Mandate qualifing w/carry gun? - Page 3

Mandate qualifing w/carry gun?

This is a discussion on Mandate qualifing w/carry gun? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Don't take offense Rugergirl. Unfortunately, these days, you're the exception to the rule. It's the people that buy a gun for its looks and shells ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 104

Thread: Mandate qualifing w/carry gun?

  1. #31
    Member Array llongshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Deep Southern Illinois
    Posts
    276
    Don't take offense Rugergirl. Unfortunately, these days, you're the exception to the rule. It's the people that buy a gun for its looks and shells by eaches to have enough to fill a mag and think they're equal to law enforcement that scare me.


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array dairycreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Plains, Oregon
    Posts
    641
    The right to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed under our constitution. To let a government agency determine who can or can't carry is like letting the "nose of the camel under the tent"! Who sets the competency requirement? Some anti gun yahoo bureaucrat? Not for me! Not for Americans!
    GOOD SHOOTING
    ALWAYS PROTECT YOUR VISION AND HEARING
    De gustibus non est disputandem

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array Rugergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by grady View Post
    Good shooting there, Rugergirl.

    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.

    No.

    Hell no.

    The lawmakers have interfered enough already.
    Thanks Grady.
    I know about that pack a lunch thing, but what is qualifing, and who sets the standards. When I took my MI CPL class we had to hit an 8.5 by 11" piece of paper with 70% of our shots.
    That to me isn't qualifying. I st my own standards, if I can't shoot 3" or smaller groups, consistantly at 21 feet, I don't carry that particular gun until I can. Who decides what "the standard" should be?
    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.

  4. #34
    Member Array GoldenSaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by llongshot View Post
    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.
    Your kidding right? Unless I am misunderstanding you, you disagree with having NO standard? In my other words, you believe there should be training? In my opinion that is vote for regulation. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment doesn't stipulate "training" or "proof" of proficiency to own a gun or to carry. We have given up our rights and allowed this to happen over time. However, once again the burden is placed upon law abiding citizens to conform while Joe Jabrony can pick a $50 Saturday night special and off he goes with it tucked in his pants. I am sure most of them are probably qualifying in the back alleys and such, we just don't see them.

    testing, or whatever other term you want to call it, is just another way to let someone else decide what you can and can't do. Next, it will be the 1st Amendment. Don't use proper grammar, don't spell good, not articulate? We'll test you. If you don't pass you don't get to write or say what you want.
    __________________________
    Does My Wallet Make Me Look Fat? It shouldn't because Obama is taking all my money.

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    [sarcasm]

    And testing for unbiased reporting ability before being allowed to report the news (print of over the air).

    And government approved training and testing before being allowed to preach in church.

    And government vetting before being allowed to assemble.

    And government vetting of all grievances prior to them being presented.

    [/sarcasm]

    Post abuse legal action (e.g., criminal trials for child pornography, after the fact; post speech tort liability for defamatory speech or publications, i.e., slander and libel, after the fact; criminal trials for exciting to riot, after the fact; etc) works for the 1st amendment.

    Why should the Second be subject to prior-restraint pre-abuse vetting, if the First is not?



    BTW -- see http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ska-model.html

    BTW2 -- On a practical side (in addition to the constitutional issue) I challenge any who are pro-mandatory training/proficiency to cite any evidence that there are any less revocations of CHP or any less crime committed by CHP holders in those States w/ mandatory training/proficiency than in those States w/o mandatory training/proficiency. If it makes no difference, why do you want to waste tax $s administering a worthless make-people-feel-good requirement; and at the same time play into the hands of the anti RKBA forces who will keep upping the requirements -- first initial mandatory training/proficiency; then periodic mandatory retraining/retesting for proficiency on ever gun you own/want to carry; then because of the higher cost to meet the need of a shrinking percent of the population, higher fees for more frequent mandatory retraining/retesting for proficiency; etc.; etc.

    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  6. #36
    Member Array DarylW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Southeast Arizona
    Posts
    123
    I in NO WAY want the government to start charging us more, and creating more regulations on firearms ownership and/or carry.

    Here in Arizona we have to qualify with "a handgun" in order to get our CCW permit. I have no problem with that, since qualification is part of the CCW course.

    Open carry here doesn't require a permit, and I don't think it should.

    How many times have we heard of a good guy missing a perp and hitting a bystander? It doesn't happen often, and I can't think of even one instance of it here.

    So, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

    Folks like to quote the 2nd, and it's what ensures our right to carry, but it says nothing about the government requiring qualification.

    Encourage people to shoot more, and teach others when you have the opportunity and feel it's needed.

    Those politicians passing laws know far less about firearms than most of us do, so don't ask them to fix something that isn't broken.

    Daryl

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Array StevePVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,152

    Cha ching

    Florida has issued about 540,000 CWPs and there is a backlog for another 95,000. Suppose the politicians latch onto this a a great way to bring in additional revenue (of couse it will be sold as a safety program).

