a little set in my ways a bit. The instructor I took my training with put me through my paces with point shooting, timed shooting with my normal stance, weak hand drills, things I am aware of but frankly don’t practice near enough. It was an eye opener as far as my skill set was concerned. He covered home defense, low light, situational awareness, and legal definitions of deadly force while always keeping safety up front. Discussed different holsters and carry methods, his thoughts on magazines and various reload scenarios. Also critiqued my shooting habits, not a bad idea to have someone with professional knowledge offer you his experience. Definitely gave me some areas to work on as far as technique and all in all a positive…glad I took it. For someone new to shooting, I’d say it
should be a prerequisite. They will learn a lot and be a safer, more confidant, responsible and able shooter if they get a good instructor and listen and practice what he says.

Was that for a CCW? Seems like too much if it was. Mendocino County requires that you know how to work your firearm, follow the 4 basic safety rules, and hit your target from 3, 5, 7, and 10 yds. Timed windows are long. Simple and good for the less agile or handicapped. <--read that as the type of people who may need CCW the most.

bigcalidave
03-21-2010, 10:54 AM
Training should be required before you use that pesky 1st amendment too..

wait, no.

There shouldn't be anything that keeps someone who is allowed to own a gun from carrying that gun. Licenses, training, etc. Shall not be infringed...

If someone can't afford the process, then they are effectively shut out, as it is now.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 11:01 AM
Training should be required before you use that pesky 1st amendment too..

wait, no.

There shouldn't be anything that keeps someone who is allowed to own a gun from carrying that gun. Licenses, training, etc. Shall not be infringed...

If someone can't afford the process, then they are effectively shut out, as it is now.

Here's an interesting idea, since government freely restricted or prohibited a persons right to bear arms thus effectively causing the erosion of fundamental knowledge of safe firearm handling, perhaps government should freely train everyone who has never had appropriate training. I'm up for putting my taxes toward that end.

ILVSMOG
03-21-2010, 11:05 AM
I think training should definately be required, so long as it's not used as a tool for blanket rejections.

wildhawker
03-21-2010, 11:08 AM
Do we have a right to travel, and if so, is driving protected under that right?

If we have (or should have) a right to drive in order to travel, should we be required to submit to written and applied driving tests in order to exercise such right?

If we have (or should have) a right to drive, is it constitutionally permissible to channel any required training through specific organizations which incur cost to the trainee?

bigcalidave
03-21-2010, 11:09 AM
True, people "back in the day" were raised around guns and everyone knew how to use one. Now many people are scared of guns, and have never seen one. But to FORCE someone to have some sort of training or license is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. It is the persons responsibility to learn how to use the gun. We should only punish criminals here, not treat everyone as a potential criminal and force licensing and training.

ETA: There is no test or licensing preventing you from traveling.

BluNorthern
03-21-2010, 11:15 AM
Halifax,
I’ve got an Idaho CCW, shall issue. Have had it for 6 years now, with one renewal. I initially showed the Sheriff my hunting license, they got my fingerprints and did a background check, I paid my money, and that was all there was to it. I took this class, which was one of a few that Law Enforcement up here recommends but is not required. Basically did it to further my knowledge and skills and because I personally felt
the requirements for the CCW here were a little lax as far as the responsibility of carrying. In that context I feel the class gave me what I was looking for. I know that others would disagree but, like I said, this was for my own personal skill and knowledge set. As an aside, the individual who gave the class is retired military and retired law enforcement firearms instructor who is not affiliated with the State agencies up here.

Window_Seat
03-21-2010, 11:23 AM
Do we have a right to travel, and if so, is driving protected under that right?

If we have (or should have) a right to drive in order to travel, should we be required to submit to written and applied driving tests in order to exercise such right?

If we have (or should have) a right to drive, is it constitutionally permissible to channel any required training through specific organizations which incur cost to the trainee?

Interesting analogy... From what I understand in Amendment XIV, Citizens have the right to travel in Interstate Commerce. Driving is a privilege.

So why is it illegal to go for a walk down the shoulder of the Interstate?

Last I checked, there's a sign that says "No Pedestrians" on I-5. Yes, I know, it's dangerous, and they're "protecting us". So could McDonald potentially setup something for case law when it comes to this? Gene? Bill? Others?

Erik.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Interesting analogy... From what I understand in Amendment XIV, Citizens have the right to travel in Interstate Commerce. Driving is a privilege.

So why is it illegal to go for a walk down the shoulder of the Interstate?

Last I checked, there's a sign that says "No Pedestrians" on I-5. Yes, I know, it's dangerous, and they're "protecting us". So could McDonald potentially setup something for case law when it comes to this? Gene? Bill? Others?

Erik.

Contrary to what most people think, the primary reason the Interstate system was developed was to move the military in an expedient manner to any point in the U.S. where they would be needed. The secondary purpose is for commerce. Private traffic has a low priority, and if necessary, the Interstate system could be closed to private traffic if it was deemed warranted. So, besides it being dangerous to take a Sunday stroll down the Interstate, and there not being any reason (i.e. stores or resources are not available), it is not designed to handle pedestrian traffic. So, why would you want to?

wildhawker
03-21-2010, 11:41 AM
ETA: There is no test or licensing preventing you from traveling.

There are requirements to board or operate vehicles for travel in many cases.

Pilot's license. Driver's license. Gov-issued ID requirements for passengers.

While not universally true, many common forms of travel require a license, permit or same in order to exercise use of a purchased ticket.

Grakken
03-21-2010, 11:45 AM
You should be able to demonstrate proper handling of a firearm prior to being issued a CCW. Basics. I think that is reasonable. You should be able to recite the 4 firearm safety rules as well.

wildhawker
03-21-2010, 11:57 AM
The government(s) are the gatekeepers and overseers of public rights-of-way (although 'public property', they are subject to regulation to serve the public purpose). The government is entrusted with administrating and regulating public property; it's "their house". When you go into someone else's house, do you follow their house rules or your own?

Note that SCOTUS has, generally, vigorously protected the right to travel. However, it has not held as unconstitutional that one must be licensed in order to participate in some modes of transport or travel. Re-entry to the United States requires a Passport. Flying requires a government-issued ID.

Firearms are but one component to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect (or argue) that firearms, for example, might require licensing but knives may not.

Interesting analogy... From what I understand in Amendment XIV, Citizens have the right to travel in Interstate Commerce. Driving is a privilege.

So why is it illegal to go for a walk down the shoulder of the Interstate?

Last I checked, there's a sign that says "No Pedestrians" on I-5. Yes, I know, it's dangerous, and they're "protecting us". So could McDonald potentially setup something for case law when it comes to this? Gene? Bill? Others?

Erik.

Kerplow
03-21-2010, 12:06 PM
i think if they were to require training it should be similar to taking a DMV written test. training literature should be available for free to the public. testing and licensing fees should also be minimal.

but what i really think is that people shouldn't need a permit to exercise their right to bear arms. :rolleyes:

Milsurp Collector
03-21-2010, 12:26 PM
For those who keep repeating the mantra "shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed, shall not be infringed", under our Constitution the Supreme Court of the United States has the final say on what is constitutional, and this is what the majority held in the Heller decision:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not view regulation of concealed weapons as unconstitutional.

bigcalidave
03-21-2010, 12:40 PM
Ok so stretch the drivers license thing out. You take one test, when you first get your license. You pay $31. That is ALL... I'd be fine with it if there was a simple shooting test and a $31 fee to get a CCW. Minimal government intrusion, and a fee that ANYONE can afford. I'd LIKE to see no license required, and I believe the intent to be as such. However if the DMV is to be used as the argument, and cars are vastly more dangerous than guns, then the maximum allowable fee has to be in a match with that.

GoodEyeSniper
03-21-2010, 12:45 PM
I voted no, but I kind of do. I was thinking something like Front Sight training being required haha.

I think the current 6 hours or whatever of class time that focuses mainly on legalities or what have you is good. I think having to "qualify" by showing you are able to proficiently handle your weapon safely, load it, and shoot a paper target 10-25 yards away is fine. Anything other than that should be recommended, but voluntary.

I obviously think that if you carry, you should drill yourself on drawing and firing from however you are concealing it. and do it regularly.

crackerman
03-21-2010, 12:49 PM
I think some training should be required. The analogy of a hunter safety certificate is a good one. I had to take my $35.00 class at rahaguees. I could have found it less but wanted convenience.

I think the best solution would be establish a state minimum of training somewhere around 8 hours. Allow NRA instructors, etc to administer the training for a price. CGF could do it for free and provide immunity from being sued if you teach according to the state curriculum. That gets you the paper like you get for the hunter card to go and get your permit.

If you want more training of course you can always go and gt it.

RomanDad
03-21-2010, 12:51 PM
So, with the legal and practical aspects of training and self defense, you're saying that 3 hours of training is sufficient?

Yes... And I would require the shooting test be updated at least every ten years or so, or more frequently as people age (as eyesight and general health has a tendency to go downhill with advanced age- I dont want a half blind octogenarian with Alzheimers and a hand tremor operating a gun anywhere NEAR me or my family, any more than I want them trying to drive near the farmers market).

Bottom line- If you cant hit a life-sized target from 15 feet, then you need to find a different manner of public self defense because this one isn't going to work for you.

Milsurp Collector
03-21-2010, 12:51 PM
I voted no, but I kind of do.

Is that like when John Kerry said he voted in favor of a bill before he voted against it? :p

esUTn6L0UDU

psssniper
03-21-2010, 12:57 PM
So far the poll is running ten to one in favor of "restricting" the 2nd amendment. ;) It seems that we're all accepting the incrementalist attitude that over the years has slowly taken us from a fully inalienable right to thinking that "hey sure a little restriction won't hurt" as long as I can exercise my "right" right? By accepting the personal responsibility of carrying and possibly using a weapon to defend yourself or others, you accept the responsibility to prepare yourself. If you don't and you run afoul of the laws while carrying and/or defending then you accept that responsibility as well.

Milsurp Collector
03-21-2010, 1:05 PM
So far the poll is running ten to one in favor of "restricting" the 2nd amendment.

Huh?

At the moment I am writing this, 58.82% have voted that training should be a prerequisite to a CCW permit, while 41.17% (38.32% + 8.85%) have voted that training shouldn't be a prerequisite. That's a ratio of 1.43 to 1, not 10 to 1.

bigstick61
03-21-2010, 1:09 PM
No prerequisites to exercise a right, whether it is training or something else. Every gun owner, whether they want to carry or not, should seek training or at least practice, though, but this is really a private matter.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 1:10 PM
Yes... And I would require the shooting test be updated at least every ten years or so, or more frequently as people age (as eyesight and general health has a tendency to go downhill with advanced age- I dont want a half blind octogenarian with Alzheimers and a hand tremor operating a gun anywhere NEAR me or my family, any more than I want them trying to drive near the farmers market).

Bottom line- If you cant hit a life-sized target from 15 feet, then you need to find a different manner of public self defense because this one isn't going to work for you.

So, you're okay with beating 82 year old ladies and telling them they're too old to be alive? :D

BluNorthern
03-21-2010, 1:12 PM
So far the poll is running ten to one in favor of "restricting" the 2nd amendment. ;) It seems that we're all accepting the incrementalist attitude that over the years has slowly taken us from a fully inalienable right to thinking that "hey sure a little restriction won't hurt" as long as I can exercise my "right" right? By accepting the personal responsibility of carrying and possibly using a weapon to defend yourself or others, you accept the responsibility to prepare yourself. If you don't and you run afoul of the laws while carrying and/or defending then you accept that responsibility as well.
I totally understand and agree with the “incremental attitude” and what it has done to
erode our gun rights but unfortunately personal responsibility doesn’t seem to be the norm in our society anymore. I know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners, us old timers I’d wager 100% of us, view our responsibility and accountability
as absolute. Unfortunately, as other posts note, there are many in the public that fear and
have no idea how to handle a pistol, not even the rudiments much less safely. It wouldn’t
take many cases of people like that pulling guns on someone, not shooting, and then killing an innocent bystander with an accidental discharge while trying to figure out how to uncock their weapon, to quickly undo what we’re trying to achieve. The press and anti-gunners would be all over that, and the non shooting public would see it as yet another argument for more gun control.

bigcalidave
03-21-2010, 1:12 PM
ten to one? That's horrible math!

RomanDad
03-21-2010, 1:12 PM
By accepting the personal responsibility of carrying and possibly using a weapon to defend yourself or others, you accept the responsibility to prepare yourself. If you don't and you run afoul of the laws while carrying and/or defending then you accept that responsibility as well.

The problem there is, in PUBLIC, if YOU fail to accept responsibility to properly and competently exercise your rights, OTHER innocent people pay for it as well, perhaps in the loss of their right to live.

"Your rights end where another's begin".

The way we deal with this inevitable intersection of contradicting rights, is we make you show some simple level of competence. Once we've done that, we at least know you are physically capable of comporting your behavior to the law. Whether you do or not is then up to you.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 1:15 PM
I totally understand and agree with the “incremental attitude” and what it has done to
erode our gun rights but unfortunately personal responsibility doesn’t seem to be the norm in our society anymore. I know that the overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners, us old timers I’d wager 100% of us, view our responsibility and accountability
as absolute. Unfortunately, as other posts note, there are many in the public that fear and
have no idea how to handle a pistol, not even the rudiments much less safely. It wouldn’t
take many cases of people like that pulling guns on someone, not shooting, and then killing an innocent bystander with an accidental discharge while trying to figure out how to uncock their weapon, to quickly undo what we’re trying to achieve. The press and anti-gunners would be all over that, and the non shooting public would see it as yet another argument for more gun control.

Yet, none of this has occurred in states that don't require training to carry openly or concealed?

CavTrooper
03-21-2010, 1:20 PM
YES!

Just like the another poster said, the same standard needs to be applied to the 1st as well. If you cant show a certain level of proficiency with the english language, you should not be allowed to excersice your 1A rights.

No locks on your stuff... the 4th does not apply.

...how far you wanna go?

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 1:20 PM
The problem there is, in PUBLIC, if YOU fail to accept responsibility to properly and competently exercise your rights, OTHER innocent people pay for it as well, perhaps in the loss of their right to live.

"Your rights end where another's begin".

The way we deal with this inevitable intersection of contradicting rights, is we make you show some simple level of competence. Once we've done that, we at least know you are physically capable of comporting your behavior to the law. Whether you do or not is then up to you.

Just a thought, do you think that firearms ownership would go up along with concealed carry permits? Or would concealed carry go up and number of firearm owners remain roughly the same?

RobG
03-21-2010, 1:25 PM
No it should not be required. Although the prudent person would get some sort of training. Requiring it gives the gov't just another excuse to deny a permit. Those that wish to carry certainly do not need another reason for denial.

BluNorthern
03-21-2010, 1:25 PM
Yet, none of this has occurred in states that don't require training to carry openly or concealed?
I don't know...but I do know that the anti-gun element (Politicians) and their handlers in California don't need more 'ammo' to keep pushing for even more restrictions.

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 1:32 PM
Training should not be a prerequisite or a requirement.

Shall not be infringed.

first, CCW is not a right in my view, and the supreme courts view. the 2A does not guarantee us the right to carry concealed whatever weapons may be invented in the future, wherever we want to carry them. So, if we agree that CCW is not specifically a protected right, then common sense allows us to impose reasonable requirements on those who choose to CCW.

The answer you posted could also be applied to the following questions:

-Should I be permitted to carry a brief case nuke while on a tour of the white house? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be allowed to point a high power rifle directly at the president while he is giving a speech? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to wear a bomb vest while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be allowed to carry a loaded ar-15 while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to possess and fly my f-16 (armed with guided missles) anywhere I please? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to carry concealed a weapon I am capable of drawing quickly and killing dozens of people within moments (fn 5.7 with a couple extra mags for example)? YES I SAY! .

I am amazed at how many people actually insist CCW is a right, and even more that is is a right which should not be restricted AT ALL.

For the OP question: I believe training should be required (if you didn't figure that out by now.). Proficiency with the firearm and applicable laws should be shown. I am in favor of a single certificate which does not expire. Actually, we should be able to just implement whatever program is working so well in a comparable state (florida maybe?). That being said, I have never been to Florida.

P.S.

Lifeofahero
03-21-2010, 1:32 PM
From: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo.php
"Effective January 1, 2003, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate Program was replaced with the Handgun Safety Certificate Program. These new statutes affect the general public in two principal ways. First, unless exempt, individuals must possess a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) prior to purchasing or acquiring a handgun. Second, unless exempt, individuals must perform a safe handling demonstration prior to taking delivery of a handgun from a licensed dealer."

In order to buy a pistol in CA, you already have to obtain a handgun safety certificate right? Also preform safe handling demonstration? So my answer is No. Actual physical training shouldn't be a pre-req.

Kids take sex ed classes right? So should actual physical training be required? :eek:

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 1:40 PM
From: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo.php


In order to buy a pistol in CA, you already have to obtain a handgun safety certificate right? Also preform safe handling demonstration? So my answer is No. Actual physical training shouldn't be a pre-req.

Kids take sex ed classes right? So should actual physical training be required? :eek:

What about people who bought handguns prior to the requirement to demonstrate handling. Should they be required to demonstrate handling?

I have witnessed a CCW course. It was SAD and SCARY how poorly the majority of the applicants handled their weapons.

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 1:42 PM
Yet, none of this has occurred in states that don't require training to carry openly or concealed?

Population of California is different than the population of ALASKA! States are comprised of different people as is evidenced by the crime rate, and the politicians we elect.

Californians in general have demonstrated incompetence at a higher rate than other states have. This could effect how we handle issuing mass CCW permits without training. We are not as much of a gun culture here, as Alaska is, and maybe the other states.

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 1:48 PM
YES!

Just like the another poster said, the same standard needs to be applied to the 1st as well. If you cant show a certain level of proficiency with the english language, you should not be allowed to excersice your 1A rights.

No locks on your stuff... the 4th does not apply.

...how far you wanna go?

This is good reasoning, except for the fact that free speech IS limited already in many ways, and rightly so (slander, libel, "fire" in a crowded building etc...). Common sense is the reason for limiting "rights". Plus CCW is not a right.

GoodEyeSniper
03-21-2010, 1:51 PM
first, CCW is not a right in my view, and the supreme courts view. the 2A does not guarantee us the right to carry concealed whatever weapons may be invented in the future, wherever we want to carry them. So, if we agree that CCW is not specifically a protected right, then common sense allows us to impose reasonable requirements on those who choose to CCW.

I am amazed at how many people actually insist CCW is a right, and even more that is is a right which should not be restricted AT ALL.

For the OP question: I believe training should be required (if you didn't figure that out by now.). Proficiency with the firearm and applicable laws should be shown. I am in favor of a single certificate which does not expire. Actually, we should be able to just implement whatever program is working so well in a comparable state (florida maybe?). That being said, I have never been to Florida.

P.S.

Okay. Do you believe that the cut and dry term BEAR is a right? Which is quite clearly stated in the Constitution.

If so, what makes Concealed so much different that you need all sorts of training for it? Because I might wear a heavy jacket covering my hip holster, and I more prone to misusing my firearm when some unfortunate event happens?

If you don't believe that carrying PERIOD is a right, well, then I'm not sure anyone in here can talk any sense into you, because you probably hold that notion due to years of nonsensical ideas.

It's as much a right as freedom of speech or religion. None of these are extreme ABSOLUTES. You need permits to speak in certain places. You need permits to assemble in certain places, etc... Do you have to go through english classes, and pass a vocabulary test, and then get thumbprinted before you get this permit??

ChuckBooty
03-21-2010, 1:52 PM
I would require it. But give exemptions to it if you can provide proof of previous training like a Front Site course, an NRA course, LEO, military, etc.

SuperSet
03-21-2010, 1:57 PM
I'm still undecided about it. I believe that quality training makes the difference between life and death. But given the number of CCWs granted nationwide and extremely rare cases of CCW-involved shootings, you don't have enough data points to say that under-qualified CCW holders are a public threat.
I do see what some are saying here though. If the CCW class is that damn easy, why should it exist in the first place? If I knew I was getting into a gunfight next week, i'd want the certification and accompanying training to be tough as hell.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 1:59 PM
Population of California is different than the population of ALASKA! States are comprised of different people as is evidenced by the crime rate, and the politicians we elect.

Californians in general have demonstrated incompetence at a higher rate than other states have. This could effect how we handle issuing mass CCW permits without training. We are not as much of a gun culture here, as Alaska is, and maybe the other states.

How about Washington? I know that their familiarity with guns is not much better than California. In fact, Seattle, Tacoma, and the suburbs around them have demographics pretty much like California. I know they have no training requirement.

psssniper
03-21-2010, 2:04 PM
At the moment I am writing this, 58.82% have voted that training should be a prerequisite to a CCW permit, while 41.17% (38.32% + 8.85%) have voted that training shouldn't be a prerequisite. That's a ratio of 1.43 to 1, not 10 to 1.

ten to one? That's horrible math!

I was lumping should be a pre-req and should be recommended into one category as I viewed should be recommended as incrementalist. ;)





Training should be a prerequisite to receiving a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite to getting a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite, but should be recommended.

berto
03-21-2010, 2:05 PM
Some kind of training likely passes constitutional muster so the real debate is over the requirements. The "shall not be infringed" fight remains lost as Scalia sanctioned infringement for felons, the mentally defective, and some classes of weapons.

The issue then becomes cost, availability, and content/requirements of the training. $25 is reasonable, $500 is not. A class taught at multiple locations with a wide choice of dates each month is reasonable, the third Wednesday of the month at a single location is not. Two hours of classroom time spent on safe handling, legal issues, etc. followed by a brief test is reasonable. A semester length course is not. Basic self-defense range (out to maybe 10 yards) live fire might be reasonable, forcing CCW applicants to meet or exceed LEO qualification standards is certainly not.

Make CCW training like hunter safety. Minimal cost, easy availability, and a large group of people allowed to offer training. Even better if the class/test and the live fire can be taken care of at different times and locations with different instructors.

I'm not in favor of mandated training but that bus has long left the station. I'd love no permit required a la Vermont or pay $25 to CA online and print my own permit.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 2:08 PM
I was lumping should be a pre-req and should be recommended into one category as I viewed should be recommended as incrementalist. ;)





Training should be a prerequisite to receiving a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite to getting a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite, but should be recommended.

I put this in to fill the void between the two extremes. I viewed it more in the realm of CCW not being a prerequisite.

