What level of training is prudent for concealed carry?

[45_Shooter]

That would be true if it could be drawn up, controlled and administered by other than government agencies.
I say this for 2 reasons:
1) It will be created by lawyers and NOT be what you intend because of the general bias against guns within MOST (most, not all) government and to please the special interest gun control freaks.
2) The test required to get a drivers license (at least in NY) has not been modified since 1937 and, somehow, the powers that be still consider it relevant to the intent of ensuring safe drivers. What, after all, does a 10 minute test REALLY tell you about a person ability to handle driving under real conditions?

In MI we have to pass a road test to initially get our license. It's not terribly involved, but kids do fail it on a regular basis so it isn't a joke either; thats the kind of test I was referring to.

Why doesn't the NRA step in and start this then? Their course (Gun Safety Within the Home or something like that) was the basis for my CPL course, and I'm assuming for most states, so why can't we just edit the course to include a live fire test?

[Stiofan]

I didn't have to take any test to get my ccw as I was grandfathered in due to my age (I took and passed a hunting license test years ago, which would also have qualified me had I been younger than the non-test age limit).

I've heard about something like 20,000 gun laws on the books already. The majority of these are not enforced well enough. I don't like putting additional laws on the books to further restrict the Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" for citizens.

Gun crimes by ccw holders in my state is almost non-existant, even with the lack of forced classes, schooling, testing and such. Adding another law therefore isn't going to accomplish anything here.

Perhaps in more urban areas there is some benefit, but for native born Idahians especially, most have grown up using guns as a tool and hunting is ingrained in most.

Let's enforce some of the exisiting laws first, and see if there is a benefit to society by doing that.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Why not make sure they're reasonably competent before letting them carry?

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends on your definition of infringement and then reasonable infringement.


You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre in spite of the right of free speech; so, can you require training for firearms in spite of the second amendment?

Good question.


The difference, IMO, is that the 1st amendment has long been considered to be conditional (so to speak) but the 2nd amendment was treated as essentially absolute for MANY years.

[45_Shooter]

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends on your definition of infringement and then reasonable infringement.

Carrying a concealed weapon such as we are talking has historically been interpreted as not being what the amendment is referring to or protecting; otherwise no license would be necessary in any state. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that it doesn't have a bearing on the argument.

[Creature]

As much as you can reasonably afford, plus regular practice.

Okay...that is not really answering the question.

Keep in mind that this is a two part problem: what should "affordable training" should consist of? What is a "reasonable level of proficiency"? And how much would you expect to pay for a qualified instructor to instruct a novice to that level of proficiency?

Once that novice is proficient enough, how much would should that novice expect to spend in order to get that "regular" practice...assuming the worst possible circumstances (must drive approximately 5-10 miles round trip, must pay range fees, must buy practice ammunition)?

[Saab1911]

A person should be able to determine for themselves when they are ready to carry. Nobody else has that right to decide when I am "good enough" to carry.

I said "prudent" not "should be required". People can do whatever they wish.
It's a free country. But we can discuss what exactly is safe driving, without
infringing anyone's privilege to drive. Similarly, my freedom of speech
ensures me the right to state what I think is safe gun ownership.

[Saab1911]

Once that novice is proficient enough, how much would should that novice expect to spend in order to get that "regular" practice...assuming the worst possible circumstances (must drive approximately 5-10 miles round trip, must pay range fees, must buy practice ammunition)?

When someone is determined enough to get something done, they'll find a
way or ask enough people or read enough books ...

Dry firing is free. If ammo is too expensive, a person can start reloading.
If gas is too expensive, they can build a firing range in the basement.

Expense should not stop anybody from learning how to properly handle a
firearm.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Carrying a concealed weapon such as we are talking has historically been interpreted as not being what the amendment is referring to or protecting; otherwise no license would be necessary in any state. I don't necessarily agree with that but my point is that it doesn't have a bearing on the argument.

That may be true but once upon a time NO ONE carried concealed, they most always open carried because it was assumed by way of tradition that we are allowed to do so. One of the significant reason for carrying concealed today is that we law abiding citizens have essentially been driven "under cover" by fear mongers. (I know, there are "tactical" reason also)
Current licensing is a violation of the amendment already and I don't think that because the states have been allowed to do so unchallenged justifies the action in the first place. I know you said you disagree with it already, so I'm not arguing with you.
If someone punches you in the nose and you don't do anything about it does that give them the right to do it? NO!
If the state violates a fundamental right and we do nothing, does it give them the right to continue? NO! but it does give them permission.

[Creature]

When someone is determined enough to get something done, they'll find a
way or ask enough people or read enough books ...

Asking around or reading books is not the same as actual trigger time. Never was and never will be.

Now...please put a price tag on "reasonable".

[ElectricHellfire]

I dont know, but I DO know a lot of people who dont need drivers licences!

[Saab1911]

I dont know, but I DO know a lot of people who dont need drivers licences!

