Oh boy, here we go!
This is a discussion on Mandate qualifing w/carry gun? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Who here feels those who have a carry permit,even in shall issue state should be mandated to qualify with a gun before being able to ...
Who here feels those who have a carry permit,even in shall issue state should be mandated to qualify with a gun before being able to carry it? I ask as i've encountered people at the range who can barely keep the bullets on the target and then tell me its their carry gun. I find this a bit disturbing as if they need that gun they may hit a bystander. I say this because if weapon qulification was mandated,then some yahoo can't carry a 20oz .44 magnum hand cannon they can't even shoot.
Snub nose revolvers,the original concealed carry guns.
I agree with it.
It is not state law in Massachusetts but if you live in Boston and want your LTC, you must qualify at the Boston Police range before they approve your request. I wholeheartedly support this... the last thing I want is some yahoo "accidentally" shooting innocents.
1911, I can see your logic. I kinda agree with it. Sadly, I can't see it as a good thing really. I see 2A saying, Keep and bear arms, meaning I can have it on me. Not the most popular opinion, but its mine. Saying one has to qualify is an infringement. Who sets this standard, or what is the standard? Now some states do so, but usually its in shall issue states that just require you fire a few rounds to know what the weapons recoil and accuracy is like.
So I dont like it, but trust me as a few trips to the local range and the guy with a AK or P90 cant hit the target at 10 yards on the pistol side of the range....
I know not what this "overkill" means.
Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.
The last thing I want is some "yahoo" (who thinks any level of training or quilification can prepare a regular civilian for a life or death situation where rapid drawing and precise shot placement is required) to decided wether or not I "qualify" to have the right to defend myself against death. The last time I checked criminals were not required to "qualify" with their weapons. Quite frankly, I think the whole idea of carry permits is crap because some decent law abiding citizens cannot afford to take the classes and other b.s. bureaucracy required by some states. I'm lucky to live in a state like GA, one of the cheapest and easiest states to get a license, $46 or so depending on what county you live in.
Do you really think that a CCW class or shooting at a stationary target at a range, in the A/C, taking your time (you get the idea), proves anything about what your reaction will be staring down the barrel of some crackhead's gun? If you are worried about some "yahoo" shooting innocent bystanders, then why don't we just take it a step further and ban all carrying of guns. I mean, we don't want any innocent bystanders getting shot out there. You sound like a liberal, talking about needing qualifications and innocent bystanders. Oh yeah, I am one of those people who believe "shall not be infringed" means just that and nothing more.
Yes, we really do need even more restrictive gun laws.
I have seen some folks shooting guns with bullets that I think penetrate way too much.
Those bullets could possibly pass right through walls.
How about nothing over .380 caliber for civilian carry?
We have no such requirements in Pennsylvania.
No oral, written, tests - no class time - no range testing required and our firearm accident rate is the same as or LOWER than most other states and our percentage of citizens with carry licenses is one of the highest in the nation.
PLUS we can actually carry into places that serve alcohol and sit down and eat and legally drink a beer if we want to. OMG!
I am for random searches for no reason as well QKShooter!
We must demonstrate proficiency to drive on public roads and most of us accept that as a part of life. I see no problem with having to prove some minimum of proficiency with a firearm designed to be used in a life or death situation in public. To be honest I'd rather know that the permit holders in my vicinity can handle their weapon(s) well enough to ensure my safety as well as theirs. After all, isn't that what this whole thing is all about? Think about this. In a parking lot a permit holder who legally in what he/she considers self defense, is, because of a lack of ability, missing the assailant and skipping rounds across the pavement toward and/or into your family. Do you return fire to protect yourself and your family? What are the end results? I can see the headlines and can only imagine the courtroom theatrics.
I don't necessarily have an issue with having to qualify with a revolver and a auto, like here in MO, but you shouldn't have to qualify with every gun you carry.
I've got to agree with many of the other posters. The 2nd doesn't say "provided they've passed an appropriate course". Personally, I've taken a number of courses and will continue doing so because I'm always trying to improve my skills, knowledge, etc. I would hope all gun owners, not only CCWers, develop the necessary skills. As far as it being mandatory though, can't say I'm in favor. As someone else said, who decides what the appropriate level of qualification is?
One of the things that made this country great (at the time the 2A was written) was that the majority of its citizens exemplified PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Personal responsibility is necessary so that personal liberty does not have a negative effect on others.
Sorry to say that in this day and age PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is greatly lacking. Instead, we make laws trying to force people to be responsible because they don't do it themselves - it doesn't work very well and we lose our liberty because of it!
We don't need more gun laws or more restrictive gun laws - what we need is more PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
In the context of this post...
If guns owners who have guns for defensive purposes took the personal responsibility to become reasonably competent with their weapons, they would not need laws to force them to do what they should do on their own. Since this is often not the case, they must lose their liberty and have laws forced upon them. A sad legacy for a once great society!
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
It should be mandatory to make sure everyone who carries knows both gun safety and be able to shoot what he or she is aimming at.
Well, in PA. the Sheriffs Department provides a brochure that suggests that folks get qualified training and most folks do.
Or they have somebody that is an experienced shooter (friend, relative, neighbor etc.) take them shooting and work with them/practice.
My gosh folks can't we have a little bit of adult personal responsibility without passing 20 more laws?
Driving is a privilege not a RIGHT.
The 1st Amendment is a RIGHT - We don't pass laws to make certain that people can enunciate their words correctly before they are allowed to speak their mind.
HEY! You talk with a lisp...mandatory speech therapy for you or SHUT UP!
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