Aleksandr Mravinsky
03-21-2010, 2:22 PM
From my thinking, the 2A should not be infringed. There shouldn't be permits or restrictions on carrying a handgun or rifle. However, I think that a test when purchasing a handgun or rifle wouldn't be infringement. Demonstrating that you know the basic functions of the firearm you are purchasing (loading, safety, et cetera) should be required and a written test (similar to a driving test) that covers firearm safety and basic laws (i.e. no brandishing in non-life-threatening circumstances, don't fire into the air, et cetera) should be given.

This would not necessarily require taking a class, but it would encourage those who are new to firearms and don't know basic safety or laws to take a class so that they could learn to be responsible gun owners.

GoodEyeSniper
03-21-2010, 2:33 PM
I was lumping should be a pre-req and should be recommended into one category as I viewed should be recommended as incrementalist. ;)





Training should be a prerequisite to receiving a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite to getting a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite, but should be recommended.

Hmm, I voted for recommending it. I took it to mean something like: "Okay, your 25 dollar debit charge went through. Here's your permit. Oh, and if you're interested here are some brochures for people that offer training, if you feel you might want to better prepare yourself. Enjoy your day."

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 2:39 PM
Hmm, I voted for recommending it. I took it to mean something like: "Okay, your 25 dollar debit charge went through. Here's your permit. Oh, and if you're interested here are some brochures for people that offer training, if you feel you might want to better prepare yourself. Enjoy your day."

Exactly. :thumbsup:

Kharn
03-21-2010, 2:41 PM
I do not think it should be required, but it should be very, very, very strongly recommended.

CalNRA
03-21-2010, 2:42 PM
any requirement can quickly turn to be a bottle neck to delay issuing permits.

"Sure Mr. Smith, we would be happy to issue you a permit, as soon as you pass our designated training course. Oh oops, we have a 6 months back log, come back next month to see if anyone dropped from the list. Have a nice day!!!"

Any, I mean ANY, prerequisite to a CCW will be used to the limit by CA CLEOs to deny CCW to citizens. Period. They have demonstrated that with the "may issue" system.

How about a recommendation to join an NRA marksmanship/training program upon receiving the permit?

elSquid
03-21-2010, 2:44 PM
Training should be a prerequisite to receiving a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite to getting a CCW
Training shouldn't be a prerequisite, but should be recommended.

The training aspect could be encouraged.

The legislative could pass a law stating that every one who has qualified be given civil immunity for legally justified shootings. No civil action could be taken against such a person until the shooting has been investigated, and only if the state has decided to start criminal proceedings.

I'd be willing to submit to 'reasonable' ( :eek: ) re/qualifications if that was the carrot.

-- Michael

RomanDad
03-21-2010, 2:58 PM
Just a thought, do you think that firearms ownership would go up along with concealed carry permits? Or would concealed carry go up and number of firearm owners remain roughly the same?

I dont know that theres a lot in MOST places (chicago being the notable exception) that prevent people who want to own guns from owning them now.

Would liberal carry laws change that? Maybe a bit. What you would definitely see is gun owners buying MORE guns (because you cant pack that Marlin .22 or 12 gauge; and some become like my wife is with purses.... Have to have a different one for every outfit). But most of them will have SOME rudimentary knowledge of firearms before they dive in to carry.

However, liberal carry laws MAY bring out a few people who never thought of owning a gun before. And carrying a gun for self defense in public is a whole different enchilada than buying one for home defense, or hunting. Theres just more gray areas of the law, and more things to consider. A few hours spent going over them (and proving youre not Don Knotts) isn't an INFRINGEMENT so long as its reasonably related to the health and safety of others, and isnt an arbitrary or capricious way to BAN people from carrying outright.

bigcalidave
03-21-2010, 3:00 PM
first, CCW is not a right in my view, and the supreme courts view.

Thankfully your view means nothing, and the supreme court said they didn't believe the 2nd provided for unlimited carry of arms.

the 2A does not guarantee us the right to carry concealed whatever weapons may be invented in the future, wherever we want to carry them. So, if we agree that CCW is not specifically a protected right, then common sense allows us to impose reasonable requirements on those who choose to CCW.

The answer you posted could also be applied to the following questions:

-Should I be permitted to carry a brief case nuke while on a tour of the white house? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

Are you insane? Your arguments are absurd. There was a specific topic here, licensing and training for CCW.

-Should I be allowed to point a high power rifle directly at the president while he is giving a speech? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

Again, you sound like the extremist here.

-Should I be permitted to wear a bomb vest while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

Already tired of saying the same thing over and over....

-Should I be allowed to carry a loaded ar-15 while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

And again...

-Should I be permitted to possess and fly my f-16 (armed with guided missles) anywhere I please? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

Why !!

-Should I be permitted to carry concealed a weapon I am capable of drawing quickly and killing dozens of people within moments (fn 5.7 with a couple extra mags for example)? YES I SAY! .

Quickly killing dozens of people? You write EXACTLY LIKE A GUN BAN SPOKESPERSON!!! I don't believe a GUN RIGHTS forum is the right place for this...

I am amazed at how many people actually insist CCW is a right, and even more that is is a right which should not be restricted AT ALL.

For the OP question: I believe training should be required (if you didn't figure that out by now.). Proficiency with the firearm and applicable laws should be shown. I am in favor of a single certificate which does not expire. Actually, we should be able to just implement whatever program is working so well in a comparable state (florida maybe?). That being said, I have never been to Florida.

P.S.

What about people who bought handguns prior to the requirement to demonstrate handling. Should they be required to demonstrate handling?

I have witnessed a CCW course. It was SAD and SCARY how poorly the majority of the applicants handled their weapons.

I have witnessed police at the range, and the aftermath of their shootings. It was SAD AND SCARY how poorly the majority of them handled and used their weapons...

Population of California is different than the population of ALASKA! States are comprised of different people as is evidenced by the crime rate, and the politicians we elect.

Californians in general have demonstrated incompetence at a higher rate than other states have. This could effect how we handle issuing mass CCW permits without training. We are not as much of a gun culture here, as Alaska is, and maybe the other states.

You just said that California is incompetent... Great, you know this is a CA forum, right? The constitution, by the way, is supposed to apply to all the states. Since we are so different should people in CA not be allowed to blog, since the people in other states show more restraint? All states have crime, and criminals. The states that allow concealed carry without training do not show a statistical increase in violence. Your ENTIRE RANT is failed.

This is good reasoning, except for the fact that free speech IS limited already in many ways, and rightly so (slander, libel, "fire" in a crowded building etc...). Common sense is the reason for limiting "rights". Plus CCW is not a right.

You are comparing rules and penalties? Compare slander and libel to brandishing and negligent discharge. The writing itself cannot be outlawed. The punishment develops from the use of that right to harm others. You're an leo, right? You make it obvious that you don't believe anyone else should have guns.

Lifeofahero
03-21-2010, 3:07 PM
-SNIP-
You're an leo, right? You make it obvious that you don't believe anyone else should have guns.

That was my thought as well.. it's the typical, some animals are more equal then others attitude. :mad:

aGunForEachHand
03-21-2010, 3:11 PM
In most states, training is a requirement. There are exemptions in certain states for prior military and other people with extensive firearms backgrounds. I agree that there should be some training requirement.

I think about this like getting a drivers license- there should be a minimum standard of competency before just anyone should be allowed to concealed carry. With that said, I don't think any training requirement or licensing fees should be exorbitant or extreme in that it results in a de facto CCW ban for most citizens.

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 3:13 PM
I dont know that theres a lot in MOST places (chicago being the notable exception) that prevent people who want to own guns from owning them now.

Would liberal carry laws change that? Maybe a bit. What you would definitely see is gun owners buying MORE guns (because you cant pack that Marlin .22 or 12 gauge; and some become like my wife is with purses.... Have to have a different one for every outfit). But most of them will have SOME rudimentary knowledge of firearms before they dive in to carry.

However, liberal carry laws MAY bring out a few people who never thought of owning a gun before. And carrying a gun for self defense in public is a whole different enchilada than buying one for home defense, or hunting. Theres just more gray areas of the law, and more things to consider. A few hours spent going over them (and proving youre not Don Knotts) isn't an INFRINGEMENT so long as its reasonably related to the health and safety of others, and isnt an arbitrary or capricious way to BAN people from carrying outright.

Just to educate myself, can you give me a reliable source that identifies all of the states that require some form of training as a prerequisite to getting a CCW? I know that Washington state doesn't require training, but one state is not enough to satisfy the debate in my own mind.

Meplat
03-21-2010, 3:15 PM
My training started when I was four years old. My trainers were my father and grandfather. I don’t need the blessing of some government stooge to exercise my rights.

Lifeofahero
03-21-2010, 3:21 PM
To those who say CCW isn't a right... we have a right to UOC, albeit controversial, and that has no training requirement. Why should CCW require training when UOC doesn't? If you purchase a handgun, you need to show that you can handle it safely and you need to obtain a handgun safety certificate. That's more then enough to prove the owner is competent.

Meplat
03-21-2010, 3:29 PM
Exactly!;)

To those who say CCW isn't a right... we have a right to UOC, albeit controversial, and that has no training requirement. Why should CCW require training when UOC doesn't? If you purchase a handgun, you need to show that you can handle it safely and you need to obtain a handgun safety certificate. That's more then enough to prove the owner is competent.

Josh3239
03-21-2010, 3:33 PM
The Founding Fathers added "bear" to the 2nd Amendment because it includes the carrying of firearms. There shouldn't be a training prerequisite for the right to bear arms anymore than there should be an english class prerequisite for the right to freedom of speech or a law class prerequisite for the right to due process.

Meplat
03-21-2010, 3:55 PM
Some strange and wonderful logic here. Of course a test is an infringement. That's why we have to let idiots vote!:rolleyes:


From my thinking, the 2A should not be infringed. There shouldn't be permits or restrictions on carrying a handgun or rifle. However, I think that a test when purchasing a handgun or rifle wouldn't be infringement. Demonstrating that you know the basic functions of the firearm you are purchasing (loading, safety, et cetera) should be required and a written test (similar to a driving test) that covers firearm safety and basic laws (i.e. no brandishing in non-life-threatening circumstances, don't fire into the air, et cetera) should be given.

This would not necessarily require taking a class, but it would encourage those who are new to firearms and don't know basic safety or laws to take a class so that they could learn to be responsible gun owners.

psssniper
03-21-2010, 3:55 PM
any requirement can quickly turn to be a bottle neck to delay issuing permits.

That's a fact jack!! I have friends in South Africa, Fishhoek specifically and my bud Johann is still awaiting his permit renewal. He's in the last group and NO ONE has been renewed, imagine that.

Here's a quote from the web site.

As you know as of 30 June 2009, and firearms that have not been relicenced will have to be surrendered to the State (SAPS) for destruction.


Go to their web site (http://www.falsebaygunclub.co.za/)and read all about it.

cltitus
03-21-2010, 3:56 PM
I would have to say should just be qualification test to see how proficient you are with your Concealed Weapon because most the people that apply for a CCW are already Handgun Basic Knowledge or above. There are those special cases where there needs to be training but, I would say That should be the Only Test.

HowardW56
03-21-2010, 4:11 PM
I know many of the posters in this thread won't like this, but........

I have attended several training sessions, Basic/Introductory/CCW; low light; advanced; etc...

I have been shooting since my mid-teens (sneaking up on 40 years), and have seen many of incompetent gun owners.

The worst was a Superior Court Judge retaking the class to renew his CCW... I have no idea why he was using a Colt Gold Cup,he couldn't remember how the safety operated. I, and others in the class, suggested that he get a revolver or Glock... He is the reason I advocate mandatory training, or live fire qualification as a minimum before a CCW is issued...

cltitus
03-21-2010, 4:20 PM
I know many of the posters in this thread won't like this, but........

I have attended several training sessions, Basic/Introductory/CCW; low light; advanced; etc...

I have been shooting since my mid-teens (sneaking up on 40 years), and have seen many of incompetent gun owners.

The worst was a Superior Court Judge retaking the class to renew his CCW... I have no idea why he was using a Colt Gold Cup,he couldn't remember how the safety operated. I, and others in the class, suggested that he get a revolver or Glock... He is the reason I advocate mandatory training, or live fire qualification as a minimum before a CCW is issued...

"Superior Court Judge retaking the class to renew his CCW" this makes me laugh inside hard because the fact these Judges have personal escort almost 24/7. I still don't see why we need a title a reason to apply We need a right to carry. Still keep the permit system to make tracking easier but, not just make it for the select few that the Deputy lets have and gets paid off the pass.

WTF Equal Rights?

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 4:38 PM
Let me throw an OTO in just to make the conversation more interesting. Amateur Radio requires a license to operate. However, there are some interesting aspects to this licensing requirement.

1. There are classes of operation and require a separate test for each class of license.

2. The license is good for 10 years

3. There is no fee to take the test or renew the license.

4. The test is given by Volunteer exam coordinators who are peers and not government agents.

5. Once a person passes a test, a test is never required again to renew the license.

6. If a person operates outside his/her class of license, a person may have his/her license revoked, may receive a fine and could be subject to jail if the offense is severe enough.

7. The license is issued through the Federal Communications Commission and the states have no control over the licensing or regulatory process.

Some think that requiring a license is a violation of the 1st amendment, however, amateur radio operators think that it is necessary for proper operation to prevent unintentional or malicious interference. If there was a similar test for carrying a firearm, do you think it would satisfy both sides of the issue?

kap
03-21-2010, 4:39 PM
Ideally, and as a matter of principle I would say no training requirement should be required. If you got a gun and want to pack, go ahead.

In reality I think training should be required with the caveat that the training is widely available and a permit is issued upon completion of the training ... much like a drivers license. If they issued drivers licenses like CCWs everyone would be walking unless they had a compelling reason.

A weekend class for 8 hours or 4 hours on 2 days would work: One day of lecture material on CCW, firearms and issues involved; the second day would be 250 rounds of fun getting to know your gun time and learning to draw from a holster. I know very few people who train to do that well, let alone know how to do it at all. Would be quite a boon to firearm instructors all over for sure, create jobs ;), and even help promote a positive view of responsible gun culture. Heck, I'm convinced. ;)

M. Sage
03-21-2010, 4:40 PM
Is training a prerequisite to speak? To exercise your rights under the 5th? The 4th?

No, training should not be a prerequisite. Who stipulates what "training" is? It's just one more way to restrict us. Vermont and Alaska seem to be doing juuuuust fine.

RomanDad
03-21-2010, 5:06 PM
Just to educate myself, can you give me a reliable source that identifies all of the states that require some form of training as a prerequisite to getting a CCW? I know that Washington state doesn't require training, but one state is not enough to satisfy the debate in my own mind.

Off the top of my head, I don't know... I know many of the "Gun Nirvanas" like Texas and Nevada require it.

I think its a rather odd debate to have given that MOST of the people in California, can't get a CCW. TRAINING OR NO TRAINING.


And We have to remember "Creeping Incrementalism" works both ways....

Every state that has passed shall issue CCW have done so over great protest, and with lots of added requirements and safeguards in place.... And in most, those extra requirements have incrementally gone away over time as people who were scared and wringing their hands realize "oh... Yeah.... Its not really a big deal after all."

socalblue
03-21-2010, 5:07 PM
Must meet a minimum standard: demonstrate safety & basic proficiency + a short written test. (IMO Nevada is just about right - 8 hours classroom & a very simple shooting test). Essentially what we require for armed security guards in CA.

Go to a public (not club or private) range. Sit & watch for a bit. How many folks did you see that shouldn't be allowed out in public let alone carry a gun?

BluNorthern
03-21-2010, 5:16 PM
Just to educate myself, can you give me a reliable source that identifies all of the states that require some form of training as a prerequisite to getting a CCW? I know that Washington state doesn't require training, but one state is not enough to satisfy the debate in my own mind.
Reliable? Not positive but you might try digging through this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

RomanDad
03-21-2010, 5:22 PM
Reliable? Not positive but you might try digging through this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

Makes me miss the old "Packing.org" database. That had all the info in one place.

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 5:58 PM
BigCaliDave.....you criticized my post mainly by just saying I am wrong. I am an open minded guy, so write something which may influence my outlook. I have not resorted to writing : "BigCalidave you are a typical 2A nut who thinks we should go back to the wild west and have shootouts in the street and stuff....." I have presented pretty good reasoning for my position, namely that police are generally more qualified and generally have more articulable reasons for needing a gun at all times. Also, that the 2A is up for interpretation in the sense of CCW. I have provided numerous examples of why the 2A is not some divinely inspired writing which grants every american the right to carry pistols concealed everywhere they go. I have also emphasized my belief that good people should be able to legally carry concealed wherever they go.

I have a strange feeling that either my full posts are not being read (they are pretty detailed), or they are not being read with purpose and thought. Slow it down, and read them with some empathy. STOP reading into them. I feel like.... I am trying to argue that Christianity condems homosexuality, then am being called a gay-hater because of it, and due to a lack of a counter-arguement. I am a gun rights enthusiast, and I used to believe the 2A guaranteed my right to "have and wield guns" in all senses of that phrase. I still believe common sense dictates people be allowed to CCW, just that the constitution does not guarantee it. What is the problem guys...

BluNorthern
03-21-2010, 5:59 PM
Just to educate myself, can you give me a reliable source that identifies all of the states that require some form of training as a prerequisite to getting a CCW? I know that Washington state doesn't require training, but one state is not enough to satisfy the debate in my own mind.
This site is pretty comprehensive and up to date. Better I think then the other site I posted earlier.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 6:17 PM
I will stop posting semi-unrelated posts since this did ask a specific question. I was posting in response to previous posts which did the same. Bigcalidave, you called me out on this, but you also responded to my post, and are guilty of same.

fegves2id
03-21-2010, 6:28 PM
Since we are on a pro-gun website and the majority of voters are for required training, you can bet your ping-pongs that a VAST majority of Californians will would vote to have requirements. We need to sell it that way, to get it done.

elSquid
03-21-2010, 6:56 PM
Since we are on a pro-gun website and the majority of voters are for required training, you can bet your ping-pongs that a VAST majority of Californians will would vote to have requirements. We need to sell it that way, to get it done.

Post Heller/Nordyke/McDonald/Sykes/Palmer, the opinion of the majority may be unconstitutional.

-- Michael

markw
03-21-2010, 7:04 PM
I'd recommend it, but it shouldn't be required. That's what got us into this mess, regulations on our 2nd amendment rights. I really like VT's and Alaska's CCW laws. We don't care if you carry, but if you do use it prepare to justify it. Who gives a rip if I'm government approved to carry or not. The only thing I'm concerned about with people carrying is if they're pointing it at me. Requiring something like this gives you the anti's answer of: "You have to have this approved course to get your ccw, oh, and there's a 5 year wait to get in, and $5000 fee."

Milsurp Collector
03-21-2010, 7:44 PM
Post Heller/Nordyke/McDonald/Sykes/Palmer, the opinion of the majority may be unconstitutional.

-- Michael

Not according to what the Supreme Court said in the Heller decision. They specifically mentioned concealed weapon prohibitions as something that would pass scrutiny.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

cadurand
03-21-2010, 7:44 PM
Is training required in Vermont or Alaska?

Then it shouldn't be required anywhere.

If someone doesn't know how to operate their firearm who are they a threat to? I mean they'll still pull it out if they feel threatened. So the worst case is they draw their weapon and don't know how to fire it. Bad guy takes the weapon and kills them.

A very sad day for the good guys but it's not a major issue in my opinion. Better learn how to use your weapon of choice if you're going to carry it with you. If you don't know that, no amount of training is going to help.

elSquid
03-21-2010, 7:54 PM
Not according to what the Supreme Court said in the Heller decision. They specifically mentioned concealed weapon prohibitions as something that would pass scrutiny.

Unlicensed open carry works for me.

-- Michael

Roadrunner
03-21-2010, 8:21 PM
Off the top of my head, I don't know... I know many of the "Gun Nirvanas" like Texas and Nevada require it.

I think its a rather odd debate to have given that MOST of the people in California, can't get a CCW. TRAINING OR NO TRAINING.


And We have to remember "Creeping Incrementalism" works both ways....

Every state that has passed shall issue CCW have done so over great protest, and with lots of added requirements and safeguards in place.... And in most, those extra requirements have incrementally gone away over time as people who were scared and wringing their hands realize "oh... Yeah.... Its not really a big deal after all."

The point to the poll is to see how the average gun owner thinks regarding training as a prerequisite to obtaining a permit. Since some states don't require training, I wanted to see how California gun owners would respond to the question. I suppose the next question would be, of the people who voted for training, how many have training and to what extent do they have training? The next question would be, of the people who voted against training, how much training do they have?

dustoff31
03-21-2010, 8:29 PM
I think anyone who wants to carry a gun around in public should at least be required to demonstrate that they can hit what they are shooting at more often than not.

I don't care if they know the laws. If they use it inappropriately, they go to jail. That's their problem.

I don't care if they are "safe". If they shoot themselves in the face checking to see if it's loaded. Darwinism rules.

I do care if some clown pulls out a gun to defend himself or another and ends up shooting everyone in sight except the bad guy.

That said, in places where OC and CCW is legal, it makes absolutely no sense to require training to CCW, when there is no such requirement to OC.

Sinixstar
03-21-2010, 8:41 PM
Prerequisite to a CCW?

I think it should be a pre-requisite for a high-school diploma. But hey - that's just me.

Sinixstar
03-21-2010, 8:47 PM
Is training required in Vermont or Alaska?

Then it shouldn't be required anywhere.

If someone doesn't know how to operate their firearm who are they a threat to? I mean they'll still pull it out if they feel threatened. So the worst case is they draw their weapon and don't know how to fire it. Bad guy takes the weapon and kills them.

A very sad day for the good guys but it's not a major issue in my opinion. Better learn how to use your weapon of choice if you're going to carry it with you. If you don't know that, no amount of training is going to help.

Vermont doesn't issue CCW, there is simply no law prohibiting the carrying of a concealed firearm.

I can think of WAY worse things that could happen then somebody pulls their gun and doesn't know how to fire it. Perhaps they pull it and let a round off as it's coming out of the holster. Maybe they think it's a magic wand and just wave it around squeezing off shots. Maybe the person they're pulling it on realizes they don't know wtf they're doing - and shoves it down their throat sideways.....

could go on and on and on here - but i think we can agree there are FAR worse things that could happen than the gun simply not going boom.

bigcalidave
03-21-2010, 9:26 PM
BigCaliDave.....you criticized my post mainly by just saying I am wrong.

Oh no, I criticized your post because you use the same arguments that the antis use and seem to believe them. When you compare CCW without licensing to carrying a suitcase nuke, you're gonna get called out on it. It sure didn't read as a rational post.


