concealed carry permits

[AKhunter]

Samurai said:

I remember hearing someone say, "If the right to bear arms is 'for the benefit of a well-regulated militia,' then why not require anyone who wants to bear arms to complete Basic Training for the military?" In other words, the right to bear arms is only "for" those who are PART of a well-regulated militia. I admit that this is an interesting notion, but I'm not really sure how I feel about it.

Frankly, I think it would do the majority of America some good to have to go through Basic. As a population, we're fat, lazy, and incredibly jaded; and a little time in Boot would do wonders for us all! But, I'm not sure about basing the right to carry or bear on one's ability to complete a regimen of military training.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I can tell you how *I* feel about it. While I'm sure that it'd do our health a world of good, it would change the RKBA from a right to a priviledge. I'm against that for *any* of my rights. The "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment doesn't mean what it's commonly assumed to mean anyway. Here is an informative article that explains a bit more about that: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

AK

[tanksoldier]

"Well regulated" in the english of 1791 meant well armed and well trained.

So, from that perspective you have a point. However, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment amounts to the right to join the Army. That doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, while a training requirement may be a good idea, how do you prevent that requirement from becoming a roadblock to exercising your right to bear arms similar to the way the literacy requirement for voting or the Jim Crow laws restricted other rights?

"If the right to bear arms is 'for the benefit of a well-regulated militia,' then why not require anyone who wants to bear arms to complete Basic Training for the military?"

[CDH]

Well, Davesgotguns, I ignored this thread for a while because of your using the term "gun nuts" in the very first sentence of your first post. That pretty much told me where you might be coming from.

But you asked a question so here's an answer: The "scenario" you describe, or your relative describes, in your first post, is EXACTLY a whacko anti-gun nut's fantasy scenario that they use to justify gun control. As is so typical of those people and their political counterparts, they make up things that do not happen and suggest that they "can" which gives them the supposed high-ground from which to take away people's rights.
As long as you accept their premise, you are encouraging them. What you need to do is to deny their premise from the get-go and make THEM prove that whatever they fantasize about is actually something of merit.

But I'll play the game just for grins...
I could start by inviting you to come up with solid evidence of that scenario unfolding more than once or twice in the last decade, but let me just ALLOW that that scenario happens 10 times a year in America and an innocent person dies each time it happens (we'll just call this MY whacko fantasy).
Even so, the ten innocent people who died are a miniscule number of "innocents" who would have died at the hands of armed predators if all guns were to be taken out of the hands of citizens.
So the only way you can agree with your relative is if you truly believe that it's OK to allow thousands upon thousands of innocent people to die in order to save the lives of 10 people.
Is that the call you want to make?

But I want to get back to the original scenario your relative described...
Challenge that relative to find how many innocent bystanders have died at the hands of legal CCW carriers during a "wild and crazy" shooting spree", and then you can tell her the untold number of stories of lives that have been saved by legal CCW carriers using their weapons (or even not) to save themselves and others.
The REALITY is that CCW carriers across the nation are not only responsible, but are very aware of the seriousness of that responsibility and if anything, under react more than anything else in order to avoid the silly scenario put forth.

Then tell your relative that she might want to see about changing her medications if she continues to have fantasies about things that do not happen.
Then give your relative this link to put in her "Favorites" so she can check it often because it's updated daily: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefe...g/blogger.html
If she keeps up with it on a daily basis, after a while, she might end up deciding to get her own CCW permit and maybe even a mighty fine Colt Commander to carry her own-self.

Carter

[firemedic1975]

I live in Flordia and it requires some type of safty course, whether it be at the gun show or at a gun shop. The instructor has to be a certified gun instructor. The only down fall to this is that the state only requires if I am not mistaken the person to shoot one shoot. The class that I took with my wife the instructor had each of us shoot multiple rounds in differant scenerios. It is sad you would think that the people getting the permits that would not want to practice and be proficient with their weapon.

[yomama]

Again, while it would be great for everyone to have training, it still creates a barrier for those who truly need a firearm for protection. The more we create these restraints, we create control. I honestly have a hard time with this guys, (and gals sorry). Most people on this forum are pro-gun rights. This means no control, what so ever, nothing, nada. I don't want anyone telling me what i need to or should do to carry out my civil liberties.

