Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good? - Page 4

Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good?

This is a discussion on Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey You have no problem with the idea that there are some people who may want or need a concealed firearm and ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61

Thread: Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good?

  1. #46
    Member Array bowserb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas USA
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    You have no problem with the idea that there are some people who may want or need a concealed firearm and a license to carry it, but who can't easily come up with $250 on top of the cost of the gun? Why should it be so expensive? To keep out the poor, who shouldn't be able to have guns?
    As a matter of fact, the Texas application fee for the initial 4-year license is $140. For applicants 60 years or older it is $70. For the "poor" it is free. However, all applicants must pass an approved course consisting of ten hour of classroom plus a written test and range test. The cheapest courses I could find were around $90, but most were in the $125-$150 range.

    Value of the course? The one I took was an excellent introduction to the laws of Texas pertaining to where one may or may not carry a gun, as well as the personal, legal, and psychological implications of actually shooting someone. That was worthwhile. As to the shooting test, well consider this. I took the class along with my wife, my daughter, and my son in law.

    Of our group, my son in law was the most experienced with guns and handguns especially, growing up in a hunting and shooting family. I'm a veteran, but as an ordinary grunt, my only Army training or experience was with rifles and grenade launchers--never a handgun. My wife fired a 9mm about 15 years ago about ten rounds. My daughter had never fired a gun--rifle or handgun--prior to our 15 minute orientation to holding a handgun. To make a long story short, we all passed.

    Texas renewals require a classroom "refresher" every four years, followed by another range test. The renewal application is half price, as are most renewal classes.

    After reading here, I think Texas costs are excessive and the renewal class requirement a bit extreme, however, some states may not take licensing seriously enough. I think the qualification for a handgun license should be comparable to another popular lethal weapon: automobiles. Written test on the road rules and laws, followed by a driving test for first time licensee. There is no requirement for formal education, but you must pass the tests. Handgun licenses could be similar.

    Just one more opinion in a world short of opinions!


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array MNBurl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,019
    Great idea and all state should to have a base understanding that everyone should have. I did like and learn a lot from my MN carry class!
    MNBurl

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    You have no problem with the idea that there are some people who may want or need a concealed firearm and a license to carry it, but who can't easily come up with $250 on top of the cost of the gun? Why should it be so expensive? To keep out the poor, who shouldn't be able to have guns?
    No, I have no problem with the way Texas does it's license. I think that is why I started my post with.

    "I have no problem with the way that Texas does their's."

    I don't think it has anything to do with keeping the poor from carrying a concealed weapon, it is simply the cost of processing the paperwork doing federal background checks etc.. Here you just don't go down to the local p d or sherrifs dept and get it from them.

    One thing I did leave out is that if you want to carry a semi auto, you must qualify with a semi auto. That will allow you to carry either a semi auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver, that is all you can carry, you cannot carry a semi auto. There is also a caliber restriction when you qualify, you can't do it with anything smaller than a .32 caliber I believe. Other than that, you don't have to list what weapon your going to carry or anything, you carry what you want after you obtain the license, and can change when you feel free to.

    Some may disagree with the way Texas or any other state does their licenses or what is required as far as testing or proficiency, but I believe someone has already stated it here, that we all have accepted some amount of restrictions in carrying a concealed handgun or we would not have applied for the license and followed our own states rules. That is unless you choose to concealed carry without a license and are breaking the law, then I guess your just exercising your right as you see it in the constitution and the state at some point may exercise their right to enforce their laws and prosecute you for your actions.

    I prefer to follow the laws of my state and don't have any problem in doing so. I guess if you want little or no restriction you should move to Vermont or Alaska and not Texas.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  4. #49
    Member Array JJ573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    37
    First off, I want to genuinely thank the original poster of this thread.

    I was in the process of writing a very long post about how I did not believe that 2A protected what we now consider CCW. However, as I laid out my thoughts/arguments...I changed my own mind. There is no doubt in my mind, now, that the intent (and even the letter) of the 2A can easily and logically be translated as an allowance for a group of capable citizens to act in the protection/defense of the state/general population.

    For this thought provoking quest, I am in your debt.

    However, I must point out that this protection was intended, by the writers of the "Bill of Rights" (as well as the rest of the Constitution), to be from the FEDERAL government. Unfortunately for us, this does not stop the states (and obviously, it doesn't work too well with the federal either) from forming their own rules about guns/ownership.

    Having said that, I have no problem with requiring anyone wishing to take on this responsibility (I use this word, as apposed to 'right', for a reason) to demonstrate at least a moderate level of proficiency with this tool. And for those of you who disagree...

    Would you be O.K. with just allowing anyone tall enough to reach the pedals to drive, without any kind of training, testing, oversight?

