Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 151 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The subject says it all. Should CCL training and demonstration of proficiency be a requirement across all states?

I think it should be. Just like we do for driver's licenses. I think this would accomplish several obvious, and some less obvious, benefits. Many are the same as an automobile license. You must demonstrate a basic understanding of the rules for carry as they apply in your state. Not sure about everyone else, but I am grateful that there is such a process for driving a car. Imagine if there wasn't...

I think it would help to encourage more people to carry instead of less. Just like in testing for a car. You know you will be evaluated and not put on the road before you know the basics.

As for the less than obvious benefits, it would make getting a CCL a visible process (visible to people who don't carry). I think there is a lot of fear from non-carriers about the process we have now. In both Georgia and Alabama where I have CCL, all one has to do is breath, pass a background check and have a checkbook to walk out with a license to carry. Many people who get a CCL are already gun-smart and safety conscious before holstering. But there are those who don't know what they don't know.

Of course, there could be a grandfather/grandmothering of people that have had a CCL already. I'm not suggestion that millions of people all of a sudden show up for a test. But it could be brought in just for new carry permits.

Yes? No? Flame me?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,673 Posts
You have a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of appreciation of a constitutional right.

By the way, did you pass a grammar test and civics test in order to get your free speech permit before your post of this partially political post? Furthermore, do you have a permit card that entitles you to a right to counsel in case you're charged with a crime?

No training should be required.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
No, absolutely not. Section 13 of my state's constitution says nothing of the sort and that is what matters to me. Add to that the Second Amendment makes no mention of this (well-regulated had a different meaning in 1791). And then there is this. A drivers license is a privilege. Owning and carrying arms is a right. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I fully and completely support and encourage all Americans who chose to own and carry firearms to get quality training and courses in the laws of their respective states regarding their use. But I do not wish to see this as a mandatory requirement at either the state or particularly the federal level.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
The problem with such thinking is the notion that it will, somehow, make things "better." This seemingly harmless requirement isn't much to ask...is it? So they enact it and, after a while, the libs declare that it didn't solve the "problem." There are still bad things happening due to those evil guns. So....they pass yet another seemingly harmless law. A little more intrusive than the last but....harmless. It doesn't solve the problem, either. So....yet another law. More intrusive. Didn't solve the problem. Another law.....and so on.

The only way to keep this rock from starting its roll down the hill is to stop it at the start. Right from the very beginning. No new laws, repeal several that we already have, and enforce the ones we keep. Want to truly do something that will "help?" That's the answer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,731 Posts
It sure seems reasonable...except for the whole pesky "shall not be infringed" part...

Also - would there be an education level requirement before you get to exercise the right to free speech? Just sayin...its the exact same principle you'd be applying to the 2A...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,686 Posts
You have a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of appreciation of a constitutional right.

By the way, did you pass a grammar test and civics test in order to get your free speech permit before your post of this partially political post? Furthermore, do you have a permit card that entitles you to a right to counsel in case you're charged with a crime?

No training should be required.
Home run with that post, PEF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
In Illinois, I was required to take 16 hours, 12 of that was classroom. I already knew all that was covered in class. The last 4 hours were set aside for shooting qualification. That was a joke. If you'd never handled a firearm before, you had a good chance of passing. $150 to the state. It's all about the money. It is my right to bear arms. I shouldn't have to pay for it. And I shouldn't need permission from anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,693 Posts
well, then it's no longer a Right is it?

It's a federally, or maybe state granted *PRIVILEGE* if, and ONLY if one rises to the standards set by .... whom? do we enact another Department or Bureau to determine what SPECIFIC criteria must be met in order to be granted this privilege? because we all love how each year organizations like OSHA, the DMV, and innumerous other gov't bureaucracies just decide to create policy, that is in effect LAW, without any vote, consent, or chance at recourse.

...or would it be better if it took an actual act of congress any time a change must be made to the policies governing this new "system" ?? if this year one must take "X" numbers of hours of classroom time, and get "X" score on a shooting qualification.... how is that policy changed when the gun laws change and the classroom time must change?

Speaking of classroom time, since each state has different gun laws, some are stand your ground, some are duty to retreat, some are "must inform" some are not.... pray tell; how will this requirement be structured?

Or will part of this grand scheme involve a nationwide uniform code of gun laws? .....somehow I'm highly doubting that if the fed steps in and tries to set a uniform code of law regarding guns, concealed carry, and all the rest .... I see it highly unlikely that we will "win" in such a thing.

no, I don't even remotely support turning the only right "With teeth" we have into a privilege like "driving cars".

this is most definitely a road to hell paved with good intentions. sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Correct.

