Why should the irresponsible action of a single person (or a few people) impugn the CCW rights of countless others? Just because there are people who drink alcohol, get into a car, and kill people, it does not justify for the government to take away the privilege to drive a car or the right to consume alcohol from the millions of us that drive responsible and consume ETOH responsibly. There will always be people who use items irresponsibly. Heck, there are examples of police officers that flagrantly misuse their firearms and tasers every day, yet nobody is calling for cops to be unarmed. The fact of the matter remains that CCW holders indeed do have to take a firearms class. Asking for a "live fire" drill is absurd, inasmuch as they are not training for a combat mission in Iraq.
The class has little teeth. I am not suggesting mandatory combat training, so that bit is irrelevant. You don't have a right to CCW, it is licensed like driving. Unfortunately it is difficult to fail a CCW class but easy to fail a drivers exam
Just so we're clear, this is a state issue right now. In NH we are not required to complete any classes for our concealed carry license, and I can tell you (as anecdotal as it may be) that we generally don't have problems with CCW holders accidentally shooting someone or really generally causing issues.
My brother in law just took me shooting for the first time. Scary power you can hold haha, but over all I found it exhilarating. I'm from Washington and I don't know our CCW laws but I agree that aim should be factor.
Sssshhhhhhh, don't let the word out or they'll be gone too!!!! I like to coat my Rangers with Teflon just so they kill deader than uncoated bullets....
Yeah, that always gets me. There have been a few debates where the gun control advocates mention something about Teflon bullets being deadlier... of course they can never specify why. We don't have problems because very few CCW holders draw their weapon, and fewer actually fire it. Just because no one has been accidentally shot does not mean that the presence of incompetent shooters is not an inherent problem.
I personally think it should be illegal to carry a concealed weapon over 7 feet long. Other than that, no restrictions.
Well, I stated my points on the subject earlier; I'm just simply not convinced that regulation is needed here, especially regulation that wouldn't actually make anything safer, but rather potentially just limit law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. Take a look at all of the locations without training and there are a few and this just isn't a problem. Lets also not forget about states that have (and are bidding to have) no CCW licensing requirements at all. Bottom line to me is this isn't really a problem and attempts to regulate this non-existent problem in the manner you've described would simply not be effective and could potentially cause more harm than good (as I've previously mentioned). I guess I'll just remain happy that I live in a state that doesn't have such ridiculous and ineffective regulations on constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Nope. Sounds like some personal issues you need to iron out. Let us all know when you find some correlation between hitting a pie plate at 25yds and hitting a man sized target at a closer range under the duress of a self-defense situation. There's a reason why accuracy and proficiency requirements are generally not stringent for CCW's is because setting such a standard would deny a permit to someone for no actual reason. I put 12 rds within a 4.3" group at 25 yards on a standard B-27 silhouette. Guess I'm more proficient than you so I guess I should take issue with you having a permit? Nonsense.
I understand that this issue carries high emotions, but there are just too many problems with the type of regulation you've suggested. Aside from the fact that unless you're training every CCW holder to be duty or combat ready (which is intense training) all you're doing is potentially limiting who is allowed to defend themselves in the way they deem most appropriate (and even if that level of training is your goal, you're still just limiting the right to defend ones self as that level of training is expensive). Basically you're rewriting the Constitution of the United States (and many State Constitutions) to say: yes you're allowed to keep and bear arms, but only if you meet our level of required training that we control (directly or indirectly) and may change on a whim. That simply doesn't fly with me personally, or many others I suspect. Also, even in states with this type of training for CCW, what about Open Carry? Generally speaking there is less regulation around this, and yet, there /still/ isn't a problem. As long as the person in question carrying is obeying the law and not acting as a threat to the people around them while they are carrying, there is no problem with them carrying. I'll reiterate that I think training is a good idea for all firearms owners, but I don't think it should be a government enforced requirement or prerequisite in order to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Also, the fact that a weapon is concealed or not should not have any bearing on Constitutionally guaranteed rights; the only difference between open carry and concealed carry being a single piece of cloth usually.
CCW is not covered by the right to keep and bear arms, and it is already licensed in a way much like cars. The only thing missing are competency requirements. As for open carry, I quite dimply do not view it as a "smart" way of carrying a weapon for self-defense. If you open carry, and someone does decide to do something stupid, you may be one of the first to go along with the security guards. It offers a huge tactical disadvantage. I can run around with a concealed weapon all day (I actually have my M&P40 subcompact in my jacket at the moment) and no one knows. Not so much for open carry.
As stated above, the only difference between CCW and Open Carry is (usually) a piece of cloth. In my opinion it is most certainly covered by the right to keep and bear arms; its just been a long fight for it, and as we're seeing, there are large movements in many states for CCW without any kind of permits (hopefully NH will be next with HB536). I originally brought up Open Carry as a point that even without regulation around that in most (if not all) states that allow it, we're still not seeing a problem. It wasn't about which mode of carry was better. I'm not going to debate the concealed vs open carry issues here as its outside the scope of this discussion, though we should note that there are advantages and disadvantages to both modes of carry. Honestly I carry both ways, depending on variables; there is nothing wrong with either mode of carry, but the whole tactical advantage/disadvantage thing doesn't really fly with me either; but again, that is for another discussion. Also, your statement that CCW is already licensed, much like cars is false as that only applies to certain states. Generally speaking, licensing to drive a vehicle (which is not defined as a natural right guaranteed by the US or any State Constitution that I know of) requires some form of safety course /and/ a practical examination. Some states have no training requirements for CCW. Fill out the form, pass a background check, receive license. Some states only require a basic safety course with no practical for CCW. Basically how to handle a firearm safely. And still other states have /no/ licensing in place at all for CCW; its treated as a natural right like Open Carry is in many states; you can just do it.