    How about working around large or dangerous equipment? Would you be O.K. with hiring just anyone off the street and putting them in charge of the machine next to you (endangering you and others around you) with no training/instruction? I once worked for an oil drilling company, around many large and dangerous machines, gasses, etc. It did not take me long to figure out that a large number of the guys I worked with were higher than the Goodyear blimp. I was NOT O.K. with this situation.

    You get the idea. Yes, most 'good' people would get this training/instruction on their own. But, if just anyone could get a CCW, then why would you assume that only 'good' people would want to? Should the rest of the crowd be openly allowed to endanger the rest of us?

    You may be thinking, well those that aren't 'good' would never get passed the background check. Well, if there should be no restrictions on gun ownership or CCW, then why would there even BE a background check? You cant have your cake and eat it too. Either there are some restrictions on this RIGHT, or there aren't.
    Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).

  5. #50
    Member Array Slider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S Dakota
    Posts
    126
    The 2A says keep and bare arms, not a hint of training!in there.
    this right like others requires the PERSON to take the responsibility to provide the arms and the ability to use same. (IMO) No dam PC crap eather!!

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    ...But I believe someone has already stated it here, that we all have accepted some amount of restrictions in carrying a concealed handgun or we would not have applied for the license and followed our own states rules.
    We have accepted "some amount of restrictions" because it's the only game in town, not necessarily because we agree with them. The other option is, as you said, to carry utterly without a license, which subjects us to felony charges.

    It is a specious statement to say that just because we agree to some (unpleasant) restrictions, we must be predisposed to accepting any restrictions.

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey View Post
    It is a specious statement to say that just because we agree to some (unpleasant) restrictions, we must be predisposed to accepting any restrictions.
    If you can point out where I said you should accept "any" restrictions I would like to see that.

    I did say however that if you didn't like Texas law, don't move here, or if you want lesser restrictions there are other places you can go.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    There is no doubt in my mind, now, that the intent (and even the letter) of the 2A can easily and logically be translated as an allowance for a group of capable citizens to act in the protection/defense of the state/general population.

    For this thought provoking quest, I am in your debt.

    However, I must point out that this protection was intended, by the writers of the "Bill of Rights" (as well as the rest of the Constitution), to be from the FEDERAL government. Unfortunately for us, this does not stop the states (and obviously, it doesn't work too well with the federal either) from forming their own rules about guns/ownership.
    I disagree, and here's why:

    I don't see how you can say that the Second Amendment limits what the federal government can do, but does not limit the states. I believe that the things that the Bill of Rights forbids government from doing trickle down to lower, more local government bodies.

    The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not specify federal or local governments, but it is understood that if the federal government can't, neither can the states, neither can your town.

    For that matter, regarding the First Amendment, the amendment specifically prohibits CONGRESS from making laws regarding establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, the press, or speech. Does that mean you fear that your STATE government could just decide to clamp down on free speech or religion?

  9. #54
    Distinguished Member Array USPnTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,760
    I have to say I am the first to stand up and yell "foul" when I feel that my 2A rights are being stepped on...however, when it comes to including a training component for the issuance of a CHL - I go back and forth. In fact, I feel much like a yo-yo. Should we as a society dumb things down to the lowest common denominator or should we we expect that people will be smart enough to take care of themselves? LOL - Unfortunately, I think history has proven that the LCD theory is much safer.

    My last renewal class I attended had not one but two individuals (now remember these two folks were at a renewal class - having had their CHL's for four years prior) who placed their ammo backwards into their magazines. Then yelled how their guns didn't work anymore. I understand the logic that says "I have the right to carry and no one can take that away from me" but geez, if you can't you can find your a.s.s. from a hole in the ground should you really be able to carry a weapon?

    My instructor also did something that I found very enlightening. He asked for individuals that would be scoring a perfect score on the test to raise their hands. Out of a class of 16 - four people raised their hands. You guessed it two of the four that raised their hands were the two idiots that couldn't load their mags properly. The other two were really lucky to even hit the target.

    With all that said, what I'm trying to say is that while I agree that firearms ownership is right and not a privilege; you should have to exhibit a certain level of proficiency. If you don't have it; then you should work your tail off to achieve it.
    "Do not fear those who disagree with you; fear those that do and are too cowardly to admit it" - Napoleon

  10. #55
    Senior Member Array afeazell21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    627
    +1 for UPSnTX
    "Dont be afraid to go after what you want to do, and what you want to be. But don't be afraid to be willing to pay the price." - Lane Frost

  11. #56
    New Member Array AFDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    1

    Training vs Demonstration of Proficiency

    Nebraska just passed it's CCW law, State Patrol is still working out the requirements for the required training. I lean more against required training because this tends to keep CCWs from folks who aren't able to pay for the classes (common in Texas from what I hear.) I think it would be more reasonable to require some sort of written test to cover the state & local laws concerning CCW, and then a quick practical to demonstrate that your not going to be a hazard to those around you, both at minimal cost. Most CCW folks seem to be enthusiasts, so it wouldn't be a problem for most applicants. The practical test makes sense to me, based on my personal observations of some of the knuckleheads at the indoor range I shoot at (seems to be a lot of little round holes in the ceiling!)