I have provided numerous examples of why the 2A is not some divinely inspired writing which grants every american the right to carry pistols concealed everywhere they go.


Show us again where that was??? What numerous examples! Trust me, I read what you wrote, and you wrote that you don't trust people in California to carry a concealed handgun without extensive training and licensing. That's your opinion, that was the reason the OP made this poll... But you aren't a prophet of civil rights. Your opinion strongly represents the restrictions on those rights.

Kelvrick
03-21-2010, 9:56 PM
I'm a little late to the conversation but will throw out my 2 cents. I don't believe training is a prerequisite, BUT I think you should have to qualify. Who decides? Well, I'm going to take the easy way out and direct that question to the same place where we send copies of our ffl licenses, the local police chief (department).

If you can pass the same qualifications that officers go through, you get the ccw. If you can afford the gun, you can afford the extra couple of boxes of ammunition to hit the target at whatever yards and the local NRA instructor to get you where you need to be. Thats what I think anyway.

Off-topic, but no qualifications or training required to own and carry weapons on yours or other property in which you have permission of the owner or his/her/their agent.

berto
03-21-2010, 10:08 PM
I'm a little late to the conversation but will throw out my 2 cents. I don't believe training is a prerequisite, BUT I think you should have to qualify. Who decides? Well, I'm going to take the easy way out and direct that question to the same place where we send copies of our ffl licenses, the local police chief (department).

If you can pass the same qualifications that officers go through, you get the ccw. If you can afford the gun, you can afford the extra couple of boxes of ammunition to hit the target at whatever yards and the local NRA instructor to get you where you need to be. Thats what I think anyway.

Leaving it to the CLEO is why we have issuance problems. Wise CCW usage is much more limited than the situations LEOs prepare for and some CCW pieces aren't a great option for qualifying at distances to 25 yards.

ivsamhell
03-21-2010, 11:26 PM
I'm pretty surprised at the poll. Definately expected more 2nd amendment supporters. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

taloft
03-21-2010, 11:37 PM
I see a lot of people putting the cart before the horse in this thread.

First off, we shouldn't need a CCW to carry concealed. I realize that the courts may not agree but, that's another thread on its own. Carrying concealed isn't inherently more dangerous than other forms of carry. Most of those don't require training nor do they increase ND shootings. Thinking that having your coat over your holster will somehow make you more likely to do something dumb with a firearm is a bit of a stretch.

Second, no one has shown where a failure to obtain CCW training has resulted in more ND shootings. Both Alaska and Vermont do not require a CCW or training to carry concealed. Are there more ND shootings in those states per capita? I'm guessing there isn't but, I'll leave it up to others to show otherwise. I won't argue your case for you.;) Many other states have no problem with loaded open carry with no training. Where's that river of blood? Oh, the we're not a gun culture state argument is flawed. Gun owners by definition are part of the gun culture regardless of the state they live in. Good luck selling that PC BS to someone else.

Third, it isn't about safety and it never was. It has always been about control. Otherwise, it would have been shall issue from the start. If it was about public safety, wouldn't the issuing standards be the same in all 58 counties? And, wouldn't self protection be considered good cause? I think the answer is self evident.

Now, I'm all for someone getting proper training. While I'm opposed to mandating it, I certainly don't mind the approach that elSquid proposed. That every one who has qualified be given civil immunity for legally justified shootings. That is an excellent suggestion. The potential savings on legal fees alone would get most people into training. Take it one step further, allow people a one time tax write off of all costs incurred to qualify, and they'll beat a path to the classroom. Why must the Government always use the stick, when the carrot would work? That's the real question isn't it. Find the answer to that and you have the answer for everything else they do.

ChuckBooty
03-22-2010, 6:52 AM
first, CCW is not a right in my view, and the supreme courts view. the 2A does not guarantee us the right to carry concealed whatever weapons may be invented in the future, wherever we want to carry them. So, if we agree that CCW is not specifically a protected right, then common sense allows us to impose reasonable requirements on those who choose to CCW.

The right to KEEP and BEAR arms guarantees to right to...uh...keep and BEAR arms. So you're right, but for the wrong reason. The American People are guaranteed either CCW or LOC. Pick one.

The answer you posted could also be applied to the following questions:

-Should I be permitted to carry a brief case nuke while on a tour of the white house? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to wear a bomb vest while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to possess and fly my f-16 (armed with guided missles) anywhere I please? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.



In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are constitutionally protected. With today's technology we now have hand-held rockets, surface to air missiles, maybe even nuclear weapons. It seems clear that those things would have been considered "ordinance" in colonial times which is why they're not protected now.

-Should I be allowed to point a high power rifle directly at the president while he is giving a speech? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

No. It's already against the law to point a weapon at somebody. It's also against the law to point a knife at someone. It's also against the law to TELL somebody that you're going to kill them. This has NOTHING to do with the second amendment.

-Should I be allowed to carry a loaded ar-15 while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

No. Airplanes are privately owned. Private businesses can decide on their OWN whether or not to allow firearms on or in their place of business (see Starbucks vs Petes with regard to the UOC debate)

Should I be permitted to carry concealed a weapon I am capable of drawing quickly and killing dozens of people within moments (fn 5.7 with a couple extra mags for example)? YES I SAY! .

I say yes too. What's the difference between an FN 5.7 and a Kimber 1911? They can both be pulled quickly and can kill a bunch of people. I know you can become jaded when you're a police officer but you need to realize that the VAST majority of people who would legally CCW would NOT become mass murderers. In fact, the people who are currently CCW'ing (ILLEGALLY) are FAR more likely to do what you're suggesting.
That's like asking, "Should I be allowed to drive a car that I can quickly swerve off the road and kill a bunch of people?". Don't worry...we WON'T!

I am amazed at how many people actually insist CCW is a right, and even more that is is a right which should not be restricted AT ALL.

If you don't believe in the Constitution, you might consider a new occupation. A Zoo Keeper perhaps? :)

For the OP question: I believe training should be required (if you didn't figure that out by now.). Proficiency with the firearm and applicable laws should be shown. I am in favor of a single certificate which does not expire. Actually, we should be able to just implement whatever program is working so well in a comparable state (florida maybe?). That being said, I have never been to Florida.

There should be ONE STANDARD throughout the country. So if training is required in ALL STATES then it should apply here. And I know that police officers get all kind of Navy Seal-type training...but then again...so did THESE officers. Should ALL POLICE OFFICERS now be required to undergo "Don't accidently shoot yourself or the citizens that you are sworn to protect" training? I SAY YES! :rolleyes:


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9VNB7Z40w00&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9VNB7Z40w00&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bmJukcFzEX4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bmJukcFzEX4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeGD7r6s-zU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeGD7r6s-zU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

SIGscout
03-22-2010, 8:44 AM
I saw alot of this comming from the students learning to carry for there security card. And, yes there was a CCC hopefull who thaught the proper way to hold a Taurus 1911 was to put your non-dominant hand over the slide(as if to manually load the chamber) and dominant hand on the grip with finger on the trigger... IMPRESSIVE. Then if only people would shoot the correct target that would be great.

Ya to say the least, I didn't feel completely safe on the fireing line.


You'd be surprised at how many applicants can't even work their firearms. They show up for CCW live fire and they can't even load the magazines without being helped. Their shooting skills usually need a great deal of work also. Yes, I think live fire is a good prerequisite.

JDoe
03-22-2010, 9:09 AM
The training prerequisite for CCW should be the same for law abiding citizens as it is for criminals and prohibited persons.

N6ATF
03-22-2010, 9:30 AM
The training prerequisite for CCW should be the same for law abiding citizens as it is for criminals and prohibited persons.

+100

Roadrunner
03-22-2010, 9:34 AM
I saw alot of this comming from the students learning to carry for there security card. And, yes there was a CCC hopefull who thaught the proper way to hold a Taurus 1911 was to put your non-dominant hand over the slide(as if to manually load the chamber) and dominant hand on the grip with finger on the trigger... IMPRESSIVE. Then if only people would shoot the correct target that would be great.

Ya to say the least, I didn't feel completely safe on the fireing line.

It's interesting that the examples of mishandling a firearm have been done in a classroom. Yet, in states where training isn't a requirement to carry a firearm, it appears to be a non issue. Why do you suppose that is?

Liberty1
03-22-2010, 9:39 AM
The training prerequisite for CCW should be the same for law abiding citizens as it is for criminals and prohibited persons.

YES!

I would love to see a 'safety' study limited to those who carry loaded firearms for self defense to see if the training requirements have any bearing in improving 'public safety'. Basically are people at greater risk in Vt/Ak? I think not.

I work with individuals who have received 80 hrs of POST training and 'qualify' at least twice a year and I'm not impressed by most.

There is a reason that private persons shoot more BGs and have less misses then police. It takes very little skill for a victim to identify a deadly threat directed at them, point a firearm and pull the trigger.

What I think improves safety is a 'culture' of gun carry. And anything which deters carry amongst the law abiding kills that culture including the 'training' requirements.

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 9:44 AM
I saw a lot of this coming from the students learning to carry for there security card. And, yes there was a CCC hopefull who thought the proper way to hold a Taurus 1911 was to put your non-dominant hand over the slide(as if to manually load the chamber) and dominant hand on the grip with finger on the trigger... IMPRESSIVE. Then if only people would shoot the correct target that would be great.

Ya to say the least, I didn't feel completely safe on the firing line.

I'm sure the posters in this thread are competent gun handlers who don't need to go through even a brief course. But not everyone out there who might want a CCW permit is as competent as the people posting in this thread. The brief course required before getting a CCW permit might be the only formal training some of these people get before they go out on the streets.


the only time i have felt unsafe at the range was when some tard next to me with a AR pistol that jammed every other shot was sweeping the entire firing line as he tried to clear the jam.

i would hope that those gangsta types who were ignoring the range staff and rapid firing would get kicked and banned. the range is not a place to break rules even if you dont like em.

Yikes, sounds like they get some real punks at that range. I was buying ammo in the pro shop at my local range and while I was waiting for some assistance oversaw one of the poor guys teaching a 21-25 year old girl how to use a gun before she rented it (all alone, pink purse and all). She had obviously never held one before. The second he handed it over, the barrel dropped down on the glass case with a "clack!" because she wasnt expecting the heft of the m92. Then she proceeds to muzzle the guy with her finger on the trigger looking at it like a bomb. I was glad I was only picking up ammo... to shoot on private property that is :yes:

I know how you feel, but the ones that make me uncomfortable are the guys in the next lane clearing a jam while pointing the gun at my lane instead of down range, they aren't even aware of what they are doing, if you point it out they tend to get pissy.
Idiots + guns = cocky and create "here hold muh beer" accidents.

It is really fun to watch the current lineup between the bulletproof glass. It takes less than 5 minutes to completely figure out which lane has questionable firearms knowledge.

My favorite scene is the group of college kids. Individual at the shooting lane, loads mag, loads chamber. Two handed, sometimes one handed, turns around to the group behind. Firearm slowly turns the way his/her body is twisting.


I used to go to an indoor range in San Diego during the mornings on weekdays, but with my current work schedule I can only go on weekends. Once there was a group of three guys, looked like your standard issue UCSD students. They had rented a couple glocks and had decided to pose for a photo. Two of them were holding the weapons and the other snapping photos. I was trying to keep my eye on my buddy while he was shooting, being his first time out, but i noticed the guys pointing the weapons at one another with fingers inside the trigger guard for a photo. I saw the triggers were in the 'ready to fire' position and i would be in the path of a FMJ bullet exiting the brain of one of the guys. So I told my friend to put the gun down so I could have a word with these idiots. I went over and told them that the weapons must be pointed down range. When they put the guns down I checked the loaded chamber indicator and sure enough, both firearms were ready to fire. I told them that I don't care if they blow each others brains out as long as the muzzle is pointed down range. They got the idea and left after finishing their box. We were the only ones on the range at the time.



when I read the initial post, I was going to guess Insight lol it seems like it's happening more often than before, where you see guys taking their gf/dates and show off. oh man, a few months ago, 2 guys came in with their pistols wrapped with NEWSPAPER!!! and before one of the guys emptied the mag, he pointed the muzzle at his head and looking straight into the barrel for no apparent reason, that's when I took a break, walked out and waited until they finished. I try to go when they open, usually not that many people.

Also, when a fool notices you eyeing him, they usually settle down.

Don't forget the senior citizens (god I'm almost one!!) - the scariest was this deaf and blind guy sweeping w/ his 1911. I was literally jumping out of the way - waving at him.. Tard. Hammer back, finger on trigger, had to assume loaded, and I don't trust safetys... Scared the bejebus out of me.. I was shaking.. I'm okay, but it made me a believer.. And sounds like it happens everywhere....

I had an instance with my coworker who claims to be a safety advocate and drills it into my head that he is an upstanding responsible gun owner before I went shooting with him.

My story is, we went shooting once after work to the range around the corner from our workplace. We both shared a lane and he was shooting his compact USP 45. I was loading my mags in an unoccupied lane to the left of the one we rented. While he was shooting, his pistol jams and he points it in my direction and pulls the trigger several times to see what was jamming without me knowing as I cannot see past the barrier. Next think I knew, I hear a bang and a shards of the barrier hit the right side of my face and I see powdered cinder block dust from the wall to my left. At that moment I thought I was dead. I looked up at the barrier and less than 12 inches away from my temple, was a shattered hole produced from a .45 bullet.

I turned over to look at him and said, "WHAT THE F@CK?".

He simply looked at me in shock and said, "what?".

Yes, fear everybody!

Never went shooting with that idiot again. Everytime I go to an indoor range and see holes in the barriers, I get flashbacks of the incident.:)

Saying "don't require training but hold them accountable if they screw up" doesn't do you much good if one of those untrained inexperienced idiots accidentally puts a bullet through your head.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 9:57 AM
Vermont/Alaska style, I say.

There should, for those that want it, be an inexpensive web-based "Laws of the state" course, covering use of deadly force, when not to carry, when not to draw and a little bit of situation awareness (the guy with a gun in front of the 7/11 counter pointing it at the guy behind the counter isn't necessarily the BG, it could be the owner who stepped away from the counter for a moment). If you don't take the course, you are (as you are anyway) at risk of being sued in criminal or civil court and that should be pointed out.

Maybe there should be a no more than fifteen minute test showing that you can handle the gun safely and hit the man-sized target at, say, seven yards.

This practical test should be waived if you have other qualifications: NRA Basic Pistol, armed forces, competitive shooter etc. etc.

Beyond that, IMHO, is an infringement.

Remember, we can all cite cases, from LEO's, DoJ BoF employees, FBI agents and even Col. Cooper where well trained people had NG's. Training doesn't stop NG's.

I read all these horror stories about guns being flashed about on the range, and I wonder: will sixteen hours of (mostly) classroom training really fix that?

There's just a few rules for safe handling. People can be trained to recite them in five minutes. Some of them will need brain surgery before they will follow them, most others are willing but need a bunch of practice preferably with a knowledgable mentor on hand. The problem isn't teaching the rules, it's building the body awareness with constant practice. You can't do that in 16 hours.

stag1500
03-22-2010, 9:59 AM
In much the same way that you need to take a driver's ed class in order to get a driver's license, I feel that there should be some prerequisites for obtaining a CCW. The training should be limited to the following: knoweldge of the law, safe handling/operating of pistol(s), qualification of pistol(s) and an overview of various concealment methods. If we didn't have this, public opinion would turn heavily against us and we could end up losing this right. Besides, who said that training to get a CCW can't be fun. :D

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 10:24 AM
In much the same way that you need to take a driver's ed class in order to get a driver's license, I feel that there should be some prerequisites for obtaining a CCW. The training should be limited to the following: knoweldge of the law, safe handling/operating of pistol(s), qualification of pistol(s) and an overview of various concealment methods. If we didn't have this, public opinion would turn heavily against us and we could end up losing this right. Besides, who said that training to get a CCW can't be fun. :D

How long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost? Any exceptions for people already trained?

Remember, if you have had driving licenses in, say, Georgia, Texas and Utah, California doesn't make you do it all over again.

bigcalidave
03-22-2010, 10:44 AM
In much the same way that you need to take a driver's ed class in order to get a driver's license, I feel that there should be some prerequisites for obtaining a CCW. The training should be limited to the following: knoweldge of the law, safe handling/operating of pistol(s), qualification of pistol(s) and an overview of various concealment methods. If we didn't have this, public opinion would turn heavily against us and we could end up losing this right. Besides, who said that training to get a CCW can't be fun. :D

Actually you don't. An adult, 18 or over, can go to the DMV and pay $31, pass a simple multiple choice test, a very simple vision test, get in a car with an instructor and do the basic driving test, go back to the dmv and get their license. It's a simple process, that takes less than an hour depending on the line. If you are licensed in another state you don't need to take the driving test... These simple answers took 5 seconds to find on the dmv website, if you are going to make a comparison, at least know what you are talking about.

I already ceded that I would be willing to accept the most basic training and licensing requirement possible, as the responsibility of driving a car is much higher than carrying a handgun. The costs must be similar (under $50) and the training must be something you do on your own, to pass a SIMPLE test... It is far easier to make a mistake driving and kill someone else, than it is to mistakenly draw your concealed weapon, aim and fire. Let's not even get into the actual difficulty of KILLING someone with a handgun, compared to a car.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 11:01 AM
An adult, 18 or over, can go to the DMV and pay $31, pass a simple multiple choice test, a very simple vision test, get in a car with an instructor and do the basic driving test, go back to the dmv and get their license.
Yes, thinking about it as a new resident with a British DL, that's exactly what they made me do. The eye test was something like "Read the third line on that chart over there" (I think I had to do it in turn with each eye covered over). Took about an hour, total.

Getting a CCW should be no harder.

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 11:03 AM
I read all these horror stories about guns being flashed about on the range, and I wonder: will sixteen hours of (mostly) classroom training really fix that?

There's just a few rules for safe handling. People can be trained to recite them in five minutes. Some of them will need brain surgery before they will follow them, most others are willing but need a bunch of practice preferably with a knowledgable mentor on hand. The problem isn't teaching the rules, it's building the body awareness with constant practice. You can't do that in 16 hours.

I agree with you that a brief course is inadequate! I second your recommendation for more than 16 hours of training and a requirement for regular practice! :p :D

We need to be more politically savvy. There is our side, there is the anti side, and in the middle is the majority of the populace that is undecided and open to persuasion. We need to be able to persuade the undecided that our side is the reasonable side, and the antis are the extremists. Right now the antis get away with calling us "gun nuts" and often make it stick. We need to anticipate and nullify the usual arguments put forth by the antis.

The antis are going to say "those gun nuts want anyone who isn't a criminal to be able to carry a concealed gun (!) on the streets with no training whatsoever!" And if all we say is , "yup, my rights, my rights, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" yadda yadda, guess what, the antis look to the undecided soccer moms like the sane ones and we look unreasonable. If we are proactive and take the approach of many states that require training before a permit is issued, and can say "nope, a firearm safety course is required before a permit is issued" then we look like the responsible reasonable ones and the antis look like extremists. If anything in bad gun law states like California is going to improve outside of relying only on favorable court decisions, the undecided have to be swayed to our side.

People can keep chanting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until they are blue in the face, but the Supreme Court has already made that moot. Gunners who take principled but losing and self-defeating positions are like the principled liberals who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. How did that work out for them? :rolleyes:

Deadpool
03-22-2010, 11:07 AM
I'm pretty torn about this.
I voted yes before reading all of the posts but now I'm not as sure as I was.

My feeling is that, yes people need a basic level of training before carrying their guns. But on the other hand I totally agree with everyone that said that that will become a bottleneck to slow down the process.

In a perfect world, taking a basic class before getting a permit would be great. But also in a perfect world we could all legally open carry without permits and everyone's common sense would lead them to take a basic class on their own.

I have seen some morons pointing guns at people at gun stores/ranges. My hope is that with a basic class this behavior would become less common.

I have to say too that the HSC is joke. I have to disagree with anyone who says that proves ANY level of competency by the holder.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 11:12 AM
I have seen some morons pointing guns at people at gun stores/ranges. My hope is that with a basic class this behavior would become less common.

Do you think they are going to apply for a CCW in the near future?

Do you think these are, in general, the type who have given serious consideration to carrying for self-defense, or did they just see it as a couple of hours fun with no relevance to everyday life?

a1c
03-22-2010, 11:18 AM
I'm pretty torn about this.
I voted yes before reading all of the posts but now I'm not as sure as I was.

My feeling is that, yes people need a basic level of training before carrying their guns. But on the other hand I totally agree with everyone that said that that will become a bottleneck to slow down the process.

Getting a license at the DMV doesn't take much time (getting new plates is another story). Neither does getting a hunting license, which is only a few hours of education.

If there is a bit of money to be made by the state - think $30-50 - it doesn't have to be a bottleneck.

Peaceful John
03-22-2010, 11:23 AM
Training sounds like a good idea, and some states require it. But, as far as I can determine, there is no signficiant difference in CCW shootings between those states who do and those who don't. To pass laws controlling other's behavior when the data is lacking is something only children and Democrats do.

BluNorthern
03-22-2010, 11:25 AM
We need to be more politically savvy. There is our side, there is the anti side, and in the middle is the majority of the populace that is undecided and open to persuasion. We need to be able to persuade the undecided that our side is the reasonable side, and the antis are the extremists. Right now the antis get away with calling us "gun nuts" and often make it stick. We need to anticipate and nullify the usual arguments put forth by the antis.

The antis are going to say "those gun nuts want anyone who isn't a criminal to be able to carry a concealed gun (!) on the streets with no training whatsoever!" And if all we say is , "yup, my rights, my rights, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" yadda yadda, guess what, the antis look to the undecided soccer moms like the sane ones and we look unreasonable. If we are proactive and take the approach of many states that require training before a permit is issued, and can say "nope, a firearm safety course is required before a permit is issued" then we look like the responsible reasonable ones and the antis look like extremists. If anything in bad gun law states like California is going to improve outside of relying only on favorable court decisions, the undecided have to be swayed to our side.

People can keep chanting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until they are blue in the face, but the Supreme Court has already made that moot. Gunners who take principled but losing and self-defeating positions are like the principled liberals who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. How did that work out for them? :rolleyes:
Good post with some good thoughts.

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 11:57 AM
If there is a bit of money to be made by the state - think $30-50 - it doesn't have to be a bottleneck.

In my state the government doesn't make any money off the training courses, the courses are provided by private small businesses, and free market competition keeps the price down and bottlenecks non-existent.