    Next month our driver's license fees go to $48. I'm sure they would want at least that much for a "qual fee". There's a quick $30+ million at only one gun per CWP. I think we all know the next step -- qual for every gun you own (just in case you might carry it). Of course, that would be followed by a qualifying for every gun and gun owner in the state.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    7,065
    I'm in Ga, we don't have to qualify to carry. I have thought about it from time to time and to honest, I'd say yes, even if it meant I would have to do it before my next renewal.
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson

  9. #39
    Member Array Dakota97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeast
    Posts
    363
    Here you go, I inserted the part that the authors of the Constitution left out. I'm sure they meant to insert it, I guess they just forgot.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms If they pass a qualification on how to use it, shall not be infringed.
    NRA life member.

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    In SC we have to pass a written and shooting test, I see nothing wrong with this, even if the 2A says nothing about qualifing. I think it just makes good sense. If I had the money I would seek out additional training, and I am hoping things go well enough the rest of this year to alow me to do so.

  11. #41
    Distinguished Member Array Squawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas NV
    Posts
    1,614
    I disagree with mandatory qualification, for reasons already explained by many people, so I won't waste space listing them yet again. Unfortunately, Nevada not only requires qualification, but requires it with every gun that you want to carry, with one exception. That's really a pain in the butt, especially when you purchase a new pistol. In that case, you need to go to a range and practice, just to feel comfortable with it, then you have to qualify, which does not have to be done on a police range. I usually qualify at the same place that I bought the pistol. Then, you need to take the signed form to the police, Fill out an app, then wait for someone to call you to a window. Then, you have to wait for 2 weeks or so for your new permit to be sent to you. You can't carry your new gun until the new permit arrives, because each pistol that you can carry is listed on the back of your permit. I currently have 5 on the list, soon to be 6. The exception that I mentioned is revolvers. You qualify with any revolver, and you can then carry any revolver you like, no need to qualify with each one. Why? I haven't clue. But having to qualify with each gun is ridiculous. That's about all that I can say bad about Nevada's gun laws, as overall, they are quite good. If they would only change the requirements to qualifying with a revolver, if you intend to carry on, and/or a pistol. Even better would be to eliminate qualification entirely.

  12. #42
    Member Array MTee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UpState, South Carolina
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by shooterX View Post
    In SC we have to pass a written and shooting test, I see nothing wrong with this, even if the 2A says nothing about qualifing. I think it just makes good sense. If I had the money I would seek out additional training, and I am hoping things go well enough the rest of this year to alow me to do so.
    Right! It is 8 hours classroom training and 50 rounds shooting into a B27 target from three to fifteen yards.

    I'm planning on additional training. In my area they have a level 2 handgun which is after you take your CWP training. Then there's the defensive training. I hope to take both in the near future.


    MTee
    Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec SS .45
    Springfield XD Service 9mm
    Taurus Mil-Pro PT111 9mm
    NRA Member

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array BkCo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,102
    We should not have to have any stinking permits. We certianly don't need to prove we are qualified to defend ourselves.
    ILongshot, You have lived to long in a repressive state. You have been brainwashed. You need to move to the free world.

    Semper Fi

  14. #44
    Member Array GoldenSaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by MTee View Post
    Right! It is 8 hours classroom training and 50 rounds shooting into a B27 target from three to fifteen yards.

    I'm planning on additional training. In my area they have a level 2 handgun which is after you take your CWP training. Then there's the defensive training. I hope to take both in the near future.


    MTee
    I applaud you for doing the right thing for "you". However, the OP asked if it should be mandatory. Being smart about it and being required are different things altogether. In my opinion, it shouldn't be required on any level, but being smart I have sought out and recieved additional training.
    __________________________
    Does My Wallet Make Me Look Fat? It shouldn't because Obama is taking all my money.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array Divebum47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    763
    That's a true dichotomy. On the one hand, a government mandate obviates the 2nd Amendment (in my opinion). On the other hand, the use of anything which is potentially lethal should have some sort of qualifying attached.

    Too bad we can't follow the Scuba industry. The only government involvement there is with the air tanks. DOT regulates compressed gas containers. The Scuba industry is pretty much self regulatory. If you don't have a Certification card, a reputable shop will not fill tanks or sell or rent life support equipment. Life support equipment is defined as tanks and regulators, or any other equipment which delivers breathing air at depth. The certifying agencies, while using different curricula, all comply with agreed upon standards in the instruction of basic techniques, proof of mastery of basic skill sets and the issuance of Certification cards.

    Unfortunately, should the government get involved, it would lead to the demise of the sport in my opinion.
    "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored 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. Typo in Law Establishes Mandate to Lock Gun-Toting Train Passengers in Boxes
    By miklcolt45 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2009, 11:20 AM
  2. Mandate Training Thread... Another go around...
    By GoldenSaber in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 01:02 AM
  3. Round 2: We can't legislate it, we'll mandate it
    By Rob72 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 04:22 PM
  4. I mandate this for all anti's.
    By P95Carry in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 6th, 2007, 01:42 AM
  5. Your ideal CCW mandate?
    By P95Carry in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2006, 10:55 AM