This is a discussion on Mandate qualifing w/carry gun? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Okay blackjack. That's why I said "most of us". As soon as you get your drivers license paid for by the state you can start ...
Okay blackjack. That's why I said "most of us". As soon as you get your drivers license paid for by the state you can start to work on the carry license fees. As for the lack of relevance/quality of the process. Good luck dealing with the unlicensed eight year old kids that can't see over the dash and the eighty year old seniors that can't see past the hood. Talk about mayhem. The same processes apply. The eight year old packing to school and the eighty year old with memory disfunction who thinks a family member is a threat come to mind almost immediately.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
majorlk. I guess we're gonna beat that animal as long as it keeps rearing its head. I agree that it shouldn't be necessary. It's kinda like fishing. When you feel the tug you just gotta react.
Each and every gun? I say no.
The ccw class here has a shooting phase, that is enough.
People should be trained to practice with their carry gun, but let's not get into some philosophical debate about what dangerous things could happen. That is the logic used by those who oppose the Second Amendment.
I think everyone should voluntarily go through a training course but to mandate it just gives away more of our rights to those who don't want us to have, much less carry guns.
ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
It should be totally voluntary whether you "qualify" prior to getting your permit. It proves absolutely nothing. Many people who have to qualify to get a permit shoot only that one time, then never shoot again, or go years between shooting.
Next thing they'll want you to qualify every time you renew your permit, then since they got away with that why not make it an annual requirement. Then why not just make you shoot the same course that LEO's qualify on.
I think it's a bad idea.
Why on earth? When criminals need to start qualifying, I'll qualify. It would just become one more over regulated, over taxed, over governmental bureaucratic nightmare for the law abiding citizens to deal with.
Does My Wallet Make Me Look Fat? It shouldn't because Obama is taking all my money.
If you need to outshoot Delta Force while the cops only need not to shoot themselves... three out of five tries, count me out.
Here in Ohio, the CHL course is basically the NRA Basic Pistol course. Hitting the target, and not yourself or a bystander is more than enough qualification just to get the CHL.
Showing basic proficiency with a firearm, as is done in TX, is more than enough. The shooting phase basically shows the ability to safely handle a handgun.
"Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston
NRA Life Member
While I agree that qualifying is a good idea, I take a very strong objection to the comment of your post. I've had my new hand cannon for a week and a half and I'm only learning to shoot it, but I promise, I'll try to get better.
Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.
To the OP...
RKBA makes no reference to any qualification crap.
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
I agree with the minimum qualification standard. I disagree with no standard. I also disagree with zero cost. How much taxpayer money do we want to spend in what manner? Whether we pay for testing or pay to clean up the mess made by those we don't test the cost to the average citizen has got to be a wash. There ain't no free lunches folks. Sooner or later we pay.
If I have to qualify with every handgun I want to carry, the RO better pack a lunch.
No. More excessive regulation that will incrementally make it more difficult and more costly for law-abiding gun owners to legally protect themselves, while criminals laugh and scoff at the additional restrictions.
The lawmakers have interfered enough already.