Below is my state's requirement for training for a CCW permit:


(f) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by any one of the following:

(A) Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife or a similar agency of another state if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(B) Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(C) Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by law enforcement, community college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or a law enforcement agency if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(D) Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers or any other law enforcement officers if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(E) Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a handgun through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;

(F) Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state, unless the license has been revoked; or

(G) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a firearms instructor certified by a law enforcement agency or the National Rifle Association if handgun safety was a component of the course;


Is the above the "camel's nose under the tent" that through incrementalism has inevitably led to disarmament, confiscation, and tyranny? Hardly seems so, since I live in a "shall issue" state with loaded open carry, no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity limits, no waiting periods, no handgun purchase limits, no handgun roster, legal full auto and suppressors, etc.

Ladyliss
03-22-2010, 12:01 PM
We all have to take handgun safety tests to get the gun to carry around. They can't own the gun to concealed carry unless they know the safety measures anway.

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 12:07 PM
We all have to take handgun safety tests to get the gun to carry around. They can't own the gun to concealed carry unless they know the safety measures anway.

Yeah, I saw that California Handgun Safety Certificate booklet http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/hscsg.pdf It's pretty minimal and doesn't cover the people who already possessed handguns before the HSC law was passed.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 12:38 PM
Training sounds like a good idea, and some states require it. But, as far as I can determine, there is no signficiant difference in CCW shootings between those states who do and those who don't. To pass laws controlling other's behavior when the data is lacking is something only children and Democrats do.

I have been saying this, quite loudly, for quite some time.

One million percent agreement with you, John.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 12:40 PM
In my state the government doesn't make any money off the training courses, the courses are provided by private small businesses, and free market competition keeps the price down and bottlenecks non-existent.

Below is my state's requirement for training for a CCW permit:



Is the above the "camel's nose under the tent" that through incrementalism will inevitably lead to disarmament, confiscation, and tyranny? Hardly seems so, since I live in a "shall issue" state with loaded open carry, no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity limits, no waiting periods, no handgun purchase limits, no handgun roster, no assault weapon ban, legal full auto and suppressors, etc.

Sounds like Florida (?)

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 12:59 PM
Sounds like Florida (?)

Not very far from you, on California's northern border, there is a state that seems like a whole different, freer country when it comes to gun ownership. ;)

And, uh, please ignore the weather you see in the video, remember that it is ALWAYS cloudy and rainy here, every day, you don't want to move here! (The natives here make me say that to all Californians. :(:TFH: And I'm not supposed to mention there is no sales tax. Or that vehicle registration is $38.50 a year for all cars and trucks regardless for value. But, uh, remember, you don't want to move here! :p)

n4_EVJ4q52o

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 1:08 PM
And, uh, please ignore the weather you see in the video, remember that it is ALWAYS cloudy and rainy here, every day, you don't want to move here!


It's always rained every day every time I've had a business trip to, or visited friends in, a certain state on the northern border.

And cold in winter.

I had enough of that in England, thank you. My aches and pains are far less here in the warmth.

JDoe
03-22-2010, 1:13 PM
Unsafe handling of firearms on the range or in training are completely unrelated to the practice and purpose of CCW.

With the number of CCW holders out there (many who have no actual training) how come we don't see an abundance news stories detailing how concealed weapons were negligently or unsafely used by law abiding citizens in defense of self or others?

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 1:18 PM
It's always rained every day every time I've had a business trip to, or visited friends in, a certain state on the northern border.

And cold in winter.



Yes, you're absolutely right, it's horrible! ;):)

Here's the view from my front porch

http://i43.tinypic.com/23ihqwz.jpg

and back porch

http://i43.tinypic.com/o6jwba.jpg

today, March 22, 2010 around 2:30 PM. The temperature is a chilly 58° F, and look at all those clouds! In fact, it rained for a few minutes earlier today, keeps the air clean and the grass green, but still... ;)

Roadrunner
03-22-2010, 1:54 PM
I'm kind of partial to Medford, Ashland, Grants Pass, and Talent. But I'm thinking that if Califonia doesn't improve, I may decide to go back to Lakewood, Puyallup, North Gate, or even better, Dupont. Washington was great.

stag1500
03-22-2010, 2:33 PM
How long is it going to take? How much is it going to cost?

My post was based on my experience going through the Nevada CCW class held by Armed And Safe in Reno. It's an 8-hour class that covers all the items I listed. In my view, that is sufficient training. It shouldn't be cost prohibitive and the process shouldn't take any more than a day to go through. Otherwise, it's an impedement to your right.

I understand that it's not a guarantee that you won't have wanna be secret agents who think they have a license to kill. But this is a good way to minimize that risk. More importantly, it minimizes the risk of the general public turning against us.


Any exceptions for people already trained?

Remember, if you have had driving licenses in, say, Georgia, Texas and Utah, California doesn't make you do it all over again.

Of course! CCW reciprocity between the state should definitely be the order of the day. It's rediculous not to honor CCWs from other states. But for first time applicants, I think it would be a good idea that they go through a classroom/range qualification process.

p_shooter
03-22-2010, 2:38 PM
I never thought I needed training, until I got some.

stag1500
03-22-2010, 2:49 PM
Unsafe handling of firearms on the range or in training are completely unrelated to the practice and purpose of CCW.

True.

With the number of CCW holders out there (many who have no actual training) how come we don't see an abundance news stories detailing how concealed weapons were negligently or unsafely used by law abiding citizens in defense of self or others?

I agree that the statistics show otherwise. A lot of those holders come from a background where learning to hunt and handle a firearm safely happens at an early age. Those aren't the CCW holders I'd be worried about. But in urban areas, it's not uncommon that a person might be 24 years of age or older before he even touches his first firearm. What's more, his only exposure to firearms might be what he sees in the movies. (How many times have you seen one of those idiot actors casually hold a handgun with their trigger finger on the trigger). That person doesn't have firearms safety ingrained in him and therefore would benefit greatly from an 8-hour training course that covers firearms safety and the laws governing firearms in his state.

Sinixstar
03-22-2010, 3:02 PM
I see a lot of people putting the cart before the horse in this thread.

First off, we shouldn't need a CCW to carry concealed. I realize that the courts may not agree but, that's another thread on its own. Carrying concealed isn't inherently more dangerous than other forms of carry. Most of those don't require training nor do they increase ND shootings. Thinking that having your coat over your holster will somehow make you more likely to do something dumb with a firearm is a bit of a stretch.

Second, no one has shown where a failure to obtain CCW training has resulted in more ND shootings. Both Alaska and Vermont do not require a CCW or training to carry concealed. Are there more ND shootings in those states per capita? I'm guessing there isn't but, I'll leave it up to others to show otherwise. I won't argue your case for you.;) Many other states have no problem with loaded open carry with no training. Where's that river of blood? Oh, the we're not a gun culture state argument is flawed. Gun owners by definition are part of the gun culture regardless of the state they live in. Good luck selling that PC BS to someone else.

Third, it isn't about safety and it never was. It has always been about control. Otherwise, it would have been shall issue from the start. If it was about public safety, wouldn't the issuing standards be the same in all 58 counties? And, wouldn't self protection be considered good cause? I think the answer is self evident.

Now, I'm all for someone getting proper training. While I'm opposed to mandating it, I certainly don't mind the approach that elSquid proposed. That every one who has qualified be given civil immunity for legally justified shootings. That is an excellent suggestion. The potential savings on legal fees alone would get most people into training. Take it one step further, allow people a one time tax write off of all costs incurred to qualify, and they'll beat a path to the classroom. Why must the Government always use the stick, when the carrot would work? That's the real question isn't it. Find the answer to that and you have the answer for everything else they do.


This kind of illustrates some of the downfalls of trying to apply the same kind of thinking across the entire country.

Most people in Vermont and Alaska deal with guns simply as part of living. They're far more remote (for lack of a better term), and in some places knowing how to use a gun is practically required for survival. Mandating education is redundant in these places, because education is going to happen regardless.

Now compare that to California where most people's knowledge begins and ends with what they see on a movie screen. I think people should still have access and ability to get into guns if they so choose. I think it should be easily and readily available to anyone who wishes to explore it. But because you don't have that natural process of education as a cultural phenomena, it's important that part of that 'easily and readily available' process - is access, and even requirement of education/training.

Yea - you go to AK or VT, and the per-capita number of NDs is probably lower. But now let's take and give guns to everybody in LA - and see if the per-capita numbers there match AK or VT. I bet they go much, MUCH higher.

icormba
03-22-2010, 3:08 PM
Yes, you're absolutely right, it's horrible! ;):)

Here's the view from my front porch

http://i43.tinypic.com/23ihqwz.jpg



Nice!

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 3:16 PM
This kind of illustrates some of the downfalls of trying to apply the same kind of thinking across the entire country.

Most people in Vermont and Alaska deal with guns simply as part of living. They're far more remote (for lack of a better term), and in some places knowing how to use a gun is practically required for survival. Mandating education is redundant in these places, because education is going to happen regardless.

Now compare that to California where most people's knowledge begins and ends with what they see on a movie screen. I think people should still have access and ability to get into guns if they so choose. I think it should be easily and readily available to anyone who wishes to explore it. But because you don't have that natural process of education as a cultural phenomena, it's important that part of that 'easily and readily available' process - is access, and even requirement of education/training.

Yea - you go to AK or VT, and the per-capita number of NDs is probably lower. But now let's take and give guns to everybody in LA - and see if the per-capita numbers there match AK or VT. I bet they go much, MUCH higher.

Exactly.

Realistically, if and when California is forced by the courts to allow real concealed carry, it won't be the Alaska or Vermont legislature that will be writing the regulations, it will be the California Legislature writing the laws and regulations. Based on past experience, does anyone seriously think the California Legislature is going to use Alaska or Vermont law (no training or permit required) as a model for California law? That's a pipe dream.

It's smarter to look at what is likely to happen, instead of what people dream and fantasize they would like to happen, anticipate the opposition and make counter moves to head them off at the pass, and try to steer public opinion in our favor.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 3:21 PM
True.


I agree that the statistics show otherwise. All lot of those holders come from a background where learning to hunt and handle a firearm safely happens at an early age. Those aren't the CCW holders I'd be worried about. But in urban areas, it's not uncommon that a person might be 24 years of age or older before he even touches his first firearm. What's more, his only exposure to firearms might be what he sees in the movies. (How many times have you seen one of those idiot actors casually hold a handgun with their trigger finger on the trigger). That person doesn't have firearms safety ingrained in him and therefore would benefit greatly from an 8-hour training course that covers firearms safety and the laws governing firearms in his state.

It's never us that need legislation to stop us being idiots, but for some reason, despite the lack of evidence that we have a problem, some people want to pass laws and restrictions based on their emotional view about whether other people can be trusted. Mostly, we call these Democrats, but we do have a few gunnies who think along the same lines.

YubaRiver
03-22-2010, 5:51 PM
Training should not be a prerequisite. Those that find themselves suddenly in
the need to carry (such as domestic violence victims,
gang targets, those with lion kills near their home etc.) shouldn't have to wait
for self defense.

taloft
03-22-2010, 6:18 PM
This kind of illustrates some of the downfalls of trying to apply the same kind of thinking across the entire country.

Most people in Vermont and Alaska deal with guns simply as part of living. They're far more remote (for lack of a better term), and in some places knowing how to use a gun is practically required for survival. Mandating education is redundant in these places, because education is going to happen regardless.

Now compare that to California where most people's knowledge begins and ends with what they see on a movie screen. I think people should still have access and ability to get into guns if they so choose. I think it should be easily and readily available to anyone who wishes to explore it. But because you don't have that natural process of education as a cultural phenomena, it's important that part of that 'easily and readily available' process - is access, and even requirement of education/training.

Yea - you go to AK or VT, and the per-capita number of NDs is probably lower. But now let's take and give guns to everybody in LA - and see if the per-capita numbers there match AK or VT. I bet they go much, MUCH higher.BS. Thinking the law of the land should be applied unevenly across the entire country illustrates a downfall of common sense.:eek::p

Don't cherry pick, try addressing all portions of my post.

1. Do you think carrying concealed is inherently more dangerous than other forms of carry? If so, why?

1.a. If your answer is no, then how is it that other forms of carry without permits or training haven't resulted in higher ND numbers?

2. No one has shown where a failure to obtain CCW training has resulted in more ND shootings. In fact, plenty of places allow LOC without permits or training requirements and ND's per capita remain steady or decline. How would you account for this discrepancy?

2.a. The gun culture argument is false at best. Calguns is proof that we have a viable gun culture in the state of California. As such, the resources to educate oneself are the same in California as anywhere else. Odds are good that if you're into guns your parents were also into guns. The flip side is also true. Granted, there are exceptions on both sides. What percentage of the population needs to be a part of the gun culture before we get the miraculous "natural process of education as a cultural phenomena?" When we reach that percentage will the antigun crowd suddenly flock to the gun store? How does that work, do we add it to the water supply?;) While I do understand the point you're trying to make here, I don't feel it is proper justification for a government mandate. Trading liberty for safety isn't a great idea.

3. Could someone please show me one piece of gun control legislation that resulted in better safety for the public? Can someone show me one piece of gun control legislation that didn't result in loss of more freedom? I have yet to see this 'easily and readily available' in California. Gun shot numbers in places with strict controls show gun control as an abject failure in controlling crime.

That last bit I put in bold is pure supposition on your part. You have no factual basis for drawing that conclusion. The antigun crowd made similar arguments when the shall issue ball was rolling across the nation. It proved false. The simple fact is we don't know and are unlikely to find out because the overlords will never let it happen. Training is a cure for ignorance, not stupidity. Even with training, stupid people will still do dumb ****.

I answered the thread question honestly based on my personal beliefs of what should be, not what I think the state will do. What I would like to happen and what will most likely happen are worlds apart. I'll be happy for shall issue with mandated training because it is a start but, I don't agree with it on principle. I hope this clarifies any confusion on my position. I know we don't agree on some points, I can live with it. It would be boring if we all lemminged along through life in complete agreement.:D

a1c
03-22-2010, 7:43 PM
Training should not be a prerequisite. Those that find themselves suddenly in
the need to carry (such as domestic violence victims,
gang targets, those with lion kills near their home etc.) shouldn't have to wait
for self defense.

The mountain lion argument is not valid. If a lion (or some other predator) threatens you, your livestock or your dog on your property, it's perfectly legal to shoot it.

As for the other examples you give, they make sense, but I would personally favor the issuance of temporary CCW permits by the local PD/SO for those who are indeed subjected to threats. FYI, I do believe some counties already do that in such cases.

JohnDumke
03-22-2010, 8:11 PM
This evening I read pages 1-4 of this thread, and while I was leaning towards "training as a prerequisite", I just voted for "no training" and here is why.

I just got off the phone with my friend absolutely disgusted with this country (health care passing).

Then it dawned on me, I buy motorcycles, 1000cc 180mph machines, infinitely more dangerous than guns, and they don't ask for any training. But I do personally take the process VERY seriously.

And more importantly, if training is required for gun ownership, and then there is a accident. The legislature can point to errors or a lack of sufficient training, rather than the moron that didn't take it upon himself to educate himself.

The bottom line is that we have too much government oversight and not enough personal responsibility. I want my old United States back, the one where kids were taught to look both ways when they crossed the street, not the one that raised kids to think they can not look and then sue (blame) if somebody hits them.

This country's leadership is making me SICK!

You can't dictate morality and you can't outlaw stupidity. It is a moron that thinks he can prevent stupidity with laws.

fegves2id
03-22-2010, 8:34 PM
I agree with you that a brief course is inadequate! I second your recommendation for more than 16 hours of training and a requirement for regular practice! :p :D

We need to be more politically savvy. There is our side, there is the anti side, and in the middle is the majority of the populace that is undecided and open to persuasion. We need to be able to persuade the undecided that our side is the reasonable side, and the antis are the extremists. Right now the antis get away with calling us "gun nuts" and often make it stick. We need to anticipate and nullify the usual arguments put forth by the antis.

The antis are going to say "those gun nuts want anyone who isn't a criminal to be able to carry a concealed gun (!) on the streets with no training whatsoever!" And if all we say is , "yup, my rights, my rights, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" yadda yadda, guess what, the antis look to the undecided soccer moms like the sane ones and we look unreasonable. If we are proactive and take the approach of many states that require training before a permit is issued, and can say "nope, a firearm safety course is required before a permit is issued" then we look like the responsible reasonable ones and the antis look like extremists. If anything in bad gun law states like California is going to improve outside of relying only on favorable court decisions, the undecided have to be swayed to our side.

People can keep chanting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until they are blue in the face, but the Supreme Court has already made that moot. Gunners who take principled but losing and self-defeating positions are like the principled liberals who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. How did that work out for them? :rolleyes:

Good point.

a1c
03-22-2010, 8:42 PM
Then it dawned on me, I buy motorcycles, 1000cc 180mph machines, infinitely more dangerous than guns, and they don't ask for any training. But I do personally take the process VERY seriously.

Huh... I seem to remember that you are required to get an M1 license to ride a motorcycle. Just like you can buy a gun, but you'll need a permit to CCW.

ivsamhell
03-22-2010, 8:49 PM
The ability to protect life is not a trivial covenience, like driving.

Roadrunner
03-22-2010, 9:01 PM
The ability to protect life is not a trivial covenience, like driving.

You consider driving a trivial convenience? Please explain.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 9:03 PM
So, nearly 60% of us agree with the Brady center that we cannot be trusted with firearms without massive government interference.

Thanks, fellas.

fegves2id
03-22-2010, 9:04 PM
It's never us that need legislation to stop us being idiots, but for some reason, despite the lack of evidence that we have a problem, some people want to pass laws and restrictions based on their emotional view about whether other people can be trusted. Mostly, we call these Democrats, but we do have a few gunnies who think along the same lines.


In this case, it is the good majority of gunnies who want common sense measures in place to prevent every untrained gang banger and paraniod prescription narcotic using soccer mom from packing heat everywhere legally, without even going through any type of "reasonable process" such as that laid out by the Oregonian.

There is alot of circular reasoning going on here. You cannot say, "those irresponsible types of people are not going to go through the process, only the experienced gun owners will go through the hassle of getting a license."
Then when asked if we should have testing/requirments say, "we should have no process and should be as Alaska/Vermont."

Someone criticized my earlier post, for stating that I believed the populace of Alaska is different from that of California. Numerous others have posted since, explaining why they believe the same as I do. LA and Anchorage are VASTLY DIFFERENT as relating to guns. To compare the 2 is silly. It is not just the number of people who live there, but the TYPE of people.

CitaDeL
03-22-2010, 9:08 PM
So, nearly 60% of us agree with the Brady center that we cannot be trusted with firearms without massive government interference.

Thanks, fellas.

This is why it was so easy to apply enough 'reasonable restrictions' to blot out the 2nd amendment.

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 9:09 PM
In this case, it is the good majority of gunnies who want common sense measures in place to prevent every untrained gang banger


Oh sure, this will keep untrained gang bangers off the street.

What are you smoking?

Where have I heard "Common sense measures" before?

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 9:09 PM
This is why it was so easy to apply enough 'reasonable restrictions' to blot out the 2nd amendment.

That's right, only one third of us really believes that the 2nd should NOT be infringed.

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 9:21 PM
So, nearly 60% of us agree with the Brady center that we cannot be trusted with firearms without massive government interference.



Maybe 60% don't see requiring a brief firearm safety course as "massive government interference".

Glock22Fan
03-22-2010, 9:32 PM
Maybe 60% don't see requiring a brief firearm safety course as "massive government interference".

No, it is just another "common sense measure." THEY like creeping incrementalism. Where do YOU draw the line?

Is it a massive interference to have the cops check your firearm to see if it is loaded? Surely we can get by with just ten round mags? Who needs an AR15 anyway? Surely there's enough firearms on the roster without getting rid of it? What's the big deal about the cops searching your car if you are completely legal? None of them sound that big on their own. All good reasonable common sense measures.

Roadrunner
03-22-2010, 9:38 PM
In this case, it is the good majority of gunnies who want common sense measures in place to prevent every untrained gang banger and paraniod prescription narcotic using soccer mom from packing heat everywhere legally, without even going through any type of "reasonable process" such as that laid out by the Oregonian.

1. When someone says "common sense", that throws a red flag up and says, I'm being unreasonable and not compromising. A little hint, that doesn't work well with me.

2. If you just got here from another galaxy, let me let you in on a little secret, gang bangers already carry guns without training or a license.

3. I never liked the term "packing heat". I'm sure it was cool when Edward G. Robinson was portraying a mobster, but it's one of those phrases that is like fingernails on a chalk board to me.

There is alot of circular reasoning going on here. You cannot say, "those irresponsible types of people are not going to go through the process, only the experienced gun owners will go through the hassle of getting a license. "Then when asked if we should have testing/requirments say, "we should have no process and should be as Alaska/Vermont."

Don't forget Washington and Arizona. That covers large cities like Seattle, Tacoma, Phoenix, Yuma, Tucson, Flagstaff, and Scottsdale. That doesn't even include the suburbs of some of those cities. Do they have a more evolved gun culture than California?

Someone criticized my earlier post, for stating that I believed the populace of Alaska is different from that of California. Numerous others have posted since, explaining why they believe the same as I do. LA and Anchorage are VASTLY DIFFERENT as relating to guns. To compare the 2 is silly. It is not just the number of people who live there, but the TYPE of people.

There's definitely a difference between the two, no question about it. However, that's the kind of logic that Bloomberg and Daly are using to justify the draconian gunlaws that they are trying to protect. The second amendment should equally apply to everyone, geographic area is irrelevant.

fegves2id
03-22-2010, 9:50 PM
Oh sure, this will keep untrained gang bangers off the street.

What are you smoking?

Where have I heard "Common sense measures" before?

You must have missed my point, especially if what you quoted was all you read of the full sentence.

If concealed carry of weapons required NOTHING, potentially violent criminals would have free reign to carry without fear of prison time. That is OK in Alaska where there are not very many violent criminals (compared to CA).

You regard yourself as being pure in your belief that "Shall not be infringed" applies to everything. Even a little "infringement" is bad. Just to be clear on this, do you believe any of the following would be infringements?:

1. CCW is not allowed when intoxicated, in public.
2. Certain criminal convictions prohibit you from gun possession.
3. To purchase gun an instant criminal history check is conducted.
4. Certain Mental health history prohibits you from guns.
5. Private property owners may prohibit you from lawful CCW
6. In order to CCW, you must be able to demonstrate proficiency in the English language.
7. You may not conceal hand-grenades in public.
8. (if there are a few common sense possiblilities that I missed, please add them.)