I'm sorry, but unless someone is behaving in an unsafe manner with a firearm, this is not making us look bad. Simply put: there just isn't a problem with this and even if there was, this type of regulation is not the answer. I believe most people who do carry practice to a reasonable degree with their firearms. Those that don't practice, aren't going practice. Marksmanship is a skill that needs to be maintained and doing it just enough to qualify does not mean that person will maintain it. Basically, you've described an issue with a very limited and rare scope that hasn't proven to be a problem currently and would like to solve it with potentially heavy-handed regulation that I don't believe actually impacts the problem as you've described very well (though, it does lend itself to possible corruption, as I've stated previously). In my opinion: leave it be; we don't need more regulation on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Especially regulation that could easily be twisted to keep people from being able to protect themselves and loved ones. I think a better way to impact this, aside from what I've laid out in earlier posts, is to be vocal about and to support user training. Maybe even setting up some kind of free basic firearms safety courses for people who want to learn. You can't force people to learn, but you can provide them with the tools to do so.
As I have said many times before, the only way to ensure people obtain the necessary training is through mandate. As I have said a dozen times already, just because no one has died does not mean a problem does not exist.!
Funny thread. Well, it can be argued that training is essential for handling a weapon. I live in a state that does not require training and you will find new gun owners time and again, ask for training. There are always classes available. All you have to do here to gain a License to Carry Handgun is apply and prove you are a proper person, someone that is not a felon or habitual drunk and a few other things that escape me now. The blanket mandate of government requiring training before getting a carry license would force my daughter through a class she would not need as she was trained well on weaponry in the Marines. Someone said why pass a law for a problem that does not exist and I have to agree with that. The reason we have many laws on the books that limit law abiding citizens is not because law abiding citizens were the problem, one of them being gun control like the AWB or even the registration of machine guns, but because of do-gooders over reaction and the wish to control other people to make themselves feel safe. All a law like that does is to use government monopoly to force people to spend money on something that will affect nothing. Getting as much training as cops? In many shootouts the cops often do worse than the perp because the perps practice more. I know of one cop that the only time he shoots his weapon is for qualification and does not even take care of his weapon. In most states, you can carry a long gun without any license. In Vermont you don't need a license to carry a handgun and you don't hear that Vermont is the OK Corral. Even now, statistics show gun violence has gone down during a time of increased gun ownership. We have laws against gun violence that don't stop gun violence so why do you think that a law forcing training would accomplish it's goal?
A fair and rational approach, really. A win/win because everybody gains, including the gun owner. The Framers had great regard for a well regulated militia, "regulated" meaning well-trained. this would fall nicely in line with this.
As stated previously, there are many problems with this type of regulation. Forgetting for a second that this is a state issue, I believe the impact that this type of regulation would actually have is minimal at best and potentially destructive to our rights at its worse (see prior posts where I touch on both of these points). The gun owner does not gain as they are now forced to apply and pay for additional "training", mandated by the state. As stated previously, marksmanship is a skill that must be maintained and it doesn't take much to practice just enough to pass these types of skill tests and then never practice again until you have to re-qualify. I've even known some people who I've taken shooting that display excellent marksmanship their first time out, but then fall apart on their second trip. I believe that there is no way to reasonably regulate this type of training where it would be effective and not interfere with individual rights. Additionally, the amount of training (as stated previously) that would be required for this to make an impact is incredibly significant and would require continuous maintenance - this is simply not realistic and highly corruptible if force as a mandate. If you want to impact this (as stated) incredibly rare and unlikely case, there are better ways. Rather than trying to force regulation that wouldn't have much of an impact on this particular case as defined, why not support subsidized or free training options for firearm owners? Basic safety courses have a far greater impact on overall gun safety and carry. What about supporting enforcing tougher laws around crimes and negligence? For your last point, I don't want to get into a huge discussion about the precise meaning and interpretation of the US Constitution's 2nd amendment as doing so is not relevant to this topic; however, you can not attach the well-regulated militia context to the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. This was reaffirmed by DC vs Heller; specifically where the ruling states: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. They of course go on to elaborate on this point and how the idea was basically to "...to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms...". I don't think I can make my points any more clear, so this is where I'll leave it. If you have any counter points, please see my previous posts as I'm pretty sure at this point, I've addressed them.
Paid for by a surtax on gun purchases perhaps? Citation?........... Anything? There could be pluses and minuses to that approach, but there is NO reason why it needs to be a choice between the two. This is called a false dichotomy. I am well aware of 'Heller' and the Opinions in it. I was NOT however making a Constitutional argument as evidenced by my own words: "The Framers had great regard for a well regulated militia, "regulated" meaning well-trained. this would fall nicely in line with this." You feel this suggested mandate to be both burdensome and unconstitutional. I do not.
This whole thread is irrelevant. You want a solution to a problem only you perceive exists. This is a steaming pile too. This concept hardly works in the military yet you think it could be applied to civilian CCW courses? Laughable. You have any studies or conclusive evidence to support such a claim? Not even logical to state that mandated training = proficiency.
And as most of us have told you a dozen times or so, your proclaiming a problem does not a problem make...
No such formal research has been performed on the subject. However I doubt very seriously you will find an instructor who will claim that less training is better. Perhaps I should have asked my instructor for my advanced NRA courses to untrain me? I guess peppering a target at three yards is indeed better than a dinner plate at 25yds.