What if you were denied the permit. For any reason or no reason, since they don't have to tell you why. Boy, I guess your out of luck there.

Permits, classes, exams all cost money. There are many who need the firearm as a tool for defense. Every time you create another system, you exclude law abiding citizens financially, and honestly I find it economic discrimination.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by dave421

I definitely think there should be a mandatory class for ccw. IMHO, they should raise the permit prices and make it state run. Here in NC (Wake county at least), it's $80 for the permit and an additional $10 for fingerprinting. You are required to take a class which ranges from $60 to $200 depending on where you take it.

That's pretty disturbing to read. Those prices seem awful high as it is - yet you agree with raising the prices - effectively putting the possibility of "lawful" carry out of reach (monetarily speaking) for some fellow citizens.

I hope that’s not the reason behind your opinion.

But, maybe you could shed some light on this for me.

Given there are states with either relaxed or non-existent requirements (a la Vermont & Alaska), and considering that in states of this type there is no spate of untrained civilians making Swiss cheese out of one another, I question the motives behind your opinion. I question your rational because most likely, whatever it is you think will be prevented by higher prices and state-run mandatory classes, isn’t happening now in any state.

So, please, lay out an argument for your opinion. I’m interested.

[TonyM1]

I have to agree with the anti-licensing group. If you think about it, the only difference (at least in Fl) between a person carrying a concealed weapon legally and illegally is that the former paid the state $100 plus costs for fingerprinting, picture and 'class'. It has nothing to do with making sure I'm a safe gun owner, it's all about money. The class portion that dealt with demonstrating use of a firearm consisted of picking up a .357 revolver pointing it down range, pulling the trigger and putting the gun back down (so easy a caveman could do it) Obviously the state does not care about proficiency, just give them their money and you can carry it concealed. This may sound like I'm making a case for more stringent licensing procedures, which is not my intent for if we allow that to happen then we will once again only be allowing access to what is a right, to those in a financial position to do so. There should be no licensing whatsoever, it is not like driving a car...that is a privilege that is not covered by any amendment, unlike the right to bear arms. Must we pass speech class in high school and pay a licensing fee to be able to exercise our 1A rights?

The cwp to me is like the tax stamp for nfa items, yeah the same gun is only illegal if you don't give Uncle Sam his cut...bull[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]. Why is it that 2A is constantly open to interpretation by every damn state in the union? Do the states all have a different interpretation of free speech?

[spacemanspiff]

there were shooters in my CHL class that could hit nothing but dirt in front of the target at 5 yards.

they were sold hammerless 38 specials, because thats typically a 'chick-gun', cause chicks can't figure out magazines, slides, blah blah blah, righ?

once they were handed a 1911, they hit paper.

[firemedic1975]

In Florida it is about $120 for the first time fee to get your CCW permit plus the cost of your safety class that you have to take. Every 5 years you have to renew the permit at a cost of $75.

[Greguw]

My state is very similar to others , You pay your money and 3 referance's and you get a permit ... Some people should not have a permit ...alot of people can't rationalize there actions ....They would shoot and ask questions later !

I was heading home one day and there was a guy cutting people off all over the road ...A real jerk ...So I was just minding my own business and this guy says what are you look at ... I was just minding my own business ...Little guy in his 50 dollar car ...
I just blew him off ...I'm 6'3 200+ ... So me minding my own business ignored him ...the guy gets out of his at the light ...while he's getting out of the car I notice a black object in his hand ...A large double D flash light ... He just gose crazy ...He starts to run at me in my truck ... saying he's going to beat my head in ...LOL
So I guess he was not that crazy ...When I pulled out Smith and wesson he stoped and paid Attension ...I told him he has two options I can blow his brians out or he can get back in his [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] go on with his business .
He choose to leave breathing ...So he follows me and calls the cops ... my friend was on duty who lived in my Township ... he came out and said he's doing a follow up on a report of a guywith a gun ...Me ! ... Who was pulling a gun out and stoping traffic , the guy said I got out of my truck and stuck the gun to his head ...LOL
So I had to go to the township that the altercation accured ...But I first talked to the cop and he asked me what happend and I told him the guy got out of his car with a pipe ...I had a splt second to react !
Cop had me come in ... mean while the cop called the dirtbag back and told him he had whitness that said he was the one out of the car with the pipe ...the dirtbag paused ... then said it was not a pipe ...it was a flash light ...
The cop had him then ... I had to go to court a I pressed charges and so did the district attorney and the dirtbag got over 7 grand in fines and 500 hr community service .
The whole time until the end I said nothing to the guy ...until after everything was done ...I said you dumbass you called the cops on your self ... His wife looked at him and said what ...He must not have told her ...LOL
Anyway Even if I shot him ...it would have been ruled as a clean shooting ...I had no means of excape ...The district attornrey when into detail making that clear he's lucky to be breathing ...in so many words .
Then his family would have tried to sue me civilly !
So the things that go thru your head in a split second ...Common sence rules !

