More stringent Qualification for Permits

[GM]

What the gov gives...the gov can take away, in a heartbeat. Carefull what you ask for...

-----------------------------------------------
To the OP...
I would not want any elderly person (of sound mind) without the ability to have a weapon in the home, regardless of training.
It's RKBA, not RKBA w/Training.OMO

That is exactly the way it is!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[rottkeeper]

We have more restrictions now than the constitution allows. Why would we want more?

[agentmel]

Nearly all government policies have the exact opposite effect of their stated intent. Prohibition, TARP, DARE, The Federal Reserve, gun laws, welfare, etc.

There should be no qualifications for a weapon permit. There should, in fact, be no permits. If you want to carry a gun, you should be able to go buy one or 1,000, right this minute, with no background check, waiting period, or taxes. You should be able to buy any kind of gun, with any kind of ammo, with any type of action (semi-, full-, etc...). You should be able to carry that weapon in any manner you choose, whether open, concealed, strapped across your back, or mounted in the bed of your pickup.

It is only when a person commits an actual aggression (or threat thereof) against the person or property of another that he should face any "law" of any kind covering any subject.

If we just have to make something more stringent, let's get more stringent standards for elected officials. Or, you know, any standards at all.

Mel

[Phantoms]

He applied at age 79 did the paper work,backround check,Paid and with NO training at all got his permit.

Are you referring to the permit that gave him back his American Birthright? That right that the constitution says should not be infringed in the first place?

[maddyfish]

actually [B][I]you have a right to travel freely....

Travel yes. Drive a car no.

You have two feet. You have every right to use them.

[aric]

I know for the most part the majority of us are properly qualified to carry,and most of us do our part,keeping up as best we can with professional classes as well as going to the ranges as much as possible etc.
but there a small percentage that adds up that few of us think about,and they can be as lethal as the bad guy! There not some young drug crazed kid,it's people you and I would never expect and there getting permits everyday without any form of training.Our beloved Senior Citizens that had military service back when they were young!
I hate to be the whistler blower on this one,but it's something that someone has to look at before a tragedy happens. My father in law now 80 was able to obtain a CCW without any formal or informal training,not even a safety course,because back when he was 18 he was a cook in the Service.I could understand somewhat if he was infantry and had alot of weapons training but he was a cook if he had a week of small arms training he had alot. after the service he never touched a gun,never hunted,nothing!He applied at age 79 did the paper work,backround check,Paid and with NO training at all got his permit.
Now at his age senility is setting in for one,I have tried to teach him safety and the proper way to handle a gun,(nearly getting shot on several occasions) and have been temporarily thrown out of his house for as he say's disrespecting him for stating he doesn't know how to use his own gun!I have tried talking to family members only to have a family fued start and you know who the bad guy is! Go figure,but this is my fight for now! what concerns me is the thousands of elderly Vets out there just like him,I'm sure he's not the only one.
How many nice older gents are out there,that think there doing the right thing,but God forbid they draw to help someone and with out the proper training,they shoot and kill the wrong person(s),They go to jail,and there going to be liable for something that some guide lines should have been in place to avoid!Something for us all to think about.The next time your out,be a little more on guard about the little old man over your right shoulder,he means well,but......................does he even have any training?
I hope I didn't offend any one it wasn't my intention! Good luck and Stay Safe

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

[JRI]

I'll agree it should be a family not government problem. However, even in a state that requires nothing more than an application, I can't believe that a person who is senile or in some other way a public danger MUST be issued a permit.

If you really believe that anyone is that bad you can report it to the issuing authority. They could investigate the report and if they agree revoke the permit.
No doubt you will really be the bad guy after that but you will make the world a safer place.

[WHEC724]

I would like to see guidelines for qualifying for CCP. I would also like to see a program where the government provides every American of age a rifle, a pistol and a shotgun along with a monthly allowance of practice ammo.

The government cannot give anything that it has not taken from someone else.

[Corwin]

Travel yes. Drive a car no.

You have two feet. You have every right to use them.

Actually, if you are a taxpayer, you have a right to drive on the roads that you are paying for. They are your roads, not the government's, because you pay for them.

Having said that, I believe it is reasonable to have to demonstrate knowledge of the traffic laws and customs before driving on public roads because that is a cooperative endeavor. Ignorance of the rules of the road makes you a clear and present danger to the other drivers. If we didn't all follow the same rules on the road, chaos would ensue.