But...incentives or rewards of some sort should exist for those who have higher levels of training and can demonstrate resultant higher levels of proficiency and skill.

It will never happen, of course.
There are incentives and rewards. It's called shooting sports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
well, then it's no longer a Right is it?

It's a federally, or maybe state granted *PRIVILEGE* if, and ONLY if one rises to the standards set by .... whom? do we enact another Department or Bureau to determine what SPECIFIC criteria must be met in order to be granted this privilege? because we all love how each year organizations like OSHA, the DMV, and innumerous other gov't bureaucracies just decide to create policy, that is in effect LAW, without any vote, consent, or chance at recourse.

...or would it be better if it took an actual act of congress any time a change must be made to the policies governing this new "system" ?? if this year one must take "X" numbers of hours of classroom time, and get "X" score on a shooting qualification.... how is that policy changed when the gun laws change and the classroom time must change?

Speaking of classroom time, since each state has different gun laws, some are stand your ground, some are duty to retreat, some are "must inform" some are not.... pray tell; how will this requirement be structured?

Or will part of this grand scheme involve a nationwide uniform code of gun laws? .....somehow I'm highly doubting that if the fed steps in and tries to set a uniform code of law regarding guns, concealed carry, and all the rest .... I see it highly unlikely that we will "win" in such a thing.

no, I don't even remotely support turning the only right "With teeth" we have into a privilege like "driving cars".

this is most definitely a road to hell paved with good intentions. sorry.
A good example of a uniform law set forth by our federal government... Look at our education system... Any time the feds step in, it's not gonna help...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
This country was set up as x number of experiments. If it worked in one state, other states could follow that example. We are supposed to be 50 different countries per-say all united in the idea of liberty and freedom. Our founders never meant for this country to run like it is now. Just my opinion
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
NO

there's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right if your trained and tested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,373 Posts
The problem with such thinking is the notion that it will, somehow, make things "better." This seemingly harmless requirement isn't much to ask...is it? So they enact it and, after a while, the libs declare that it didn't solve the "problem." There are still bad things happening due to those evil guns. So....they pass yet another seemingly harmless law. A little more intrusive than the last but....harmless. It doesn't solve the problem, either. So....yet another law. More intrusive. Didn't solve the problem. Another law.....and so on.

The only way to keep this rock from starting its roll down the hill is to stop it at the start. Right from the very beginning. No new laws, repeal several that we already have, and enforce the ones we keep. Want to truly do something that will "help?" That's the answer.
Spot on correct. And the problem is, the people who continue to insist on more and tighter firearms restrictions are the very same types of people who caused the problems we're seeing and which they believe need to be addressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
Adding a training/proficiency requirement may not be as good of an idea as it seems. Anti gun states may require any CCW holders to shoot well above and beyond the abilities that would ever be required of them. Imagine some state bureaucrat saying if you cant make a 75 foot shot with your little pocket gun, you can't carry, despite the fact that 75 foot defensive shootings are extremely rare.
However, the idea of training and shooting requirements may entice some if they were to get something in return. Call this an "enhanced carry permit" if you will. Perhaps if you have an enhanced carry permit it would have wider reciprocity, carry in some areas that would normally be "gun free" zones (maybe certain government buildings, post offices, or school campuses). Although no states have anything like this, it would be a good way to ensure that rights are not being trampled on while producing responsible CCW holders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
Adding a training/proficiency requirement may not be as good of an idea as it seems. Anti gun states may require any CCW holders to shoot well above and beyond the abilities that would ever be required of them. Imagine some state bureaucrat saying if you cant make a 75 foot shot with your little pocket gun, you can't carry, despite the fact that 75 foot defensive shootings are extremely rare.
However, the idea of training and shooting requirements may entice some if they were to get something in return. Call this an "enhanced carry permit" if you will. Perhaps if you have an enhanced carry permit it would have wider reciprocity, carry in some areas that would normally be "gun free" zones (maybe certain government buildings, post offices, or school campuses). Although no states have anything like this, it would be a good way to ensure that rights are not being trampled on while producing responsible CCW holders.
Although I see your thinking, where does it end? If you can make that shot, you're allowed to carry loaded? They'll never be happy with requirements to have rights. And the bad guys will still have guns.
 
1 - 20 of 151 Posts
Top