Good luck in your choice !

Greg

[wayneinFL]

"So...for hunting, you must be be educated. But to carry concealed, you only need a little cash and a trusty ink pen.

Ironic?"

Not really. Not ironic at all. Concealed carry is a need, something your life may likely depend on. It's also a right. Hunting is a privilege and can be restricted as such.

Interestingly enough, my state has a training requirement, but a free hunter education course meets the requirement.

[kwkoch]

thank god i live in indiana!! mail in my $25 the state does a background check and my CCW comes in the mail good for 4 years!! they are actually talking about a lifetime carry permit that would run $125.

[Daves-got-guns]

it is tough to make clear decisions with people comin at you, and you never know who has a gun and if its legal or not for them to own. Honestly people with objects in their hand is a big scare, cause it might seem like a gun, and they could really have a flash light, and then you pull under heat, fire and kill and now you have that burdon hanging over you for the rest of your life. But for as far as my earlier incident where "the stray round" is considered, thats a big deal and cheney managed to get one stray round off with very little consequences to anybody but his "buddy". I guess you personaly just have to practice, and trust what your weapon can do. Still thinking mandatory classes would be good and some ammo in the fight against anti-gunners.

[John28226]

Requiring "mandatory" training is not ammo against the anti-gunners, it is part of the AGENDA of the anti-gunners. If you worry a lot about people having guns you might want to spend some time at the library reading some history books.

Your argument for training sounds a lot like the argument against capital punishment. "Some innocent people might be executed so no one should be executed". Give us some cites on actual cases; otherwise your argument is specious.

John
Charlotte, NC

[Daves-got-guns]

well even if it was mandatory, training isnt a punishment and even guys who are well regulated can use some extra range time. If they make some kind of perk out of it, then that would be fair also. I'm sure of one case of a man with a .357 who shot thru his dry wall and the first bullet hit somewhere in the kitchen, of a neighbor's house of course and the second hit a innocent. You don't have to get offended at me, im just trying to help and im tired of this "if you promote any sort of gun control at all, then your a liberal" attitude that i get when i suggest something. I aint no liberal, and i am pro gun all the way, and the way i figured mandatory training would help. is if a liberal asks against safeguards of untrained people firing off rounds blindly and hitting a innocent, you can say oh well we make sure that if somebody carries concealed, that they know what they're doing and they are atleast familiar with their weapon. I think that it would be nice if people would get training on their own, but some people buy a gun, shoot 1 mag, load a fresh one into the gun and think they're ready for hell. I guess thats why shooting is a right, so no training required, and drivers license is a privilege so you have to pass a test. Generally speaking, i don't worry about people carrying, but once in awhile something bad may happen, and it could be a yahoo pulling off the trigger as fast as he can in the general direction, also how many cop cams have you scene on t.v where something happens and the cop emptys his bottomless 9 at the bg and he escapes without injury? I saw atleast 5 the other month on a caught on cam show.

[tydephan]

Not really. Not ironic at all. Concealed carry is a need, something your life may likely depend on. It's also a right. Hunting is a privilege and can be restricted as such.

Interestingly enough, my state has a training requirement, but a free hunter education course meets the requirement.