Competance at operating the vehicle is also a reasonable requirement because cooperatively operating 2-ton machines on narrow strips of concrete, asphalt, etc. is inherently dangerous and must be done safely. If you don't know how to operate the machine, you are a danger to others on the road.

Personally I don't think carrying a firearm rises to this level, but I can see why some people believe that competance with firearms and knowledge of the lawful use force should be demonstrated by those who wish to do so in a public space. Especially in an urban area.

[9MMare]

Actually, if you are a taxpayer, you have a right to drive on the roads that you are paying for. They are your roads, not the government's, because you pay for them.

Having said that, I believe it is reasonable to have to demonstrate knowledge of the traffic laws and customs before driving on public roads because that is a cooperative endeavor. Ignorance of the rules of the road makes you a clear and present danger to the other drivers. If we didn't all follow the same rules on the road, chaos would ensue.

Competance at operating the vehicle is also a reasonable requirement because cooperatively operating 2-ton machines on narrow strips of concrete, asphalt, etc. is inherently dangerous and must be done safely. If you don't know how to operate the machine, you are a danger to others on the road.

Personally I don't think carrying a firearm rises to this level, but I can see why some people believe that competance with firearms and knowledge of the lawful use force should be demonstrated by those who wish to do so in a public space. Especially in an urban area.

Do I have the right to use the public schools that I pay taxes for? (I dont have kids). Can I sit in on any of the classes that I missed? Catch up on current events?

Sure, use the roads...just obey the laws while doing so. Laws apply to those roads....and they are laws that have nothing to do with any particular right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can walk on the edge. If allowed, ride your horse. When in a bus, you are using that road.

[ccw9mm]

I hate to be the whistler blower on this one,but it's something that someone has to look at before a tragedy happens.

Ownership and carrying is a RIGHT, in the USA. That covers a lot of ground.

"Whistle blowing," hm? What critical situation?

Now, if in a given situation a specific person is a an actual threat to himself and others (not merely claimed to be so), then I can see others taking over for his safety and security. But until then, I don't see how ratcheting down the screws in terms of training, requirements and other hurdles will improve safety. It's an individual thing. It's relatively rare that folks "accidentally" or otherwise unintentionally shoot others or harm themselves. It seems a huge leap to suggest that legislation is required in order to apply to everyone, merely to address what is an infinitesimally small percentage of people and situations.

[TedBeau]

A friend of mine disagrees and compares CCW licenses to drivers licenses. You have to take a test, drive a course and pay a fee for a drivers license.
What he fails to see is that driving a car is not a right at all. Driving can and should be regulated (and IMO should be much, much more heavily regulated).
Carrying a weapon/self defense is a human right and should not be regulated by something as insignifcant as a government.

I guess I am in the minority here but I can't see where driving is in any way less a right than owning a gun. Freedom is freedom!


The fifth amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty (as in freedom to move about as one desires, including driving a car), or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

and the ninth amandment says:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Such as the right to drive a car.

As many people have noted a car is at least as deadly as a gun, so why shouldn't there be at least some requirement to demonstrate safe operation?

[rmodel65]

Actually, if you are a taxpayer, you have a right to drive on the roads that you are paying for. They are your roads, not the government's, because you pay for them.

Having said that, I believe it is reasonable to have to demonstrate knowledge of the traffic laws and customs before driving on public roads because that is a cooperative endeavor. Ignorance of the rules of the road makes you a clear and present danger to the other drivers. If we didn't all follow the same rules on the road, chaos would ensue.

Competance at operating the vehicle is also a reasonable requirement because cooperatively operating 2-ton machines on narrow strips of concrete, asphalt, etc. is inherently dangerous and must be done safely. If you don't know how to operate the machine, you are a danger to others on the road.

Personally I don't think carrying a firearm rises to this level, but I can see why some people believe that competance with firearms and knowledge of the lawful use force should be demonstrated by those who wish to do so in a public space. Especially in an urban area.

i cant remember exactly the city and country(im think it was in the netherlands) who recently got rid of all traffic signs and speed limits etc there accident rate dropped to nearly 0 yes zero and other places are considering this change too....

[21bubba]

i cant remember exactly the city and country(im think it was in the netherlands) who recently got rid of all traffic signs and speed limits etc there accident rate dropped to nearly 0 yes zero and other places are considering this change too....

Link it or it didn't happen.

[Adkjoe]

senile 80 year olds have the same rights to protect themselves as you.