Right to arm and defend oneself is a right. Driving is a privilege. Half the
sphincters and morons on the streets should be taking the bus, in my opinion.

Now...please put a price tag on "reasonable".

I can't. But I can say that someone who carries a firearm should be well
enough trained such that when life and death situation occurs they will
have enough muscle memory and confidence in their abilities to actually
allow the firearm to help them and not hurt.

The above paragraph does not mention money.

Cheers,

Jae

[vox rationis]

I don't think that the driver's license analogy is a good one, because like you said I too believe that owning a gun for self defense ought to be considered a right, whereas driving on public roads is considered a privilege.

My problem would be if the State required State administered safety tests. Then you have a collection of government pukes deciding if you are "safe" enough to be able to defend yourself.

Of course, they might decide that guns are inherently unsafe, and an affront to public safety, in which case, the bureaucracy will decide to "save" you by absolutely refusing to allow you to handle a firearm. Or even something a lot more pedestrian, but still terribly insidious, such as the clerk just doesn't believe in guns ownership and drags his feet, or somehow subverts the process every chance he gets.

The right to keep and bear arms is too important a civil right to put into the hands of bureaucrats in that way.

Having said that States that allow CCW/CHL are obviously requiring a competency test before issuing the permit. If this is to be done, then it ought to be allowable, as it is currently, to have private/third party entities administer the class and test so as to keep the influence of government away from the process as much as possible.

Should you then say, well let's make the test harder to pass, well then two problems would arise: 1) you might possibly infringe upon a person's right of self defense, that can shoot safely, but perhaps not at the level of a grade A pistolero, which wouldn't be right, and 2) Anti Self Defense types would charge that it isn't right that regular people should be forced by the State to learn "combat" training designed to kill people.

So, as it is, the status quo is probably the best compromise, that is, yes have a basic course and a basic competency exam for CCW/CHL carry only, administered by third parties, to make sure that you can handle the weapon safely, but to also allow the citizen to get more advanced training on his/her own.

After all learning how to use a gun safely isn't rocket science. And forcing people to have to learn advanced shooting techniques just to allow them to have access to guns or CC, would be akin to forcing an average driver to learn advanced stunt/race car driving before you give them a license.

I'm all for getting as much shooting (and driving, for that matter) training as possible. But this should be an individual's choice, not a matter of governmental coercion.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that I had.

[45_Shooter]

That may be true but once upon a time NO ONE carried concealed, they most always open carried because it was assumed by way of tradition that we are allowed to do so. One of the significant reason for carrying concealed today is that we law abiding citizens have essentially been driven "under cover" by fear mongers. (I know, there are "tactical" reason also)
Current licensing is a violation of the amendment already and I don't think that because the states have been allowed to do so unchallenged justifies the action in the first place. I know you said you disagree with it already, so I'm not arguing with you.
If someone punches you in the nose and you don't do anything about it does that give them the right to do it? NO!
If the state violates a fundamental right and we do nothing, does it give them the right to continue? NO! but it does give them permission.

I really wholeheartedly agree with you. I just see the law interpreting (in violation of the 2nd amend. as you say and I agree) CCW as a priviledge instead of a right and don't want to give them any reason to revoke that 'priviledge'. Untrained people and those unmotivated to be so in my view are the largest threat to this being revoked, and I just really don't want to see this happen.

There was a shooting at a bar north of my home about a year ago. Two younger guys got into an argument; one (aggressor who had a CPL) followed the other into the bathroom, continued to argue, and a fistfight turned into one (cpl holder) shooting the other (he was unarmed, and luckily suffered only a flesh wound).

Now, carrying in a bar is illegal in MI. Aggravating a situation by following someone into the bathroom to continue an argument and then pulling a pistol when loosing a fistfight is also poor judgement. I believe that more involved licensing might have prevented this from putting a black eye on ccw holders, as those predisposed to such impulsive behavior might be weeded out when they find out they lack the patience and maturity to handle the process to attain such responsibility.

I would like to see the NRA step up to do this myself, as like others I do have a limited trust of our government.

[Saab1911]

I'm all for getting as much shooting (and driving, for that matter) training as possible. But this should be an individual's choice, not a matter of governmental coercion.

Anyway, just some initial thoughts that I had.

I agree that the government should not get involved.

BUT, a healthy dose of peer pressure should work wonders. There's nothing
wrong with peer pressure.

It's like telling a drunk friend that he should take the taxi home. You're not
Uncle Sam and you're not even his Momma, but you should try very hard to
get him not to get behind the steering wheel when he is drunk.

Getting someone who can't hit the broad side of a barn to get the needed
training is a similar matter.

[vox rationis]

I believe that more involved licensing might have prevented this from putting a black eye on ccw holders, as those predisposed to such impulsive behavior might be weeded out when they find out they lack the patience and maturity to handle the process to attain such responsibility.

Well then you'd have to include psychological testing, because short of that there is no way you'd weed out people with impulsiveness problems just with "more involved licensing".