Wayne,

My point regarding irony revolves around location and proximity to people. You can carry a gun in everyday life, where you are more likely to endanger people, and there is no need for training. However you can't carry a weapon in the wilderness, where only animals could be endangered, without special education.

For clarification, I'm not saying that CCW owners should have to pass a qualification test. I am saying that hunters should not.

I would also humbly disagree that hunting is a privilege. To some, it is still a means of sustaining life. Not for me though. I buy my meat at Winn Dixie!

[John28226]

Dave's GG, I don't care if you say you are a space alien or how many guns you say you have or how many rights you say you support. You pose the same old (and proven false) concept that was used in every state that considered authorizing concealed carry - that of road rage shootouts, of blood running in the streets, of "unskilled and untrained" citizens shooting up innocent people. None of which proved true. And then you want to cop an attitude when the replies you receive don't suit you.

You refer to those of us who do carry as "gun nuts" (insulting on its face) and infer that the world would be safer if government placed more limits on our having guns; and then you want to cop an attitude!

Why don't you tell us how making it illegal for citizens to carry guns on school grounds has saved our children? Why don't you cite some cases (there actually have been a few) that support your position?

How much training do you consider enough? Maybe as much as police officers are given? We all know that they never hit an innocent bystander, don't we?

The plain and simple truth is that a private citizen (often completely untrained) with a gun prevents a criminal act several times each day. Many times without ever firing a shot.

If passing laws would make us safe, we would be the safest country in the world. Your safety is YOUR responsibility just as mine is mine. I take that seriously. That's why I carry a gun.

John
Charlotte, NC

[sanson]

I foolishly let my conceal permit expire and now to renew FL wants me to go through the WHOLE process all over again. the class, fingerprinting, $$, etc

[Kreyzhorse]

I try to stay out of these type discussions, but I wonder if anyone at Luby's Cafe in Texas would have minded someone being there with a CDW?

[Trip20]

Daves-got-guns,

First, I must ask you to - please - hit the enter key a few times during your posts as you change topics so that you create a new paragraph. Otherwise it's difficult to read, and difficult to follow you thoughts.

Now, on to the real topic.

Originally Posted by Daves-got-guns

I'm sure of one case of a man with a .357 who shot thru his dry wall and the first bullet hit somewhere in the kitchen, of a neighbor's house of course and the second hit a innocent.

This is a negligent discharge that has nothing to do with concealed carry licensing. This is a moron not following the 4 Basic Firearm Rules.

You were asked to provide examples and cite cases of the situation you describe. That innocents will be wounded or killed at the hand of the untrained Joe Blow concealed carry permit holder while he's responding to a threat upon his life.

You have yet to do so. I know why this is the case, but I want you to stumble upon this conclusion as you search for these specific examples, come up with none, and realize there is no epidemic.

Originally Posted by Daves-got-guns

You don't have to get offended at me, im just trying to help and im tired of this "if you promote any sort of gun control at all, then your a liberal" attitude that i get when i suggest something.

Oh, stop, please. Just because people are challenging your opinion, does not mean your being attacked or that anyone is "offended at you."

What we're trying to do, through challenging your opinion, is to understand the rational you use to justify the belief that mandatory training will prevent permit holders from spraying bullets into innocent people. You've mostly ignored these challenges; instead either repeating yourself from prior posts, deflecting the subject by moving on to some other barely related story, or speaking about how everyone is attacking you or calling you a liberal.

You wanted to discuss this topic. So pull up a chair, crack your knuckles, and better explain yourself by addressing the points made by those trying to understand your position.

Originally Posted by Daves-got-guns

...the way i figured mandatory training would help. is if a liberal asks against safeguards of untrained people firing off rounds blindly and hitting a innocent, you can say oh well we make sure that if somebody carries concealed, that they know what they're doing and they are atleast familiar with their weapon.

I’m going to guess you've not had the pleasure of arguing with many "liberals" (I'll assume you mean anti-gunners as they are not always one in the same), but the argument you put forth doesn't amount to much at all.

Mandatory training doesn't equal: "they know what they're doing and are at least familiar with their weapon."

What if they want to carry a different pistol that day? Will you require them to get a permit to carry each pistol they'd like to carry? See, now we're bleeding into further restrictions and hassles - all of which are unnecessary and will prevent absolutely nothing.