If you are a hard-core 2A word-for-word (and then substitute muskets for RPGs of course) kind of guy, my hat is off to you. That is the only way I can imagine understaning your reasoning.

fegves2id
03-22-2010, 10:05 PM
No, it is just another "common sense measure." THEY like creeping incrementalism. Where do YOU draw the line?

Is it a massive interference to have the cops check your firearm to see if it is loaded? Surely we can get by with just ten round mags? Who needs an AR15 anyway? Surely there's enough firearms on the roster without getting rid of it? What's the big deal about the cops searching your car if you are completely legal? None of them sound that big on their own. All good reasonable common sense measures.

That is the question. If the 2A guarantees that every single citizen can keep and bear any type of firearm any place and any time without any infringement at all, then there is no line to be draw. Actually, the line is to be drawn before any laws are made at all. If you believe that, I would have a hard time arguing with you, unless I did some research and found the governments at the time of and directly after the 2A was penned actually did implement reasonable firearm regulations. I have heard as much, but have yet to research myself.

Most people agree that some regulations (If you are a strict constitutional guy, you would say the states themselves should do this) should be in place, such as the criminal/mental prohibitions, age limitations, requirements for CCW and more. Millions of people (especially in this state) think that guns should not be carried by anyone accept LEO or related professions.

I believe I am one of the reasonable people, in the middle, who believe everyone who is willing to demonstrate competence (mentally/technically) and who is not a criminal, should be able to cheaply obtain a CCW. This would discourage crime, and enhance many people's ability to effectively defend themselves in public.

bruss01
03-22-2010, 10:09 PM
I think you have a right to keep and bear arms, and a right should not be conditional. HOWEVER if you are ignorant of basic gun safety I would prefer to see your gun openly carried, so I can make a personal decision about whether I want to remain in the vicinity. If you want to carry a certain way (concealed) that prevents me from making that judgment call for my own safety, I want to know that somebody at some point saw that you could operate your firearm in a safe and effective manner. So I have to say, I think it's a reasonable requirement for CCW carry.

Roadrunner
03-22-2010, 10:12 PM
You must have missed my point, especially if what you quoted was all you read of the full sentence.

If concealed carry of weapons required NOTHING, potentially violent criminals would have free reign to carry without fear of prison time. That is OK in Alaska where there are not very many violent criminals (compared to CA).

If a person is considered a violent criminal, that implies that they have been convicted of a violent crime. If that's the case, then I believe they are prohibited from having a firearm. So, if they are openly or concealed carrying, they are doing so illegally.

You regard yourself as being pure in your belief that "Shall not be infringed" applies to everything. Even a little "infringement" is bad. Just to be clear on this, do you believe any of the following would be infringements?:

1. CCW is not allowed when intoxicated, in public. Drunk in public is a misdemeanor

2. Certain criminal convictions prohibit you from gun possession. I think non violent felons shouldn't be barred from possessing a firearm.

3. To purchase gun an instant criminal history check is conducted. No problem with checks so long as they only prohibit violent criminals and certified mental defects.

4. Certain Mental health history prohibits you from guns. That's a good thing

5. Private property owners may prohibit you from lawful CCW Okay, I just won't go there

6. In order to CCW, you must be able to demonstrate proficiency in the English language. I think you need to speak English just to survive in the US.

7. You may not conceal hand-grenades in public. Isn't that considered Ordnance? I don't believe that's covered in the second amendment

8. (if there are a few common sense possiblilities that I missed, please add them.)The term "common sense" is a euphemism for, if you don't agree with me, you're unreasonable.


If you are a hard-core 2A word-for-word (and then substitute muskets for RPGs of course) kind of guy, my hat is off to you. That is the only way I can imagine understaning your reasoning.

RPG's are ordnance. Now, if you substitute muskets for machine guns, then you are more accurate. And yes I do believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own a machinegun if they want one. Notice the term LAW ABIDING.

fegves2id
03-22-2010, 11:07 PM
Roadrunner, you have just agreed that certain infringements are "good" based on your "common sense". You are right, that phrase is not an accurate one, but you hide behind it's meaning without actually using the phrase itself.

The 2A does not contain exceptions to the right such as criminals, mentally deficient, or underage people (20 year olds can't carry? what about 19,18,17,16,15?) It is obviously up to AMERICANS to decide what are reasonable (again, a relative term) regulations. At this point in time, I personally believe it is reasonable to do as Oregon does, or Florida. Even in many of the other states you listed (Washington for example), they require "infringements" such as an application fee, etc...

The fears of incrementalism are good ones, and pretty convincing actually. But, the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bit is :beatdeadhorse5: not good as it relates to CCW.

If the major point of the 2A was to allow the populace to be able to rise up and overthrow the government, why does the term "arms" not refer to anything capable of stopping a heavy tank, or of defending against air raids. We cannot have anything explosive (ordinance)? How about uranium tipped rounds?

Sorry, the 2A is an ideal which should be preserved as much as possible, while being responsible. Roadrunner and others believe those rights are rightly limited for mentally "unstable", "underage" (maybe?), certain criminals. You refuse to acknowledge who is qualified to make those determinations. How young is too young for CCW? How crazy does the mentally unstable person have to be? How violent, or irresponsible of a crime must one commit?

I could use the incrementalist arguement against any of those "infringements":

- If we let the government decide who is to "insane" to own guns then....
- If we let the government tell us who is too "criminal" to own guns then.....
- If we let the government tell us who is too young to CCW, then they will eventually expand that age to say....80 years old, therefore preventing most of us from self-defense!

Incrementalism is a valid fear. But, we should just make sure we hold goverment accountable when it goes over the line. We NEED laws. We don't need unreasonable laws. Most people on CALGUNS think training is needed for CCW permit. I am one who thinks this is reasonable. You may be one who thinks it is unreasonable to require anything. I respect that, but don't accuse me of being anti-gun rights and 2nd amendment. I am not stuck up, nor do I believe a LEO is "better" than a "zookeeper". I just believe training and background checks should be required to CCW.....it's just that simple. LEO's are not a concern to me, nor to most other people. If by that, you think that qualifies LEO as being "better", than it is what it is.

Milsurp Collector
03-22-2010, 11:35 PM
No, it is just another "common sense measure." THEY like creeping incrementalism. Where do YOU draw the line?

Is it a massive interference to have the cops check your firearm to see if it is loaded? Surely we can get by with just ten round mags? Who needs an AR15 anyway? Surely there's enough firearms on the roster without getting rid of it? What's the big deal about the cops searching your car if you are completely legal? None of them sound that big on their own. All good reasonable common sense measures.

Although the Brady Bunch has tried to corrupt the term "common sense", don't taint it through guilt by association with the Brady Bunch. Let's take that phrase back from the Brady Bunch so it means what it says.

I understand the concept of creeping incrementalism. I also remember the childhood stories of Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling just because an acorn fell on her head (her lack of perspective and a distorted sense of reality causing unnecessary hysteria),

http://reformedpastor.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/chicken_little.jpg

and how The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf lost all credibility by raising alarms when there was no emergency. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that IF California ever gets real concealed carry and then requires a training course before a CCW is issued (99.9% sure that is what the California Legislature will require) THEN that will lead to magazine capacity limits, cops detaining law-abiding citizens, an "assault weapon" ban, and cops searching cars for weapons, through creeping incrementalism? Um, California already have those bad laws even in the absence of the "massive government interference" of a required CCW course, so that train has already left the station and a handgun safety course could hardly lead to anything worse than what exists already.

Meanwhile, as I stated earlier, I live in a state that does require proof of minimal handgun competency (by completing a handgun safety course, showing evidence of participation in handgun shooting competitions, etc.) YET the sky hasn't fallen, there is no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity limits, no handgun roster, no waiting periods, no handgun purchase limits, etc. etc. etc. WHERE is the creeping incrementalism? Looks like zero correlation between handgun safety courses and tyranny to me.

Actually, a negative correlation: the "shall issue" state that requires the "massive government interference" of a handgun safety course has MORE freedom than the "may issue" state that currently doesn't require a course for the lucky (relatively) few who can get a CCW permit. ;)

And, as someone pointed out earlier, creeping incrementalism works both ways. Accept the "massive government interference" of a handgun safety course if that's what it takes to get the public to accept "shall issue" CCW, then relax it later through creeping incrementalism.

As I said earlier, this is all academic. There is zero chance that the California Legislature is NOT going to require some kind of course, as do many other states, before a "shall issue" CCW permit is issued. Rather than fighting a doomed battle trying to stop that, it would be a better use of time and energy to make sure the courses are provided by private businesses with NRA certified instructors, rather than by the government. And play up the fact that MOST gun owners (as shown by this poll) support mandatory training, so we look reasonable and responsible to the undecided soccer moms in the middle, so there is really no need for them to support anti-gun candidates or to support more oppressive (yet ineffective) "gun control" laws to protect them and their kids from those reckless, irresponsible, extremist "gun nuts" (as the antis will paint us if we oppose handgun safety training).

The liberals who tried to show how pure and faithful they were by voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 shot themselves in the foot. Better to be smart and flexible when necessary to avoid something bad (from their point of view), rather than losing by being rigid, inflexible, and "pure".

taloft
03-22-2010, 11:41 PM
You must have missed my point, especially if what you quoted was all you read of the full sentence.

If concealed carry of weapons required NOTHING, potentially violent criminals would have free reign to carry without fear of prison time. That is OK in Alaska where there are not very many violent criminals (compared to CA).

You regard yourself as being pure in your belief that "Shall not be infringed" applies to everything. Even a little "infringement" is bad. Just to be clear on this, do you believe any of the following would be infringements?:

1. CCW is not allowed when intoxicated, in public. Public intoxication is a crime. You wrongfully pull a gun when you're smashed, maybe the sober guy lowers the boom on you. By the way, in my experience this is more likely to occur on private property.
2. Certain criminal convictions prohibit you from gun possession. Don't violate other peoples rights by committing crimes and you won't lose yours. It is a voluntary decision people make. No one made you be a criminal.
3. To purchase gun an instant criminal history check is conducted. Yeah, that system has never been wrong, nor barred law abiding citizens from gun purchases.
4. Certain Mental health history prohibits you from guns. Like vets who were misdiagnosed with PTSD, with no recourse to get off the list? Yeah, that always worked out well. Fortunately, that recently changed. Sorry, another system that has failed in both directions in the past. Sure didn't stop the VT shooter.
5. Private property owners may prohibit you from lawful CCW They have a right to control their own property, my rights don't automatically supersede theirs. Also, this doesn't involve the Government. The BOR doesn't apply to your fellow citizens in the same fashion. He has the right to tell me no guns allowed, and I have the right to shop elsewhere.
6. In order to CCW, you must be able to demonstrate proficiency in the English language. I'm sure someone will be along to tell you how racist this policy would be. You don't drop the gun when the responding officer tells you to, you never have to worry about anything again. It would probably be in your best interest but, I wouldn't make it mandatory.
7. You may not conceal hand-grenades in public. What about when 50 Hells Angels decide you'd make a fine pinata for tonight's party? I'm joking, sort of.
8. (if there are a few common sense possiblilities that I missed, please add them.)


If you are a hard-core 2A word-for-word (and then substitute muskets for RPGs of course) kind of guy, my hat is off to you. That is the only way I can imagine understaning your reasoning. Now your getting it.;) My knights rolling block .50cal. with 150gr. of FFG pushing a 300gr. sabot will make you just as dead as the RPG. The only difference is I won't have to wash you off the driveway after using the muzzle loader, unlike the RPG.:p

By the way, there were no tanks or planes in the late 1700's. Had there been, I'm sure the founding fathers would have owned them as well. Along with machine guns. Cannons are still legal to this day. The idea was to protect you from your Government, not the stupidity of your fellow man.

The ideas you enspouse are not of bad intention, it is the fact that they have all been abused throughout history by tyrants and dictators to disarm enslave and massacre populations. History shows the fallacy of this line of thinking again and again. The same reasonable arguments are presented, adopted, and then abused to the detriment of the people. Germany, Laos, Cambodia, Hungry, Turkey, U.S.S.R., Parts of Africa, Etc. ad nauseam. I really don't want the U.S.A. to be next.

What it boils down to is you think this reasonable crap will somehow make you safer, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I think the exact opposite is true. It is the "Reasonable Incrementalism" you should fear most.

Deadred7o7
03-23-2010, 1:00 AM
:iamwithstupid: Some know where I stand on this so I wont even start.

taloft
03-23-2010, 1:33 AM
Although the Brady Bunch has tried to corrupt the term "common sense", don't taint it through guilt by association with the Brady Bunch. Let's take that phrase back from the Brady Bunch so it means what it says.

I understand the concept of creeping incrementalism. I also remember the childhood stories of Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling just because an acorn fell on her head (her lack of perspective and a distorted sense of reality causing unnecessary hysteria), Yeah, none of the BS gun laws we currently have are a result of creeping incrementalism. They are all just my distorted sense of reality.:rolleyes:

http://reformedpastor.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/chicken_little.jpg

and how The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf lost all credibility by raising alarms when there was no emergency. The frog doesn't think there is an emergency as long as you don't turn the heat up too quick either but, he still gets cooked. Trying to marginalize us with more lame analogies, really? I though you could do better. Like present a fact or two to support your argument. Guess I was wrong on that score.

Are you saying that IF California ever gets real concealed carry and then requires a training course before a CCW is issued (99.9% sure that is what the California Legislature will require) THEN that will lead to magazine capacity limits, cops detaining law-abiding citizens, an "assault weapon" ban, and cops searching cars for weapons, through creeping incrementalism? Um, California already have those bad laws even in the absence of the "massive government interference" of a required CCW course, so that train has already left the station and a handgun safety course could hardly lead to anything worse than what exists already. And how did we get all those laws? People using phrases like reasonable restrictions, do it for the children, your safety depends on it. Etc. No, a mandatory CCW course is just one more cobblestone on the path of good intentions.

Meanwhile, as I stated earlier, I live in a state that does require proof of minimal handgun competency (by completing a handgun safety course, showing evidence of participation in handgun shooting competitions, etc.) YET the sky hasn't fallen, there is no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity limits, no handgun roster, no waiting periods, no handgun purchase limits, etc. etc. etc. WHERE is the creeping incrementalism? Looks like zero correlation between handgun safety courses and tyranny to me. For now, give it time. California didn't do it overnight. None of that crap was here when I was a kid except CCW requirements, oddly enough.

Actually, a negative correlation: the "shall issue" state that requires the "massive government interference" of a handgun safety course has MORE freedom than the "may issue" state that currently doesn't require a course for the lucky (relatively) few who can get a CCW permit. ;) Training class is already required here as well. If there was no CCW permit required, this would all be moot as there would be no may issue system to abuse.

And, as someone pointed out earlier, creeping incrementalism works both ways. Accept the "massive government interference" of a handgun safety course if that's what it takes to get the public to accept "shall issue" CCW, then relax it later through creeping incrementalism. The public in California will never accept "shall issue". It will have to come down via the courts. To force the hand of the state. I do agree that once people see it doesn't result in bloodbaths they may loosen the restrictions. My point is there should be no restrictions to loosen in the first place but, we all know what California thinks of that.:p

As I said earlier, this is all academic. There is zero chance that the California Legislature is NOT going to require some kind of course, as do many other states, before a "shall issue" CCW permit is issued.I agree completely with this part. Rather than fighting a doomed battle trying to stop that, it would be a better use of time and energy to make sure the courses are provided by private businesses with NRA certified instructors, rather than by the government. They already are but, are state approved in most cases. I don't see them changing this part of the system. And play up the fact that MOST gun owners (as shown by this poll) support mandatory training, so we look reasonable and responsible to the undecided soccer moms in the middle, so there is really no need for them to support anti-gun candidates or to support more oppressive (yet ineffective) "gun control" laws to protect them and their kids from those reckless, irresponsible, extremist "gun nuts" (as the antis will paint us if we oppose handgun safety training).I agree that we should present a reasonable and responsible image to the public whenever possible. Never give them powder to use against us. If you think supporting mandatory training will sway the antis, I'd say it was your reality that is distorted. They won't stop for anything. They don't use logic, or reason, or anything resembling common sense. It is all straight emotional appeal with no real facts to back their position. They'll try to marginalize, discredit, defame, and disgrace anyone who doesn't knuckle down to their ideology. It isn't about the guns or safety. It is all about control. It is a mechanism used to push a socialist agenda of disarmament. The fence sitters are another matter but, you have the weight of PC BS to push against. While I strongly support firearms training, I still don't support the concept of mandatory training. I feel that it can be successfully done using a carrot instead of a stick. Why the need to use force? Whom does it really benefit?

The liberals who tried to show how pure and faithful they were by voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 shot themselves in the foot. Better to be smart and flexible when necessary to avoid something bad (from their point of view), rather than losing by being rigid, inflexible, and "pure".Don't lump us in with the liberals. I've already said I could see the writing on the wall. I'll be in line for my class signup, and my permit application like a good little drone. Not because I'm flexible, flexible people are easier to bend over. I'll do it because it is good strategy. I agree that incrementalism works both ways. Just as I think you can travel both directions on the path of good intentions. Hell, I'll even smile while I'm trying to swallow their BS. There is an old saying, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining." I'll hang on to my beliefs because that is the one thing they can't take away.

As I said before, I know we don't all agree on some points, I can live with that. It would be terribly boring if we all shuffled along through life in complete agreement. Besides, I respect a man who has the strength of his convictions, no matter how mistaken I think they are.:p Good night.

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 6:40 AM
Roadrunner, you have just agreed that certain infringements are "good" based on your "common sense". You are right, that phrase is not an accurate one, but you hide behind it's meaning without actually using the phrase itself.

Hide behind, no. Support, yes. Even the framers accepted those parameters as an exception to the "not be infringed" clause.

The 2A does not contain exceptions to the right such as criminals, mentally deficient, or underage people (20 year olds can't carry? what about 19,18,17,16,15?) It is obviously up to AMERICANS to decide what are reasonable (again, a relative term) regulations. At this point in time, I personally believe it is reasonable to do as Oregon does, or Florida. Even in many of the other states you listed (Washington for example), they require "infringements" such as an application fee, etc...

Well, lets explore this. We know that federal law and California law qualify the people who are considered part of the unorganized militia. I believe that the minimum age of the unorganized militia is 17, and the maximum age is 45. We also know that women, who are members of the National Guard, are also considered part of the unorganized militia. So, taking that into consideration, is it reasonable to bar a 17 year old from possessing a handgun if the government requires them to be soldiers under certain circumstances? I realize that teens have a tendency to be impetuous, however, I also know that teens, who are accustom to firearms and are brought up around them, can be just as trustworthy as most adults. You may vehemently disagree, but I think that would put you at odds with the framers and the law.

The fears of incrementalism are good ones, and pretty convincing actually. But, the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bit is :beatdeadhorse5: not good as it relates to CCW.

Perhaps you didn't see my post regarding the history of concealed carry laws. Those laws began in the south in the early to mid 19th century. The logic was, only evil people, who are intent on doing evil things, would hide their weapons. So, they made concealed carry illegal because of the stigma attached to the practice. Of course they also attached a stigma to the Bowie knife as well, claiming that a person walking around town with a Bowie knife has to be up to no good. Because of the Gold Rush, these same laws migrated with the people from the south to California. The northern states, specifically New York, didn't have any concealed carry laws until the Sullivan Act in the early 20th century. Interestingly enough, that law was introduced by a corrupt politician named Timothy Sullivan who is historically known to have taken part in criminal activity in New York city. This act allowed him to enable those that he gave permits to, while prohibiting his enemies. So, historically, concealed carry has its beginnings in prejudice and corruption.

Some people to take note of that are known to have concealed carry permits issued to them from New York City are:

Charles Schumer
Don Imus
Harvey Keitel
Howard Stern
Donald Trump
William F. Buckley
Robert DeNiro

Beyond their profession, what makes them more worthy of a permit than Bernard Goetz?

If the major point of the 2A was to allow the populace to be able to rise up and overthrow the government, why does the term "arms" not refer to anything capable of stopping a heavy tank, or of defending against air raids. We cannot have anything explosive (ordinance)? How about uranium tipped rounds?

Ordnance was supplied by the military, and not by individuals. The one thing we have to put into perspective is the term personal defense. Ordnance, designed to stop a tank is hardly a self defense weapon. Uranium tipped rounds are found, at minimum, on 20mm rounds. Again, not exactly a self defense weapon.

Sorry, the 2A is an ideal which should be preserved as much as possible, while being responsible. Roadrunner and others believe those rights are rightly limited for mentally "unstable", "underage" (maybe?), certain criminals. You refuse to acknowledge who is qualified to make those determinations. How young is too young for CCW? How crazy does the mentally unstable person have to be? How violent, or irresponsible of a crime must one commit?

The founders made a determination in subsequent writings and included violent criminals and mental defects. In doing a little reading, people deemed mentally unstable fall under a law commonly called 5150. As I understand it, a person who falls under that law is considered a danger to themselves or people around them. As for violent criminals, rapists, murderers, robbers, child molesters, people convicted of violent spousal abuse are a good start.

I could use the incrementalist arguement against any of those "infringements":

- If we let the government decide who is to "insane" to own guns then....
- If we let the government tell us who is too "criminal" to own guns then.....
- If we let the government tell us who is too young to CCW, then they will eventually expand that age to say....80 years old, therefore preventing most of us from self-defense!

Incrementalism is a valid fear. But, we should just make sure we hold goverment accountable when it goes over the line. We NEED laws. We don't need unreasonable laws. Most people on CALGUNS think training is needed for CCW permit. I am one who thinks this is reasonable. You may be one who thinks it is unreasonable to require anything. I respect that, but don't accuse me of being anti-gun rights and 2nd amendment. I am not stuck up, nor do I believe a LEO is "better" than a "zookeeper". I just believe training and background checks should be required to CCW.....it's just that simple. LEO's are not a concern to me, nor to most other people. If by that, you think that qualifies LEO as being "better", than it is what it is.

I'm not sure what prompted this rant, but I do happen to think that some LEOs believe that, if they have to go through a certain level of training to carry a firearm, then so should everyone else. That's just not practical when you consider that most people will not be using firearms at the level that LEOs use them. As for background checks, beyond determining if a person is eligible to possess a firearm, what other information do you think should be required and why?

YubaRiver
03-23-2010, 6:48 AM
The mountain lion argument is not valid. If a lion (or some other predator) threatens you, your livestock or your dog on your property, it's perfectly legal to shoot it.