Licensing designed to ensure operational competency can never ensure that one isn't a pure, unadulterated, idiot. In a free society, in order for the free to remain that way, occasionally, as indecorous as that might be, we have to deal with the mistakes of a few morons, and resist the knee jerk reaction to immediately come out with new regulation. Regulation that is often based on emotional and do-good-er reactions, that rarely withstand the scrutiny of sober deliberation and that unfortunately unleash all sorts of unintended consequences that end up biting us in the rear.

So more involved licensing, especially if done by the government, would only achieve one thing, and that is more infringement on our rights. And when the inevitable idiot does an idiotic thing, then because you've uncannily made the right to defend oneself a privilege indirectly tied to the behavior of idiots, then eventually that privilege will dematerialize into thin air as well.

BUT, a healthy dose of peer pressure should work wonders. There's nothing
wrong with peer pressure.

I totally agree, societal pressure to behave properly, is a good thing, because you can't legislate stupid out of existence; by trying to do so you only end up hurting the non-stupid

[Brian Pfleuger]

Untrained people and those unmotivated to be so in my view are the largest threat to this being revoked, and I just really don't want to see this happen.

That's an interesting theory. Honestly, I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. I'll have to think about it. I do agree that dumb untrained people with guns are a big PR problem but are they the largest problem? I don't know, maybe.

[rogertc1]

By golly when I was a LT. in the US Army we were taught firearms SAFETY and MARKSMANSHIP as I am sure our boys in Iraq are nowdays. We also had lots and lots of practice and drills. Lots of practice and drills. Lots of practice and drills. My father who is now 90 done the same thing but in the Navy CB's. He carried a M1 Carbine.
So much so what we did became natural.
Obama and other Democrats have mentioned making the Military mandatory.

[Stagger Lee]

OK, fine.

In order to be allowed to carry a gun around me, my family and other citizens, I think that you should:

a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.

[Saab1911]

a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.

By any chance, is your real name Gray Davis?

[johnbt]

Having a gun is better than not having one when you need it. And no, I'm not talking about folks who need to learn the basics and don't know which end the bullet comes out of or what the sights are for.

Let's say it takes 2 years of assorted training and/or practice to achieve the level of proficiency advocated by many of the posters in this thread. Should the gun owner go 2 years without carrying until the magical level of acceptable proficiency is reached?

IOW, even an untrained (again, not referring to a pure novice) person has a little bit a of chance in a jam if they have a gun. If they don't have one, well, they can't even get off a lucky shot.

John

[johnbt]

"b. Have served in the Armed Forces "

Oh no, you want to give guns to drivers and recruiters too?

[Saab1911]

Let's say it takes 2 years of assorted training and/or practice to achieve the level of proficiency advocated by many of the posters in this thread. Should the gun owner go 2 years without carrying until the magical level of acceptable proficiency is reached?

No. It takes two days of training and a lifetime of practice.

[Brian Pfleuger]

OK, fine.

In order to be allowed to carry a gun around me, my family and other citizens, I think that you should:

a. Have no criminal record, to include DUI and any violent misdemeanor
b. Have served in the Armed Forces or other held another public service job for at least a year.
c. Pass a comprehensive training course such as Ayoob's 40-hour class
d. be required to become a member of the National Rifle Association and remain a member in good standing.
e. show proof that you've voted in a recent election
f. demonstrate proficiency with a simple pass/fail range test before being re-licensed when your permit expires.

Let me paraphrase that:

[Stagger Lee]

b. Have served in the Armed Forces "

Oh no, you want to give guns to drivers and recruiters too?

I don't care what they do so long as they serve. It's not about the training because the military doesn't adequately train people to carry guns in everyday noncombat situations. It's about the service and actually earning citizenship by giving something back to this country. My personal take is that American citizenship is valuable and should be bought, not just born into. It can't be bought with money but it can be bought by giving something back. It's a two-way street.

Robert Heinlein also espoused the view that only people who had served in the military could become Citizens and enjoy all of the rights and privileges that go with it. I'd be willing to expand that to allow people to go into police, fire, medical etc. positions...just something that lets them give something back to this great nation.

But getting back on track, I don't want untrained, uninformed people who may be unfamiliar with how a handgun works or what the laws are carrying one around my family. Some of you "purists" may not think so highly of your families, but that's your choice. Believe it or not, people are not going to be dying en masse just because it takes them a little longer to get a CCW and that "right" is subject to the same reasonable regulation that every other right in this country is, just as our founders had envisioned.


And BTW, people who respond not with rational arguments but with bumper-sticker slogans and stupid discredited cut-pastes only reinforce my belief that I'm probably right.

[Saab1911]

I don't trust any government to do the right thing, and I think they extort
way too much in taxes.

I have "paid" in taxes about 1/2 million dollars over the years

That's a big mansion with a pool and its own shooting range.

How can I be expected to trust a group of people who spend money like drunken sailors?