  12. #57
    Member Array steve63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    166
    I agree 100% to mandatory military service for at least two years. Not just for the use of weapons but the discipline that I believe is needed to carry a weapon responsibly.

  13. #58
    Senior Member Array .45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by steve63 View Post
    I agree 100% to mandatory military service for at least two years. Not just for the use of weapons but the discipline that I believe is needed to carry a weapon responsibly.
    I agree but it must be for everyone and all should serve equally, no cushy postings for the privledged.

    Joe the Senators son and Phil the Doctors son should serve alongside Mo the Trashmans son and perform the same duties.
    At that point interested candidates for Officer and NCO should be allowed to apply for professional status,

    Can't build a statue with clay feet.
    PC has become the term for Political Cowardice.

  14. #59
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,515
    When I mentioned mandatory military service I did mean everybody. Everyone is to service in whatever capacity that they are suited for or is most needed. By this I mean that if you are blind you are still capable of doing most types of paper work etc.... Maybe not nesscarily military maybe something like the CCC from the 30's to do public works. I agree with peacefuljeffery in that we have gotten soft. That a majority of people in our great country feel they are owed something. They forget that freedom is earned including the right to CCW. I think an education is basic firearm safety is a must for everyone, I have a problem with it being required. If you wanted to prohibit something you can keep putting loops that must be jumped through. You still have the right, just can not meet the requirements to express that right. How many of us have a class 3 weapon and how many want one? We can own one, if we go through the process, how many of us will?
    Last edited by pgrass101; October 26th, 2006 at 11:59 AM.

  15. #60
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by ELCruisr View Post
    In FL we can show proficiency by military training, membership in a shooting program such as IPSC, IDPA, etc or by attending a class.

    As for basic legal knowledge I'm amazed how many ccw'ers don't fully understand the laws in their own state! Again, potentially serious ammo for the anti crowd.

    This is the strategy I think I agree with most. I see it as the same thing as a driver's license...prove you are proficient (either by test or by previous experience) enough to not be a danger to others.

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    Regulating rights is bad imo.
    I don't see this as regulating a right...I see it as regulating the exercising of a right. I agree that the right (to bear arms) is overly regulated today in that you are not allowed to bear them in many places under any circumstances. However, assuming your state properly gives you the right as designated in the Constitution, they have the ability to set reasonable common good limits on it.

    For instance, the state cannot keep you from exercising your right to free speech, but they can require that you have a permit before your march on the capitol shuts down traffic. They cannot keep you from practicing your religion, but they can keep you from performing human sacrifices. Every "right" in the Constitution - whether explicit or implicit - has limitations and the 2nd is and should be no different.

    Where the difficulty comes in is that anti's try to limit the RIGHT by placing burdensome and uncessary limitations on it. However, I am not like some on this board who believe that there is a slippery slope (or camel nose in the tent). If the regulation makes sense to a common sense, non-extremist, I am not opposed. And I am totally OK with the state wanting to ensure you know which end the bullet comes from!

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    It's great that people get the training, but let's be honest, did any of us really learn any kind of firearms safety from our CCW courses? We learned legalities and that's it.
    Sure, people that comes to CombatCarry.com are likely to know what we are doing. We spend the time and are interested in the subject. That isn't necessarily the case with people who are currently deterred from getting the license by a $100 weekend class. "We" are a bad sample from which to draw conclusions about the population as a whole. Just read the entry screen to this forum:

    "Do we have an interest in the tools we carry to defend ourselves? Yes. Are we gun nuts? No...With very few exceptions, we are the good guys."



    Now, of course, I am in the extreme minority here in that I do not believe that the 2A gives us the unregulated right to mount TOW missles on our vehicles, so my view that some regulation may not be totally bad is likely to ellicit a negative response, but that's my $.02.


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Fire Mission: Poll - Should SC drop Concealed Weapons Permit Requirement?
    By JPCleary in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: February 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM
  2. Minnesota Carry Permit Training @ Burnsville Pistol Range?
    By fmcgraw in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2010, 07:06 PM
  3. AZ Bill - Does No Background check & no Training requirement lead to more CC.
    By hayzor in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 1st, 2010, 07:35 PM
  4. Can a training requirement be made reasonable?
    By kazzaerexys in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 03:00 PM
  5. Upcoming Training Course - Multi-State Permit
    By WAPS in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 21st, 2006, 08:06 AM

Search tags for this page

maine castle doctrine explained

Click on a term to search for related topics.