As for the other examples you give, they make sense, but I would personally favor the issuance of temporary CCW permits by the local PD/SO for those who are indeed subjected to threats. FYI, I do believe some counties already do that in such cases.

What if you live in a school zone? When I walk or bike the trails nearby, do I
have to strap a shotgun to my back? Strap a 30-30 to the baby stroller for a walk around the block?

Mulay El Raisuli
03-23-2010, 6:58 AM
So far the poll is running ten to one in favor of "restricting" the 2nd amendment. ;) It seems that we're all accepting the incrementalist attitude that over the years has slowly taken us from a fully inalienable right to thinking that "hey sure a little restriction won't hurt" as long as I can exercise my "right" right? By accepting the personal responsibility of carrying and possibly using a weapon to defend yourself or others, you accept the responsibility to prepare yourself. If you don't and you run afoul of the laws while carrying and/or defending then you accept that responsibility as well.


Agree 100%.


The training aspect could be encouraged.

The legislative could pass a law stating that every one who has qualified be given civil immunity for legally justified shootings. No civil action could be taken against such a person until the shooting has been investigated, and only if the state has decided to start criminal proceedings.

I'd be willing to submit to 'reasonable' ( :eek: ) re/qualifications if that was the carrot.

-- Michael


And using the 'carrot' instead of the 'stick' is surely the proper way to go.


I see a lot of people putting the cart before the horse in this thread.

First off, we shouldn't need a CCW to carry concealed. I realize that the courts may not agree but, that's another thread on its own. Carrying concealed isn't inherently more dangerous than other forms of carry. Most of those don't require training nor do they increase ND shootings. Thinking that having your coat over your holster will somehow make you more likely to do something dumb with a firearm is a bit of a stretch.

Second, no one has shown where a failure to obtain CCW training has resulted in more ND shootings. Both Alaska and Vermont do not require a CCW or training to carry concealed. Are there more ND shootings in those states per capita? I'm guessing there isn't but, I'll leave it up to others to show otherwise. I won't argue your case for you.;) Many other states have no problem with loaded open carry with no training. Where's that river of blood? Oh, the we're not a gun culture state argument is flawed. Gun owners by definition are part of the gun culture regardless of the state they live in. Good luck selling that PC BS to someone else.

Third, it isn't about safety and it never was. It has always been about control. Otherwise, it would have been shall issue from the start. If it was about public safety, wouldn't the issuing standards be the same in all 58 counties? And, wouldn't self protection be considered good cause? I think the answer is self evident.

Now, I'm all for someone getting proper training. While I'm opposed to mandating it, I certainly don't mind the approach that elSquid proposed. That every one who has qualified be given civil immunity for legally justified shootings. That is an excellent suggestion. The potential savings on legal fees alone would get most people into training. Take it one step further, allow people a one time tax write off of all costs incurred to qualify, and they'll beat a path to the classroom. Why must the Government always use the stick, when the carrot would work? That's the real question isn't it. Find the answer to that and you have the answer for everything else they do.


Excellent, truly excellent. ESPECIALLY the part about how the regs are never about safety & always about control.

All that said though, reality is we are going to get some sort of infringement (training requirement) on CCW. The footnote in Heller pretty much guarantees this. Still the poll question was should training be a prerequisite for one?

I answered "no." Presuming the people that are going to push for unrestricted LOC succeed, 'training' won't be required for that. Why should it be allowed for CCW?


The Raisuli

P.S. As for why would anyone walk down a freeway, the answer is that in some places, its the only way to get from "A" to "B" on foot. That was a part of Kolender vs. Lawson (though I'm not sure how big a part).

Pyrodyne
03-23-2010, 7:16 AM
Here's an interesting idea, since government freely restricted or prohibited a persons right to bear arms thus effectively causing the erosion of fundamental knowledge of safe firearm handling, perhaps government should freely train everyone who has never had appropriate training. I'm up for putting my taxes toward that end.

+1. If training must be mandatory, the govt should also provide it. CMP has pretty loose requirements, a rangemaster could sign off that they witnessed you shooting a firearm. The requirement could be something like this. Go rent a gun, spend some range time, and get familiar with safe handling, get a paper signed.

Alternative: Demonstrate safe handling when you go for your CCW license. Finger off the trigger, check if it's loaded, point in safe direction, have a nice day here's your license.

Remember, it's not the gun itself that is inherently dangerous, it's the person pulling the trigger. Issuing a CCW to someone that is likely to follow the movies and grab the firearm with their trigger finger in, oops it hit a snag BAM. Where the bullet goes, nobody knows.

YubaRiver
03-23-2010, 7:24 AM
Gun safety should be taught in school. Only those under aged should have to
get a permit.

In Washington state, there is no lower age limit for a hunting license. You
do have to be able to read so you can pass the hunters safety test for youth.

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 7:36 AM
Agree 100%.

snip

I answered "no." Presuming the people that are going to push for unrestricted LOC succeed, 'training' won't be required for that. Why should it be allowed for CCW?


The Raisuli



I agree with everything The Raisuli says here.

And, as for all you who believe in "common sense measures" when it suits you, show me the statistics that tell you that your brain is working logically when you think that this will save lives. Show me that is it your brain working not your emotions. We will probably end up with mandatory training for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't make it any less of an infringement than the ten round mags we all love to rant on about.

Nowhere have I said that "No Infringement" should go as far as far as letting felons and 5150's roam the streets armed. But there should be as few restrictions as possible on law-abiding citizens who pose no particular risk. Mandatory training is just another "feel good" measure with no real demonstrable benefit and therefore I oppose it.

And, if it is OK to treat Californians differently than Alaskans, why aren't Tom Campbell and others right when they say that Californian cities should have tighter restrictions than Californian rural areas, because Californians in rural areas are more familiar with firearms?

And the poster who said we can't own warplanes and tanks is wrong. There are a lot of them in private hands.

Also, I've made it clear above that if there has to be mandatory training, then there should be recognized exceptions for people who can demonstrate prior experience and ability, such as NRA certifications, hunting license, military training etc. A lot of my opposition would go it that was the case as part of my opposition is the thought of having to sit on an uncomfortable chair for sixteen hours listening to "This is the trigger. When you pull this the gun goes 'Bang'." So, where do you "common sense" guys stand on exceptions ????????

a1c
03-23-2010, 7:53 AM
I agree with everything The Raisuli says here.

And, as for all you who believe in "common sense measures" when it suits you, show me the statistics that tell you that your brain is working logically when you think that this will save lives. Show me that is it your brain working not your emotions. We will probably end up with mandatory training for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't make it any less of an infringement than the ten round mags we all love to rant on about.

Nowhere have I said that "No Infringement" should go as far as far as letting felons and 5150's roam the streets armed. But there should be as few restrictions as possible on law-abiding citizens who pose no particular risk. Mandatory training is just another "feel good" measure with no real demonstrable benefit and therefore I oppose it.

And, if it is OK to treat Californians differently than Alaskans, why aren't Tom Campbell and others right when they say that Californian cities should have tighter restrictions than Californian rural areas, because Californians in rural areas are more familiar with firearms?

And the poster who said we can't own warplanes and tanks is wrong. There are a lot of them in private hands.

Also, I've made it clear above that if there has to be mandatory training, then there should be recognized exceptions for people who can demonstrate prior experience and ability, such as NRA certifications, hunting license, military training etc. A lot of my opposition would go it that was the case as part of my opposition is the thought of having to sit on an uncomfortable chair for sixteen hours listening to "This is the trigger. When you pull this the gun goes 'Bang'." So, where do you "common sense" guys stand on exceptions ????????

CCW should in my opinion require training, and a LOT of that training shouldn't just have to do with shooting or even gun safety. It should have a large and thorough legal aspect.

I'm all for instance for a training with both a classroom/written test part, and a shooting range/gun safety test. Those already holding a hunting license could skip that latter part, since gun safety is already a huge part of hunter ed, and it's reasonable to assume hunters know how to operate a firearm (although even though hunting with at least a 4-inch barrel handgun is legal, few actually do in California, but then a lot of hunters carry a sidearm JIC). Someone who has handgun CPRA or NRA credentials could also be "excused" from that part.

But the classroom/written part in current CCW training is important, because it focuses on the legal implications. It's not a "this is the trigger - you pull it and it goes bang" lecture. Anybody getting a CCW permit should be made aware - and a few hours of classroom won't be too much for that - that a CCW permit is not a permit to arrest bad guys, that there are places where it won't be reason enough to carry a firearm, etc.

I'm not going to quote Stan Lee here, but you know where I'm going with this. And this is very much in the interest of the CCW permit holder, who must know what he/she is allowed to do, and what he/she is not. Basic legal advice should be given to establish when and how the CCW permit holder can use their weapon. That's in their interest. I see constant arguments in here about what's legal or not in case of home invasion or assault, demonstrating that a lot of gun owners have no clue what they can legally do or not do. I don't want those who have no clue to get a CCW permit, use their guns in a questionable fashion, and then screw it up for the rest of us.

It's been said several times in this thread: we need to be realistic about this. Also, we cannot ask for a shall-issue system requiring no training whatsoever, because in a state like California (especially coastal California), it won't go well with the general public if we ask for anybody to just be able to apply and receive their permit without any training. We need to play good PR here, and show that we are reasonable people who understand that a CCW permit requires minimum training, even if it's just a day's worth.

It's not an infringement of our rights (many rights require an eligibility test), it's a small formality to see them fulfilled.

OrovilleTim
03-23-2010, 8:02 AM
Training isn't required to vote, and it requires more responsibility than carrying a firearm.

a1c
03-23-2010, 8:04 AM
Training isn't required to vote, and it requires more responsibility than carrying a firearm.

Sometimes I think there should be some sort of training required to vote.

Regardless, forget the ideological aspect - we need to be realistic here.

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 8:12 AM
Sometimes I think there should be some sort of training required to vote.

Regardless, forget the ideological aspect - we need to be realistic here.

There is supposed to be training to learn how to vote before a person is eligible. When I was in school, it was called Civics and American history. I have no clue what they call it now.

nn3453
03-23-2010, 8:24 AM
It is great to argue about things on principle and in principle, the hard liner stance is that there should be no requirements for carry and I understand where they are coming from. On paper I agree.

However, a lot of us having been to a lot of ranges where shooters who understand firearms safety in theory, do point their weapons at people without realizing it because of lack of practice and training.

The guy who said a CCW test should be similar to the safe gun handling test. Go to your local action pistol match and see how many shooters who understand gun safety in their heads WILL have their finger on the trigger when they draw, without acquiring the target.

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 8:35 AM
snip

The guy who said a CCW test should be similar to the safe gun handling test. Go to your local action pistol match and see how many shooters who understand gun safety in their heads WILL have their finger on the trigger when they draw, without acquiring the target.

This is what I just don't get. If these experienced shooters still get it wrong, why do some people think that a sixteen hour - or even forty hour - training course will fix the problem?

M. Sage
03-23-2010, 8:38 AM
Let me drop this one into the conversation: If you must get training to carry concealed, what about the cost? Who pays for it? If the licensee does, then how do the poor exercise their right?

This is what I just don't get. If these experienced shooters still get it wrong, why do some people think that a sixteen hour - or even forty hour - training course will fix the problem?

Agreed. A training course is going to be very basic.

a1c
03-23-2010, 8:46 AM
This is what I just don't get. If these experienced shooters still get it wrong, why do some people think that a sixteen hour - or even forty hour - training course will fix the problem?

Because 16 or 40 hours of training are better than no training. Because CCW permit training - or at least what I've seen - tends to address specific situations.

Also, as some have said before about CCW, 95% of it is about avoiding sticky situations. In other words, it is as much about knowing how to handle and use a firearms as it is about knowing what to do and what NOT to do.

Do you really want people with zero training, and, even worse, with not real legal understanding of what they can do and not do roaming the streets with their guns and permits? Do we really need that to advance our rights?

We need CCW permit holders who know not just how to operate a gun safely and shoot efficiently at 5, 7, or 15 yards. We need to make sure that CCW permit holders know how to react in given situations - should they use their guns if they're held up with other hostages in a bank or a store, and if yes, in which kind of situation, and how? Do they have the right to intervene when they witness an armed robbery or a carjacking? And so on. That's what the training should be about, on top of basic gun safety and shooting education.

Swatguy10_15
03-23-2010, 8:55 AM
Because 16 or 40 hours of training are better than no training. Because CCW permit training - or at least what I've seen - tends to address specific situations.

Also, as some have said before about CCW, 95% of it is about avoiding sticky situations. In other words, it is as much about knowing how to handle and use a firearms as it is about knowing what to do and what NOT to do.

Do you really want people with zero training, and, even worse, with not real legal understanding of what they can do and not do roaming the streets with their guns and permits? Do we really need that to advance our rights?

We need CCW permit holders who know not just how to operate a gun safely and shoot efficiently at 5, 7, or 15 yards. We need to make sure that CCW permit holders know how to react in given situations - should they use their guns if they're held up with other hostages in a bank or a store, and if yes, in which kind of situation, and how? Do they have the right to intervene when they witness an armed robbery or a carjacking? And so on. That's what the training should be about, on top of basic gun safety and shooting education.

Agreed and well put.
I oddly enough am confused as I thought it was already a requirement, it is in my county for my CCW. Every 2 years, same class but I enjoy it soo no gripes here.
Being at these classes though, CCW training should be mandatory in my eyes. You should see some of these mental midgets trying to get theyre weapons permit. Id much rather hand my loaded glock to a drunken monkey than give some of these morons the right to carry a loaded weapon.

ivsamhell
03-23-2010, 8:59 AM
They who can give up liberty to obtain safety, deserve neither.

bigcalidave
03-23-2010, 9:00 AM
You should see some of these mental midgets trying to get theyre weapons permit. Id much rather hand my loaded glock to a drunken monkey than give some of these morons the right to carry a loaded weapon.




And yet they still should have the RIGHT to carry a loaded weapon!! That's the whole issue here! Personal responsibility, self defense. So many keep posting how they don't believe that "everyone" has a right to carry a gun. Just what CA keeps telling you. Nobody blinks an eye at the thought of everyone being armed in TX, or AK, or VT, or hell most of washington, except seattle, is armed.

a1c
03-23-2010, 9:05 AM
And yet they still should have the RIGHT to carry a loaded weapon!! That's the whole issue here! Personal responsibility, self defense. So many keep posting how they don't believe that "everyone" has a right to carry a gun. Just what CA keeps telling you. Nobody blinks an eye at the thought of everyone being armed in TX, or AK, or VT, or hell most of washington, except seattle, is armed.

As it's been explained before by others, you are mentioning places where most people grow up around firearms, where daddy takes you to shoot aluminum cans as early as 7, teaches you how to handle your gun safely, how to disassemble it, clean it, and those are mostly rural places where crime rates are generally much lower.

The reason why the standards are different there is because the culture is different. Just because they have lower standards - which over there is not a problem - doesn't mean we should have the same ones. Every state is different. CA will always have stricter standards. There is no point fighting it. Be realistic and accept that requiring training is not an infringement on your rights.

Face it: what do you want? CCW permits issued to regular citizens who complete and pass a class, or no CCW permits to CA regular citizens in the name of your interpretation of the 2A? Because that's pretty much the choice here.

JDoe
03-23-2010, 9:07 AM
Let me drop this one into the conversation: If you must get training to carry concealed, what about the cost? Who pays for it? If the licensee does, then how do the poor exercise their right?

And what of the physically challenged?

a1c
03-23-2010, 9:09 AM
And what of the physically challenged?

Be specific. Because if a guy has no arms or is blind, I personally don't think he should get a CCW permit. But that's just me.

stag1500
03-23-2010, 9:17 AM
So, nearly 60% of us agree with the Brady center that we cannot be trusted with firearms without massive government interference.

Thanks, fellas.

That's not the point. The Brady Center is against dangerous felons acquiring firearms from gun stores. Hence the NICS background check. Are you in favor of dangerous felons acquiring firearms at guns stores? Of course not.

Teaching a newbe how to properly handle a firearm and instructing him/her on the law regarding the use of deadly force and where they can or can't carry a firearm (such as in a federal buildings, court houses, post office, etc...) is not an infringement of their right to bear arms. That training/knowledge is part of what makes us all responsible gun owners. And because of that, the general public is becoming more and more on our side.

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 9:23 AM
I think I might start a new poll thread. It will be entitled something like:

"Since 57% of CalCuns forum appear to believe that because of the culture here, Californians cannot be trusted to be safe on the streets with a concealed firearm unless they have had mandatory training, then clearly they cannot be trusted with an openly displayed firearm either and, even further, that they cannot be trusted at home with a firearm if they lack the training to know that they should not take it on the streets in the first place.

Therefore:

1) All Californians should be made to take a training course before handling a loaded firearm
2) Open Carry should also require a mandatory training course
3) There is something special about Concealed Carry that means that only CCW holders need mandatory training.
4) There should be exceptions for those with prior training.
5) No mandatory training is required. Those states who require little or no training do not have rivers of blood running down the streets, are Californians that stupid?

bigcalidave
03-23-2010, 9:24 AM
As it's been explained before by others, you are mentioning places where most people grow up around firearms, where daddy takes you to shoot aluminum cans as early as 7, teaches you how to handle your gun safely, how to disassemble it, clean it, and those are mostly rural places where crime rates are generally much lower.

The reason why the standards are different there is because the culture is different. Just because they have lower standards - which over there is not a problem - doesn't mean we should have the same ones. Every state is different. CA will always have stricter standards. There is no point fighting it. Be realistic and accept that requiring training is not an infringement on your rights.

Face it: what do you want? CCW permits issued to regular citizens who complete and pass a class, or no CCW permits to CA regular citizens in the name of your interpretation of the 2A? Because that's pretty much the choice here.

No, just because someone lives in texas, alaska, vermont, does NOT mean that they grew up around firearms. Talk about making assumptions. Don't forget that close to half of California owns guns!!! Since when are these rights supposed to mean different things in different states! Apparently you are also ok with the fact that almost all the other states have no handgun roster, can own suppressors and machine guns, high cap mags, etc.... Right? Because they know guns and were raised around them, right??

Your argument has NO merit. Sorry. What do I want? CCWs issued to CA citizens just like they are issued to Oregon citizens, Washington citizens, Utah citizens, Nevada citizens, do I need to continue this list??? The choice here is for people that actually believe they have a right to BEAR arms to stand together to achieve that goal, and quit letting the morons that run this state slap them in the face with these restrictions.

So if you are ok with all these laws they keep passing, have a nice life. Some of us are trying to FIX IT.

darkshier
03-23-2010, 9:26 AM
Should ULOC or LOC require training as well? Because I don't understand why I would need training if somehow my shirt/jacket fell over my hip holster/xd45, and I went from ULOC/LOC to CC. I mean really, why does a piece of clothing all of a sudden require extra training?

As for the poll option, I voted the 3rd option. Recommending and providing free info about training and where to get it is just fine and where I draw the line. I have to say I am quite shocked at the poll results though.

darkshier
03-23-2010, 9:27 AM
I think I might start a new poll thread. It will be entitled something like:

"Since 57% of CalCuns forum appear to believe that because of the culture here, Californians cannot be trusted to be safe on the streets with a concealed firearm unless they have had mandatory training, then clearly they cannot be trusted with an openly displayed firearm either and, even further, that they cannot be trusted at home with a firearm if they lack the training to know that they should not take it on the streets in the first place.

Therefore:

1) All Californians should be made to take a training course before handling a loaded firearm
2) Open Carry should also require a mandatory training course
3) There is something special about Concealed Carry that means that only CCW holders need mandatory training.
4) There should be exceptions for those with prior training.
5) No mandatory training is required. Those states who require little or no training do not have rivers of blood running down the streets, are Californians that stupid?

I'll take a supersized, animal style #5 please.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 9:33 AM
If training was the only barrier between CCW, LOC, etc I would be all for it.

Swatguy10_15
03-23-2010, 9:45 AM
And yet they still should have the RIGHT to carry a loaded weapon!! That's the whole issue here! Personal responsibility, self defense. So many keep posting how they don't believe that "everyone" has a right to carry a gun. Just what CA keeps telling you. Nobody blinks an eye at the thought of everyone being armed in TX, or AK, or VT, or hell most of washington, except seattle, is armed.

Well thats actually a good point..And dont misinterpret my opinion(s). I do stand and believe that everyone has the right to self defense. But in retrospect the issuing agency does have some form of liability when issuing the permits. I myself believe this should be a shall issue state. 100%.
BUT. If some one cant hit a target at 3 yards ( I watched this) has absolutely no clue what theyre firearm is capable of and is flagging people like its the latest hip trend...Would you issue that person a CCW if you were the sheriff?
Simply requiring an individual to take a "legal aspects and practical shooting" class..Whats so wrong with that? IM more in tune to the legal aspects training than firearms training....Alot of people DONT know the true legal aspects of allowable self defense..Why not give the CCW holder a little bit more of an advantage??
The facilities that put these classes on ARE NOT government run. The folks I use are PRO gun cops that encourage and assist people in getting theyre CCW's and I gladly plunk down $60 bucks every 2 years as the information they provide, the latest laws, case laws etc etc are to me invaluable..
Also I never stated that I dont think everyone should have the right to carry a gun. I by no means believe that. But I do think that if someone wants the ability to carry one they should have the tools and knowledge to safely and effectively carry one.
A firearm is a tool. A tool is worthless when you dont know how to use it. I Believe wholeheartedly that every decent american should be able to keep and bear arms. But were in the sue happy state..Whats wrong with trying to keep a few gunners out of criminal/civil hot water instead of just handing out permits..Thats all Im saying..Im by no means encouraging or implying that anyone deserves more so than anyone else to defend themself..

Swatguy10_15
03-23-2010, 9:48 AM
And what of the physically challenged?

Theres absolutely nothing preventing anyone with physical limitations from acquiring a wepaon or permit..Thats not even a valid point. If they can safely load/unload and use the weapon theyre good to go..Thats just comment fishing..

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 9:50 AM
I think I might start a new poll thread. It will be entitled something like:

"Since 57% of CalCuns forum appear to believe that because of the culture here, Californians cannot be trusted to be safe on the streets with a concealed firearm unless they have had mandatory training, then clearly they cannot be trusted with an openly displayed firearm either and, even further, that they cannot be trusted at home with a firearm if they lack the training to know that they should not take it on the streets in the first place.

Therefore:

1) All Californians should be made to take a training course before handling a loaded firearm
2) Open Carry should also require a mandatory training course
3) There is something special about Concealed Carry that means that only CCW holders need mandatory training.
4) There should be exceptions for those with prior training.
5) No mandatory training is required. Those states who require little or no training do not have rivers of blood running down the streets, are Californians that stupid?

What's very interesting is mandatory training has never exceeded or even gone up to 60% on this poll. Currently, the ratio is only 1.73 to 1 in favor of mandatory training.

bigcalidave
03-23-2010, 9:54 AM
BUT. If some one cant hit a target at 3 yards ( I watched this) has absolutely no clue what theyre firearm is capable of and is flagging people like its the latest hip trend...Would you issue that person a CCW if you were the sheriff?

I keep saying it, over and over. If the state runs it like the DMV, A quick multiple choice test and a shooting test (simple) for less than $50, they should issue. That way ANYONE can get one, and if they can't pass the test, the issuing authority can hand them a list of local ranges that offer basic training! Obviously the intent of the question was should PAID training be required, and I don't believe it should. If someone failed the initial test, they could simply ask a friend to teach them if they didn't want to pay an instructor.

I don't WANT a permit to be necessary, but yes in this land of laws it's obvious that a permit will be par for the course. Has nothing to do with gun culture in Alaska, or the common stupidity of Californians as pointed out by so many posters in this thread. Mostly it has to do with a state full of whining *****es who accept the laws that our legislature continues to pass on us and then votes them back into office, again and again.

**** THE LAWS... The legal aspects can be quickly tested with multiple choice, and it doesn't matter if someone knows as much as one of us may about the legalities of justifiable homicide if they simply want a gun to protect their life. When they are scared for their life, their internal ethical / moral filter will make the decision to take another life. Live with the consequences. This isn't like driving a car in the aspect that people understand that USING A GUN MEANS KILLING A PERSON... Most people driving have no clue that when they answer that phone call as a kid runs on the road they will kill someone.

YubaRiver
03-23-2010, 9:56 AM
Looking at the poll results, I see how CA got it laws.

And some seem close to saying, "we don't want THOSE people carrying"

Education is very important. Carrying a gun is serious business.

However, some of you make it sound more serious than it is.

Get a life. I suppose you wouldn't
want anyone rock climbing, rodeo-ing, or skiing without a government
required permit or helmet.

There are a lot of people who probably shouldn't have children too.
Where does this line of thinking end?

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 9:57 AM
I keep saying it, over and over. If the state runs it like the DMV, A quick multiple choice test and a shooting test (simple) for less than $50, they should issue. That way ANYONE can get one, and if they can't pass the test, the issuing authority can hand them a list of local ranges that offer basic training! Obviously the intent of the question was should PAID training be required, and I don't believe it should. If someone failed the initial test, they could simply ask a friend to teach them if they didn't want to pay an instructor.

I don't WANT a permit to be necessary, but yes in this land of laws it's obvious that a permit will be par for the course. Has nothing to do with gun culture in Alaska, or the common stupidity of Californians as pointed out by so many posters in this thread. Mostly it has to do with a state full of whining *****es who accept the laws that our legislature continues to pass on us.

**** THE LAWS... The legal aspects can be quickly tested with multiple choice, and it doesn't matter if someone knows as much as one of us may about the legalities of justifiable homicide if they simply want a gun to protect their life. When they are scared for their life, their internal ethical / moral filter will make the decision to take another life. Live with the consequences. This isn't like driving a car in the aspect that people understand that USING A GUN MEANS KILLING A PERSON... Most people driving have no clue that when they answer that phone call as a kid runs on the road they will kill someone.

Exactly. I wouldn't have much problem with that.

bigcalidave
03-23-2010, 10:01 AM
There are a lot of people who probably shouldn't have children too.
Where does this line of thinking end?

I'll vote for licenses, testing and mandatory schooling, plus waiting periods, for people having children... It's a much larger responsibility bringing another life into this ****ed up world than it is to take one out of it..

Milsurp Collector
03-23-2010, 10:03 AM
Yeah, none of the BS gun laws we currently have are a result of creeping incrementalism. They are all just my distorted sense of reality.

I never said none of the BS laws were the result of creeping incrementalism. My point was that not every law results inevitably results in creeping incrementalism.

The frog doesn't think there is an emergency as long as you don't turn the heat up too quick either but, he still gets cooked.

Again, not every law resuts in creeping incrementalism. If the sky is truly falling, sure, raise the alarm and fight, but if it isn't, then don't.

And how did we get all those laws? People using phrases like reasonable restrictions, do it for the children, your safety depends on it. Etc. No, a mandatory CCW course is just one more cobblestone on the path of good intentions.

Experience in other states has shown that mandatory firearms safety training has not been a step on the path to tyranny.

Meanwhile, as I stated earlier, I live in a state that does require proof of minimal handgun competency (by completing a handgun safety course, showing evidence of participation in handgun shooting competitions, etc.) YET the sky hasn't fallen, there is no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity limits, no handgun roster, no waiting periods, no handgun purchase limits, etc. etc. etc. WHERE is the creeping incrementalism? Looks like zero correlation between handgun safety courses and tyranny to me. For now, give it time. California didn't do it overnight. None of that crap was here when I was a kid except CCW requirements, oddly enough.

We have given it time. Oregon has been "shall issue" with a requirement for demonstration of handgun competence (such as completing a course) for 21 years. Again, the notion that mandatory firearms safety training for a CCW permit is a sinister creeping incrementalism plot just isn't supported by experience or reality.

Training class is already required here as well.

Hmm, are you sure? I was going by the requirements posted here http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f20 that listed the requirements as:

1. Legal resident
2. At least 21 years of age
3. Good Cause
4. Good Moral Character

Maybe I overlooked something, but it doesn't say anything about a required training class.

The public in California will never accept "shall issue". It will have to come down via the courts. To force the hand of the state. I do agree that once people see it doesn't result in bloodbaths they may loosen the restrictions. My point is there should be no restrictions to loosen in the first place but, we all know what California thinks of that.

Agreed. That's why it is smart to establish a beachhead/get your foot in the door, and then have creeping incrementalism work in our favor to relax requirements, rather than fighting a losing battle that just plays into the hands of those who want to portray us as "gun nuts".

I agree that we should present a reasonable and responsible image to the public whenever possible. Never give them powder to use against us. If you think supporting mandatory training will sway the antis, I'd say it was your reality that is distorted.

I never said anything about swaying the antis. I want to defeat them, not sway them. My point, stated earlier, is that we are in competition with the antis for the hearts and minds of the uncommitted soccer moms in the middle, and so far it has been a one-sided competition. While the antis do a great job of playing to the soccer moms' fears, sounding reasonable and concerned about the safety of them and their kids, the most noticeable gun rights supporters often come across as fundamentalist true believers whose public relations campaign consists of open carrying at Starbucks, opposing anything and everything as creeping incrementalism and "massive government interference", and chanting "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!" One need only look at California's gun laws to see which approach has been more successful.

As I said before, I know we don't all agree on some points, I can live with that. It would be terribly boring if we all shuffled along through life in complete agreement. Besides, I respect a man who has the strength of his convictions, no matter how mistaken I think they are. :p

Back at you bro, including the smilie. :p We're on the same side, I just wished my team would steal from the other side's playbook sometimes and beat them at their own game.

Decoligny
03-23-2010, 10:22 AM
Get the Govt out of the process, I agree. Give the process to CGF, CRPA, SAF, GOA, Etc. If you want a CCW, you go through them to get your license. Anything wrong with that?

HST, I agree that one needs training to get a CCW.

When I made my first purchase, I would not touch the FA other than to know how to load the "dummy round", load the mag, etc. on initial purchase and pick-up.

I then called Reeds Indoor Range (http://www.reedsindoorrange.com/) and set up a training run with an NRA Instructor.

Playing devil's advocate here, I can understand why one would say no to any kind of "requirement", because of how all of the good rules have been nothing more than precursors to bad regulations that do nothing but infringe.

Get rid of the infringements (as we are making progress in here at CGF/N), and more responsible GOs will be running the same lap in the same race (it's a NASCAR "I've got it bad" thing for me today just today).:eek:

Erik.

If these groups are simply taking the responsibility from the Government to ensure that people are "trained" enough to exercise their right, then that would put them in the position of acting as agents of the Government, and whatever "requirement" they set for you to get your CCW, would be the Government infringing upon the 2A.

I think training should be recommended, not required. It is a good thing to have, but having the Government mandate any level of "approved" training is wrong.

I for one have been shooting for many years. I don't have any "training certificates" from any of the numerous sources of firearms training that I have received. Why should I have to sit through any class just to go over information that I already know, just to get a piece of paper saying I have been adequately trained?

Deadred7o7
03-23-2010, 10:34 AM
172 in the Cal-Brady.net column so far. I'm not suprised at all.

mjukis
03-23-2010, 10:36 AM
First off, I completely understand the point of a "right" ceasing to be a right if the government can stop you from getting the license you need to exercise it. I also completely understand the words "shall not be infringed" and why they are important.

With that said, the reason you don't need a license to go rock climbing is that, unlike piloting a motor coach (for which you do need a license) you are unlikely to hurt anybody but yourself if you **** up. I am going to provide what I think to be a very uncharacteristic opinion, being a gun nut and all.

All people who wish to handle firearms should be required to demonstrate that they can safely load, unload and fire the weapon without presenting a danger to those around them.

Now many of you are going to say that our right to keep and bear arms would be up to a local authority etc, but I do believe in objective testing. If you can load and unload your weapon without unintentionally firing, or pointing the barrel at the test proctor (preferably anybody with an FFL etc), you have passed safe handling. If you can hit a man sized target at 25 yards with five rounds, without unintentionally firing or pointing the barrel at the test proctor, you have passed safe firing. There is no "opinion" involved in whether or not your bullets are on the target.

Do I want to have to prove my firearms skills in order to keep and bear arms? Of course not. Do I want to know that the guy at Starbucks with the brand new Glock on his hip knows what a loaded chamber indicator does, and why fingering the trigger is a bad idea in a public place? Hell yes.

So does the peace of mind that comes with #2 justify the hassle of #1? For me, yes.

a1c
03-23-2010, 10:52 AM
If these groups are simply taking the responsibility from the Government to ensure that people are "trained" enough to exercise their right, then that would put them in the position of acting as agents of the Government, and whatever "requirement" they set for you to get your CCW, would be the Government infringing upon the 2A.

I think training should be recommended, not required. It is a good thing to have, but having the Government mandate any level of "approved" training is wrong.

I for one have been shooting for many years. I don't have any "training certificates" from any of the numerous sources of firearms training that I have received. Why should I have to sit through any class just to go over information that I already know, just to get a piece of paper saying I have been adequately trained?

It's not about what you think is right, it's about what is realistic. You will NEVER get CA legislature or many sheriffs to agree to a shall-issue with no training/testing. That's simply not going to happen.

Some of us can whine all we want about it being unfair, burdensome or downright infringing on our rights - it doesn't matter. If you want to generalize the issuance of CCW permits realistically, you're going to have to convince the general, uninformed, non-gun friendly public (or those on the fence) that issuing CCW permits to regular citizens is not going to endanger general safety, but making the public safer.

The only way you can achieve that is by demonstrating that the permit holders are responsible people who know how to use a firearm and know when to use it and when not to use it.

It doesn't matter if you think it's making you an agent of the government (that's ridiculous - does getting a driver's license make you an agent of the state?). Your personal convictions won't matter to the people you need to convince to make it happen, and those are people who are either insecure around guns, or who don't know anything about them.

It doesn't matter what the requirements or the laws are in other states. Remember that that argument goes both ways: for other issues, it could be used against you.

If you tell them that anybody can get a CCW permit (including the shady kid around the corner who might be dealing drugs), they'll be very nervous (doesn't matter if the kid actually carries illegally). If you however tell them that the people getting those permits have passed a test demonstrating safe handling, competent shooting and a good understanding of the law, they'll be much more likely not to fight it. They might actually get used to the idea and support it.

You're not going to win any battle by just refusing to accept any compromise. It simply won't happen. The antis will just paint you as some radical redneck unwilling to accept basic rules. They don't care about your interpretation of the Second amendment. Some of them would rather get rid of it completely. So you need to make that small compromise, and frankly, I don't see it as such, as there are a lot of people I've seen at the range that I wouldn't want carrying unless they first got some training.

xxxSevenxxx
03-23-2010, 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by fegves2id
first, CCW is not a right in my view, and the supreme courts view. the 2A does not guarantee us the right to carry concealed whatever weapons may be invented in the future, wherever we want to carry them. So, if we agree that CCW is not specifically a protected right, then common sense allows us to impose reasonable requirements on those who choose to CCW.

The right to KEEP and BEAR arms guarantees to right to...uh...keep and BEAR arms. So you're right, but for the wrong reason. The American People are guaranteed either CCW or LOC. Pick one.


Originally Posted by fegves2id
The answer you posted could also be applied to the following questions:

-Should I be permitted to carry a brief case nuke while on a tour of the white house? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to wear a bomb vest while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

-Should I be permitted to possess and fly my f-16 (armed with guided missles) anywhere I please? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.


In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are constitutionally protected. With today's technology we now have hand-held rockets, surface to air missiles, maybe even nuclear weapons. It seems clear that those things would have been considered "ordinance" in colonial times which is why they're not protected now.


Originally Posted by fegves2id
-Should I be allowed to point a high power rifle directly at the president while he is giving a speech? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

No. It's already against the law to point a weapon at somebody. It's also against the law to point a knife at someone. It's also against the law to TELL somebody that you're going to kill them. This has NOTHING to do with the second amendment.



Originally Posted by fegves2id
-Should I be allowed to carry a loaded ar-15 while on an airplane? Yes, because you cannot infringe any "arms" or the "bear"ing thereof.

No. Airplanes are privately owned. Private businesses can decide on their OWN whether or not to allow firearms on or in their place of business (see Starbucks vs Petes with regard to the UOC debate)



Originally Posted by fegves2id
Should I be permitted to carry concealed a weapon I am capable of drawing quickly and killing dozens of people within moments (fn 5.7 with a couple extra mags for example)? YES I SAY! .

I say yes too. What's the difference between an FN 5.7 and a Kimber 1911? They can both be pulled quickly and can kill a bunch of people. I know you can become jaded when you're a police officer but you need to realize that the VAST majority of people who would legally CCW would NOT become mass murderers. In fact, the people who are currently CCW'ing (ILLEGALLY) are FAR more likely to do what you're suggesting.
That's like asking, "Should I be allowed to drive a car that I can quickly swerve off the road and kill a bunch of people?". Don't worry...we WON'T!


Originally Posted by fegves2id
I am amazed at how many people actually insist CCW is a right, and even more that is is a right which should not be restricted AT ALL.


If you don't believe in the Constitution, you might consider a new occupation. A Zoo Keeper perhaps?


Originally Posted by fegves2id
For the OP question: I believe training should be required (if you didn't figure that out by now.). Proficiency with the firearm and applicable laws should be shown. I am in favor of a single certificate which does not expire. Actually, we should be able to just implement whatever program is working so well in a comparable state (florida maybe?). That being said, I have never been to Florida.


There should be ONE STANDARD throughout the country. So if training is required in ALL STATES then it should apply here. And I know that police officers get all kind of Navy Seal-type training...but then again...so did THESE officers. Should ALL POLICE OFFICERS now be required to undergo "Don't accidently shoot yourself or the citizens that you are sworn to protect" training? I SAY YES!


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9VNB7Z40w00&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9VNB7Z40w00&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bmJukcFzEX4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bmJukcFzEX4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeGD7r6s-zU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MeGD7r6s-zU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

QFT! I REALLY hat the fact that so many LEO's have the mindset that fegves2id is demonstrating here. They need to realize that it's up to US to protect OURSELVES (New Orleans post-Katrina anyone?). The police are NEVER there when you need them to be (not that this is thier fault....how could they be everywhere at once?). Most of the time the police will be there to clean up the mess, take the report, then go back to work. Especially in California...look at the debacle surrounding Chealsea King. If the police had a policy of being PROACTIVE she may well be alive. [/endrant]

Deadred7o7
03-23-2010, 11:03 AM
It's not about what you think is right, it's about what is realistic. You will NEVER get CA legislature or many sheriffs to agree to a shall-issue with no training/testing. That's simply not going to happen.

Some of us can whine all we want about it being unfair, burdensome or downright infringing on our rights - it doesn't matter. If you want to generalize the issuance of CCW permits realistically, you're going to have to convince the general, uninformed, non-gun friendly public (or those on the fence) that issuing CCW permits to regular citizens is not going to endanger general safety, but making the public safer.

The only way you can achieve that is by demonstrating that the permit holders are responsible people who know how to use a firearm and know when to use it and when not to use it.

It doesn't matter if you think it's making you an agent of the government (that's ridiculous - does getting a driver's license make you an agent of the state?). Your personal convictions won't matter to the people you need to convince to make it happen, and those are people who are either insecure around guns, or who don't know anything about them.

It doesn't matter what the requirements or the laws are in other states. Remember that that argument goes both ways: for other issues, it could be used against you.

If you tell them that anybody can get a CCW permit (including the shady kid around the corner who might be dealing drugs), they'll be very nervous (doesn't matter if the kid actually carries illegally). If you however tell them that the people getting those permits have passed a test demonstrating safe handling, competent shooting and a good understanding of the law, they'll be much more likely not to fight it. They might actually get used to the idea and support it.

You're not going to win any battle by just refusing to accept any compromise. It simply won't happen. The antis will just paint you as some radical redneck unwilling to accept basic rules. They don't care about your interpretation of the Second amendment. Some of them would rather get rid of it completely. So you need to make that small compromise, and frankly, I don't see it as such, as there are a lot of people I've seen at the range that I wouldn't want carrying unless they first got some training.

Do you not agree that blindly cheering the loss of a REAL RIGHT...replaced by a privlege..is insanity ?

Obeying...KNOWING that this is a loss of a Right..is the mindset that a freeman has...versus the robots populating so many so-called 'gun rights organizations...

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 11:18 AM
Hmm, are you sure? I was going by the requirements posted here http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f20 that listed the requirements as:

1. Legal resident
2. At least 21 years of age
3. Good Cause
4. Good Moral Character

Maybe I overlooked something, but it doesn't say anything about a required training class.


You should read a little further (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f70)

If you tell them that anybody can get a CCW permit (including the shady kid around the corner who might be dealing drugs), they'll be very nervous (doesn't matter if the kid actually carries illegally). If you however tell them that the people getting those permits have passed a test demonstrating safe handling, competent shooting and a good understanding of the law, they'll be much more likely not to fight it. They might actually get used to the idea and support it.


This is, to me, far more of an argument that nobody should own or handle a loaded firearm without taking your course. What about the Open Carriers? Why restrict this to CCW holders? Surely, soccer mom is going to be much happier knowing that the guy with a big .44 openly displayed on his hip in Starbucks has taken your course?

JDoe
03-23-2010, 11:25 AM
And what of the physically challenged?
Be specific. Because if a guy has no arms or is blind, I personally don't think he should get a CCW permit. But that's just me.

I was reading Let me drop this one into the conversation: If you must get training to carry concealed, what about the cost? Who pays for it? If the licensee does, then how do the poor exercise their right?

And thought of an elderly person with little or no disposable income who spends most of their day in their house and occasionally goes out for whatever reason. They may require a walker to get around, etc. People like this should be able to protect themselves in public but may not have the money to take a CCW course, may not have the mobility that a CCW course might require, etc. but could be capable of using a revolver to put a couple of bullets into an attacker if required.

What about someone with cerebral palsy? What if they only have very mild cerebral palsy? Who decides if they will be able to carry?

Should we limit the access to a CCW for people with epilepsy? What if they have a seizure while holding a gun?

What about the legally blind? Legally blind doesn't necessarily mean that one can't see, yet there appears to be no shortage of people who would prohibit someone who is legally blind from CCWing in public or on private property that is a public place.

Every obstacle that is placed in front of people wanting to have the best tools for self defense creates another class of vulnerable people. If the poor can't afford the training then they become targets. If the elderly or physically challenged can't complete the training or are barred from CCWing then another class of targets is created.

Prohibiting law abiding citizens from CCWing until they take a required course or until they take a required course that they can’t afford and/or that they may not be able to physically complete or attend is a vile affront to the most basic human right of self defense.

Milsurp Collector
03-23-2010, 11:31 AM
You should read a little further (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f70)

Ah yes, thank you for that. :)


Also, I've made it clear above that if there has to be mandatory training, then there should be recognized exceptions for people who can demonstrate prior experience and ability, such as NRA certifications, hunting license, military training etc. A lot of my opposition would go it that was the case as part of my opposition is the thought of having to sit on an uncomfortable chair for sixteen hours listening to "This is the trigger. When you pull this the gun goes 'Bang'." So, where do you "common sense" guys stand on exceptions ????????

Absolutely there should be exceptions. If you are already a NRA Certified Instructor or a regular participant in handgun shooting competitions that should meet the requirement. Other "common sense" (not the Brady type, real common sense) exceptions could be made. Here are other states' requirements, they could be a starting point:


OREGON

(f) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by any one of the following:

(A) Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife or a similar agency of another state if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(B) Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(C) Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by law enforcement, community college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or a law enforcement agency if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(D) Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers or any other law enforcement officers if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(E) Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a handgun through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;

(F) Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state, unless the license has been revoked; or

(G) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a firearms instructor certified by a law enforcement agency or the National Rifle Association if handgun safety was a component of the course;


NEVADA

(c) Demonstrates competence with revolvers, each specific semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm, as applicable, by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that the applicant:

(1) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this State; or

(2) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety.

Ê Such a course must include instruction in the use of revolvers, each semiautomatic firearm to which the application pertains, or revolvers and each such semiautomatic firearm and in the laws of this State relating to the use of a firearm. A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless the sheriff determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association or, if the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ceases to exist, its legal successor.



ARIZONA

6. Has ever satisfactorily completed a firearms safety training program authorized by the department of public safety pursuant to subsection O of this section and provides adequate documentation that the authorized training program was satisfactorily completed. For the purposes of this paragraph, "adequate documentation" means a certificate, card or document of completion from a firearms safety training program authorized pursuant to subsection O of this section, dated not more than five years earlier than the date of application, that has affixed to it the stamp, signature or seal of the instructor or organization that conducted the program, or a current or expired permit issued by the department of public safety pursuant to this section. This paragraph does not apply to:

(a) A person who is an active duty Arizona peace officer standards and training board certified or federally credentialed peace officer or who is honorably retired as a federal, state or local peace officer with a minimum of ten years of service.

(b) A person who is an active duty county detention officer and who has been weapons certified by the officer's employing agency.

(c) A person who is issued a certificate of firearms proficiency pursuant to subsection X of this section.

(d) A person who is an Arizona peace officer standards and training board certified full authority peace officer and who volunteers in a law enforcement agency's reserve program.

O. An organization shall apply to the department of public safety for authorization to provide firearms safety training. The department shall authorize an organization to provide firearms safety training if the training meets the following requirements:

1. Is at least eight hours in length.

2. Is conducted on a pass or fail basis.

3. Addresses all of the following topics in a format approved by the director of the department:

(a) Legal issues relating to the use of deadly force.

(b) Weapon care and maintenance.

(c) Mental conditioning for the use of deadly force.

(d) Safe handling and storage of weapons.

(e) Marksmanship.

(f) Judgmental shooting.



All three states bordering California require mandatory training or proof of competency before the "shall issue" CCW permit is issued, and yet all three states remain much freer than California. Imagine that! The creeping incrementalism boogie man has failed to show his face again. :p

Rather than simply saying NO NO NO SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! it would be smarter for gun owners to get in on the writing of the regulations so they actually have "common sense" (not the Brady type) in them. Who is better qualified than experienced gun owners to do that? Is it better to say, "I lost, I'm not going to play with you, so I'm taking my ball and going home" and leave the writing of the laws to ignoramuses and anti-gunners?

a1c
03-23-2010, 11:38 AM
This is, to me, far more of an argument that nobody should own or handle a loaded firearm without taking your course. What about the Open Carriers? Why restrict this to CCW holders? Surely, soccer mom is going to be much happier knowing that the guy with a big .44 openly displayed on his hip in Starbucks has taken your course?

Duh. Of course she is. Why do you think so many places banned UOCers? Because they're afraid of the idea of what they perceive as a bunch of yahoos carrying guns. It's not rational. It's all about perception.

UOC in California is an oddity. We need to recognize it. The UOC movement is just a way to demonstrate our 2A rights, not an efficient way to protect ourselves.

The soccer mom doesn't really care about gun owners shooting their firearms at the range. The soccer mom is afraid of non-LEOs carrying guns. If you can demonstrate that CCW citizens are competent and passed a government-licensed test, they'll feel much safer. You'll create a culture of acceptance and trust which will lead to less ignorance and paranoia on the part of the antis, and ultimately support for 2A rights.

a1c
03-23-2010, 11:44 AM
Do you not agree that blindly cheering the loss of a REAL RIGHT...replaced by a privlege..is insanity ?

No, because what you perceive as a right is only perceived by you and 2A rights activists as such. It's not me or other Calgunners you need to convince to win the fight. It's the antis and those on the fence. You're not going to convince them by going on and on about your RIGHT. They don't care. They don't even recognize it.

You have to think in realistic and practical terms here. You can talk about your "right" all you want, but I'm ready to bet that if you're waiting for the SCOTUS to rule that all citizens from all states can get CCW permits without any form of test or training, you'll be waiting for a long, long time. Not even Scalia will side with you there.

Finally, you are making a mistake when you assume that a right is absolute, and that placing requirements on a CCW automatically turns it into a privilege. Plenty of constitutional rights are subjected to restrictions. That doesn't mean they are a privilege.

Obeying...KNOWING that this is a loss of a Right..is the mindset that a freeman has...versus the robots populating so many so-called 'gun rights organizations...

Let's see where that mindset takes you in the real world. Even those CA counties that issue CCW to regular citizens require some sort of training. And you want to convince all of them that they should just issue permits without even a test? Good luck.

Jeep Wave
03-23-2010, 11:45 AM
I think so. As long as it's not expensive for the shooter, I think it can be a win-win situation. I get trained and and the anti's feel better knowing that I have the training.

I'm for gun rights and all but come one guys, there are way too many idiots out there.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 11:45 AM
There should be another option on the poll, mandatory training begets carry at trainee's discretion. When I voted yes for the training, it was with the intent that there would be no restrictions placed on the holder from there on out. If the training was required and the result was the same tyrannical laws we face now,with no real gain,the answer is obviously NO. Given our current state, a simple test to re-secure the freedoms we are now missing would be a huge upgrade. It would be worlds better than what we have now...

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 12:02 PM
It's not about what you think is right, it's about what is realistic. You will NEVER get CA legislature or many sheriffs to agree to a shall-issue with no training/testing. That's simply not going to happen.

1. Realistically, the supreme court is going to rule in favor of incorporation

2. Realistically, bearing of arms is a right guaranteed by the constitution

3. Realistically, the Legislature and Sheriffs will have to show just cause for any prohibitions of the bearing of arms. The burden of proof will no longer be on the people to prove their worthiness.

4. Realistically, if lack of training is considered a constitutional prohibition to barring a person from bearing arms, the training will have to be the minimum necessary to qualify a person.

Some of us can whine all we want about it being unfair, burdensome or downright infringing on our rights - it doesn't matter. If you want to generalize the issuance of CCW permits realistically, you're going to have to convince the general, uninformed, non-gun friendly public (or those on the fence) that issuing CCW permits to regular citizens is not going to endanger general safety, but making the public safer.

The only way you can achieve that is by demonstrating that the permit holders are responsible people who know how to use a firearm and know when to use it and when not to use it.

It doesn't matter if you think it's making you an agent of the government (that's ridiculous - does getting a driver's license make you an agent of the state?). Your personal convictions won't matter to the people you need to convince to make it happen, and those are people who are either insecure around guns, or who don't know anything about them.

It doesn't matter what the requirements or the laws are in other states. Remember that that argument goes both ways: for other issues, it could be used against you.

If you tell them that anybody can get a CCW permit (including the shady kid around the corner who might be dealing drugs), they'll be very nervous (doesn't matter if the kid actually carries illegally). If you however tell them that the people getting those permits have passed a test demonstrating safe handling, competent shooting and a good understanding of the law, they'll be much more likely not to fight it. They might actually get used to the idea and support it.

You're not going to win any battle by just refusing to accept any compromise. It simply won't happen. The antis will just paint you as some radical redneck unwilling to accept basic rules. They don't care about your interpretation of the Second amendment. Some of them would rather get rid of it completely. So you need to make that small compromise, and frankly, I don't see it as such, as there are a lot of people I've seen at the range that I wouldn't want carrying unless they first got some training.

If the truth be known, I expect to see politicians from city counsels to the state legislature digging their heels in to protect their precious power over firearms. I fully expect that police will be just as stubborn. I expect training requirements to be as stringent as is legally allowed, I expect our public servants to do everything in their power to define the requirements as broadly as they can, which means they will do everything they can to make the second amendment as narrow as they can. I also expect that they will prosecute at every opportunity they see. From my perspective they are already doing that, so I don't see that changing other than to push their authority to a point that gives the law abiding some breathing room to actually bear a firearm outside the home.

YubaRiver
03-23-2010, 12:25 PM
With that said, the reason you don't need a license to go rock climbing is that, unlike piloting a motor coach (for which you do need a license) you are unlikely to hurt anybody but yourself if you **** up.

Not true. Your partner(s) is tied to you, and you can get them killed too.
Dislodge a rock at a popular area and you endanger others below. Get
stuck out, and SAR has to risk their lives.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 12:33 PM
What do you mean we!? Do you have a turd in your pocket.:p

Population of California is different than the population of ALASKA! States are comprised of different people as is evidenced by the crime rate, and the politicians we elect.

Californians in general have demonstrated incompetence at a higher rate than other states have. This could effect how we handle issuing mass CCW permits without training. We are not as much of a gun culture here, as Alaska is, and maybe the other states.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 12:50 PM
Californians in general have demonstrated incompetence at a higher rate than other states have. .

And still the accidental death rate from handguns is lower than that for tricycle accidents! Don't you see that you are just begging to give the Anti Shooting & Safety HOpLophobES (A.S.S H.O.L.E.S.), a tool to use against us? You need to curb your deep psychological need to be seen as reasonable and responsible by the A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 1:09 PM
Prerequisite to a CCW?

I think it should be a pre-requisite for a high-school diploma. But hey - that's just me.

This is the best idea in the thread. outside of VT/AK carry.

mjukis
03-23-2010, 1:13 PM
Not true. Your partner(s) is tied to you, and you can get them killed too.
Dislodge a rock at a popular area and you endanger others below. Get
stuck out, and SAR has to risk their lives.

I believe you understood, quite well, what I meant by that statement. However, in the interest of clarification, your partner is free to question your training before attaching the rope, and free to lodge any objections at that time. Ever try lodging an objection to a bullet in flight?

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 1:16 PM
And still the accidental death rate from handguns is lower than that for tricycle accidents! Don't you see that you are just begging to give the Anti Shooting & Safety HOpLophobES (A.S.S H.O.L.E.S.), a tool to use against us? You need to curb your deep psychological need to be seen as reasonable and responsible by the A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S.

Exactly!

:rofl2:

Meplat
03-23-2010, 1:20 PM
Police training qualified hu? Let me get this srtaight. You want a world in which, if four CCW buddies happen to be together and the situation goes south, you wind up with 53 shots fired, the perp dead with five holes in him, and at least one frendly fire casualty?:p


I'm a little late to the conversation but will throw out my 2 cents. I don't believe training is a prerequisite, BUT I think you should have to qualify. Who decides? Well, I'm going to take the easy way out and direct that question to the same place where we send copies of our ffl licenses, the local police chief (department).

If you can pass the same qualifications that officers go through, you get the ccw. If you can afford the gun, you can afford the extra couple of boxes of ammunition to hit the target at whatever yards and the local NRA instructor to get you where you need to be. Thats what I think anyway.

Off-topic, but no qualifications or training required to own and carry weapons on yours or other property in which you have permission of the owner or his/her/their agent.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 1:23 PM
I'm surprised, but more disappointed.

I'm pretty surprised at the poll. Definately expected more 2nd amendment supporters. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

ChuckBooty
03-23-2010, 1:23 PM
Police training qualified hu? Let me get this srtaight. You want a world in which, if four CCW buddies happen to be together and the situation goes south, you wind up with 53 shots fired, the perp dead with five holes in him, and at least one frendly fire casualty?:p

Plus one guy who "thought he was reaching for his tazer...."

Meplat
03-23-2010, 1:34 PM
What I think improves safety is a 'culture' of gun carry. And anything which deters carry amongst the law abiding kills that culture including the 'training' requirements.

Wisdom here.;)

Meplat
03-23-2010, 1:42 PM
In our constitutional republic "the public" cannot take your rights. That's a democracy. And it sucks. If we allow ourselves to sink into a democracy we are doomed.


In much the same way that you need to take a driver's ed class in order to get a driver's license, I feel that there should be some prerequisites for obtaining a CCW. The training should be limited to the following: knoweldge of the law, safe handling/operating of pistol(s), qualification of pistol(s) and an overview of various concealment methods. If we didn't have this, public opinion would turn heavily against us and we could end up losing this right. Besides, who said that training to get a CCW can't be fun. :D

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 2:05 PM
Originally Posted by Liberty1
What I think improves safety is a 'culture' of gun carry. And anything which deters carry amongst the law abiding kills that culture including the 'training' requirements.

Wisdom here.;)

Why would training be a deterrent?

Meplat
03-23-2010, 2:09 PM
Starting with a base that has the mentality of a whipped pup is not politically savvy. We need to be ready to fight for every inch or we will give away the store.

If we start out accepting the idea that the local CLEO has the privilege to decide who is sufficiently trained to be qualified, We are going to be right back to where we are now.

We should start out with an attitude of 'we don't need no stinking training' and maybe settle for:

Private, not government, trainers.

Needs to demonstrate basic knowledge of safe handling rules.

Basic course is less than two hours and can cost no more than four times the minimum wage.

After that further advanced training can be "sold" by the trainers and would probably be taken by many, but not be required.

I believe even this is an infringement, but this is the most I would accept.


Good post with some good thoughts.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 2:14 PM
No sales tax but the property taxes are scarry. It's really weird to shop and actually know how much the bill will be without a calculator!

Not very far from you, on California's northern border, there is a state that seems like a whole different, freer country when it comes to gun ownership. ;)

And, uh, please ignore the weather you see in the video, remember that it is ALWAYS cloudy and rainy here, every day, you don't want to move here! (The natives here make me say that to all Californians. :(:TFH: And I'm not supposed to mention there is no sales tax. Or that vehicle registration is $38.50 a year for all cars and trucks regardless for value. But, uh, remember, you don't want to move here! :p)

n4_EVJ4q52o

Liberty1
03-23-2010, 2:14 PM
Why would training be a deterrent?

Without the government 'training' permission slip one is not exempt from the carry prohibition. It is that criminal statute which deters the law abiding from carrying.

In states where a 'license' is needed to carry only 3-5% jump through the hoops for that permission slip.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 2:15 PM
Wisdom here.;)


If we start out accepting the idea that the local CLEO has the privilege to decide who is sufficiently trained to be qualified, We are going to be right back to where we are now.

We should start out with an attitude of 'we don't need no stinking training' and maybe settle for:

Private, not government, trainers.

Needs to demonstrate basic knowledge of safe handling rules.

Basic course is less than two hours and can cost no more than four times the minimum wage.

After that further advanced training can be "sold" by the trainers and would probably be taken by many, but not be required.

I believe even this is an infringement, but this is the most I would accept.


My sentiments exactly, I'd never go for a gov entity/training facility. I was thinking along the lines of any average basic pistol course(NRA or otherwise) and a simple form the instructor signs promising you completed training in X amount of basics for X amount of time, at your own expense. There are plenty of cheap places to get some very basic training, and it helps support our industry...and people would be better for it.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 2:24 PM
The mountain lion argument is not valid. If a lion (or some other predator) threatens you, your livestock or your dog on your property, it's perfectly legal to shoot it.

Hello??? What are you going to soot it with if you dont have a gun? And what if you like to take walks? Jeez?:rolleyes:

Liberty1
03-23-2010, 2:25 PM
There are plenty of cheap places to get some very basic training, and it helps support our industry...and people would be better for it.

I support training often. I just don't support a mandate.

Messrs. Darwin and Liability LLP will be better societal teachers then the Gov. will ever be. Most people will not carry by choice but they should have the Right should they perceive the need based on personal circumstances (Katrina, LA Riots, Fire Evacuations, or dangerous X-spouse, ect...)

Hogxtz
03-23-2010, 2:29 PM
Not training would be as bad as giving people a license to drive but never teaching them the responsiblities or skills needed to do so safely.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 2:30 PM
Without the government 'training' permission slip one is not exempt from the carry prohibition. It is that criminal statute which deters the law abiding from carrying.

In states where a 'license' is needed to carry only 3-5% jump through the hoops for that permission slip.

It's not a permission slip, it's an education. Everybody would benefit from the knowledge, and if they decide not to arm themselves because they have too much pride to learn how to actually use the gun they want to carry...well thats probably for the better. You know the whole "you're only half as good as your worst day of training when TSHTF" saying, that's not going to change wherever the future of the 2nd takes us.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 2:33 PM
I support training often. I just don't support a mandate.


I get it, I guess thats where our opinions differ. I almost want everybody to have to train, so we can all be BADASS'! :p

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 3:40 PM
Not training would be as bad as giving people a license to drive but never teaching them the responsiblities or skills needed to do so safely.

But you can get a license to drive without taking a government mandated course. I know, I did exactly that.

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 3:42 PM
and if they decide not to arm themselves because they have too much pride to learn how to actually use the gun they want to carry...

But what about the millions who already know how to actually use the gun they want to carry?

You guys are such elitists, "Nobody except for people who have done the same training as me can be trusted to carry a firearm."

Now, how many times have we seen trained people say that lately, and then shoot themselves in the head, leg, table or wherever.

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 3:47 PM
I get it, I guess thats where our opinions differ. I almost want everybody to have to train, so we can all be BADASS'! :p

I'm not interested in being a badass. I just want to be able to carry a firearm beyond my front porch when I think it's necessary.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 3:53 PM
You know, you really need to work on re-wording your Brady talking points. :rolleyes:


In this case, it is the good majority of gunnies who want common sense measures in place to prevent every untrained gang banger and paraniod prescription narcotic using soccer mom from packing heat everywhere legally, without even going through any type of "reasonable process" such as that laid out by the Oregonian.

There is alot of circular reasoning going on here. You cannot say, "those irresponsible types of people are not going to go through the process, only the experienced gun owners will go through the hassle of getting a license."
Then when asked if we should have testing/requirments say, "we should have no process and should be as Alaska/Vermont."

Someone criticized my earlier post, for stating that I believed the populace of Alaska is different from that of California. Numerous others have posted since, explaining why they believe the same as I do. LA and Anchorage are VASTLY DIFFERENT as relating to guns. To compare the 2 is silly. It is not just the number of people who live there, but the TYPE of people.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 3:59 PM
3. I never liked the term "packing heat". I'm sure it was cool when Edward G. Robinson was portraying a mobster, but it's one of those phrases that is like fingernails on a chalk board to me.

I'm that way with "Wild West". It shows ignorance of both contemporary reality in shall issue states and American History.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 4:05 PM
There you go Roadrunner:

You gave an inch and he took a mile and a half.

Can't deal with Brady types.

See my Red Cloud quote below.

Roadrunner, you have just agreed that certain infringements are "good" based on your "common sense". You are right, that phrase is not an accurate one, but you hide behind it's meaning without actually using the phrase itself.

The 2A does not contain exceptions to the right such as criminals, mentally deficient, or underage people (20 year olds can't carry? what about 19,18,17,16,15?) It is obviously up to AMERICANS to decide what are reasonable (again, a relative term) regulations. At this point in time, I personally believe it is reasonable to do as Oregon does, or Florida. Even in many of the other states you listed (Washington for example), they require "infringements" such as an application fee, etc...

The fears of incrementalism are good ones, and pretty convincing actually. But, the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" bit is :beatdeadhorse5: not good as it relates to CCW.

If the major point of the 2A was to allow the populace to be able to rise up and overthrow the government, why does the term "arms" not refer to anything capable of stopping a heavy tank, or of defending against air raids. We cannot have anything explosive (ordinance)? How about uranium tipped rounds?

Sorry, the 2A is an ideal which should be preserved as much as possible, while being responsible. Roadrunner and others believe those rights are rightly limited for mentally "unstable", "underage" (maybe?), certain criminals. You refuse to acknowledge who is qualified to make those determinations. How young is too young for CCW? How crazy does the mentally unstable person have to be? How violent, or irresponsible of a crime must one commit?

I could use the incrementalist arguement against any of those "infringements":

- If we let the government decide who is to "insane" to own guns then....
- If we let the government tell us who is too "criminal" to own guns then.....
- If we let the government tell us who is too young to CCW, then they will eventually expand that age to say....80 years old, therefore preventing most of us from self-defense!

Incrementalism is a valid fear. But, we should just make sure we hold goverment accountable when it goes over the line. We NEED laws. We don't need unreasonable laws. Most people on CALGUNS think training is needed for CCW permit. I am one who thinks this is reasonable. You may be one who thinks it is unreasonable to require anything. I respect that, but don't accuse me of being anti-gun rights and 2nd amendment. I am not stuck up, nor do I believe a LEO is "better" than a "zookeeper". I just believe training and background checks should be required to CCW.....it's just that simple. LEO's are not a concern to me, nor to most other people. If by that, you think that qualifies LEO as being "better", than it is what it is.

steven_m64
03-23-2010, 4:11 PM
i voted for: "Training should be a prerequisite to receiving a CCW"

i think it would be fine as long as:
1. Training is free or very cheap.
2. available training is not hard to find.

Meplat
03-23-2010, 4:12 PM
I have no clue what they call it now.

Socialist indoctrination.

Glock22Fan
03-23-2010, 4:22 PM
i voted for: "Training should be a prerequisite to receiving a CCW"

i think it would be fine as long as:
1. Training is free or very cheap.
2. available training is not hard to find.

3. You don't have to sit for 12+ hours on rickety hard chairs listening to some bumbling idiot who knows less than you treat you like an idiot while rambling on incoherently spouting FUD and BS.



Fixed it for you, based on my Hunter Education course. The price was right, it was easily available, and it completely ruined one of my precious weekends.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 4:24 PM
I'm not interested in being a badass. I just want to be able to carry a firearm beyond my front porch when I think it's necessary.

I'm certain you know that was a joke, I don't think you could ever be a badass. :p;):)

Meplat
03-23-2010, 4:27 PM
There is no problem to fix except in the minds of the antis and a brow beaten
generation who have been brainwashed by the major media.

Why do we have multiple safety rules? Because if you try to follow them all, all the time, you will avoid tragedy, because if you slip on one, or two, the rest will save you. In fact, just one will save you 99.9% of situations: Never point a gun at anything you wouldn't want to destroy! Most of these rules, although we had them drilled into us, and we drill them into our children, and adults we introduce to shooting, are pretty much instinctive to any one with half a brain. It's just not that big a problem. The numbers show it.


This is what I just don't get. If these experienced shooters still get it wrong, why do some people think that a sixteen hour - or even forty hour - training course will fix the problem?

Meplat
03-23-2010, 4:34 PM
Face it: what do you want? CCW permits issued to regular citizens who complete and pass a class, or no CCW permits to CA regular citizens in the name of your interpretation of the 2A? Because that's pretty much the choice here.

You forgot the choice to do what I did for 40 years.

Live free or die.

dirtnap
03-23-2010, 4:43 PM
You forgot the choice to do what I did for 40 years.

Live free or die.

Then what happened...after the 40 years? :p

Meplat
03-23-2010, 4:47 PM
And lets say that training was available through LE only? And the waiting list was 18 months long? And the cost was north of $1,000? And you had to pass a performance test at the end with the LEA the sole arbiter of your qualifications? And you had to do a separate course for each firearm on your permit? And you had to pay it all up front with no assurance you would ever pass? Still all fore it there sport?

If training was the only barrier between CCW, LOC, etc I would be all for it.

psssniper
03-23-2010, 4:48 PM
3. You don't have to sit for 12+ hours on rickety hard chairs listening to some bumbling idiot who knows less than you treat you like an idiot while rambling on incoherently spouting FUD and BS.

Dude I was in that same class ;) After I correctly answered the guys tricky questions, he transitioned to obscure and oddball ones, which I also got. I decided to let he and his ego win just so the rest of the time in class would be survivable and bearable.

Roadrunner
03-23-2010, 4:49 PM
I'm certain you know that was a joke, I don't think you could ever be a badass. :p;):)

I prefer Matthew 10:16 - I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Gotta have teeth to deal with wolves. :D