Then we get to the fact that permit holders firing off rounds blindly and hitting innocents is not happening around the nation. It's not happening. Has it happened? Probably. But to no substantial ratio that would warrant further restriction.

Essentially, what you'd like to see is a revamping of state requirements to prevent something that's not happening?

Does that make much sense to you when you really analyze it? Probably not. But it sure does make one feel good to know they're "prevented something". That’s (one of) the problem(s) with law-makers today.

Originally Posted by Daves-got-guns, any/all emphasis mine.

Generally speaking, i don't worry about people carrying, but once in awhile something bad may happen, and it could be a yahoo pulling off the trigger as fast as he can in the general direction...

And here you prove my last point. It isn't happening anywhere around the nation as a result of lack of mandatory training so you create a “what if” scenario in an attempt to bolster your opinion. You've based your entire argument thus far on what MAY happen or what COULD happen instead of what IS happening. You'd restrict a right way too easily in my opinion. That's why I rolled my eyes when I read this comment of yours:

Originally Posted by Daves-got-guns

...and i am pro gun all the way...

You’re not pro gun "all the way", sorry to say. You're pro gun as long as you're comfortable with certain boundaries you feel are acceptable.

There's a huge difference.

[Haterade]

I'm against mandatory training.

Then again, I'm also against licensing, registration and generally asking permission for something I think is my right as guaranteed by the Constitution.

That being said, I think training is useful. In our incredibly litigious society, knowing the law and knowing what you can and can't do by law as well as where you can carry your firearm can be beneficial. However, I do think most firearms used by people with CCW permits are purely for self-preservation and the law goes out the window at that point... you just want to stay alive!

So, should it be mandatory... no. That just plays further into the argument that it's a privilege. Will you get occasional wackos with guns... yes. Can you expect perfection and that everyone who gets a CCW will be an angel.. no. Should you prosecute and put in prison those who use their firearms irresponsibly and endanger innocents, regardless of whether they have a CCW in prison...yes.

What else is there? Not everyone has the time, energy or desire to research the perfect load for their self defense weapon. Everyone isn't going to research penetration and expansion data on bullets and figure out how many walls their round may go through if they miss. Training is fine... what ifs and what nots make it complicated . Make training available and make it FREE... and if people act stupid put them in jail.

[dave421]

That's pretty disturbing to read. Those prices seem awful high as it is - yet you agree with raising the prices - effectively putting the possibility of "lawful" carry out of reach (monetarily speaking) for some fellow citizens.

I hope that’s not the reason behind your opinion........

.........
Given there are states with either relaxed or non-existent requirements (a la Vermont & Alaska), and considering that in states of this type there is no spate of untrained civilians making Swiss cheese out of one another, I question the motives behind your opinion. .........
So, please, lay out an argument for your opinion. I’m interested.

My opinion is based on the number of people out there that will get a ccw and have NO experience with firearms. It's the people that live in a bad neighborhood and feel the need to protect themselves. I'm all for that. But a gun owner with no training and no experience isn't a threat to a criminal. They're a threat to themselves and other innocents. If you don't know how to aim properly, handle your firearm properly, or practice with it, I don't think you should be carrying it. You know those statistics about how many people are attacked with their own gun? How many of those people do you think would fit into the profile I outlined above? I would think it's quite a lot. I've got a friend that loves guns. He often buys a new one every couple of months. I can't even think of the last time that he took one of his to the range and fired a SINGLE shot downrange. Guess who the person with the worst firearms safety is that I know. You got it, him. I even had to explain the difference between a Desert Eagle and his Baby Eagle to him.

As for cost, it wouldn't go up much at all where I live. The only difference is that the training would be the same everywhere rather than getting good instruction here but not from the other guy. I'm taking advantage of this with the guy I'm going to. I know the local gun laws, am more familiar with my carry gun than any of the "local" instructors, and I practice regularly so I'm just going to the guy, shooting my target, getting signed off and saving a hundred bucks. The difference in what I propose is that people like me would have to take a quality, thorough class (and quite possibly end up learning something as it's possible even I would) and they would be paying ONE fee rather than THREE. They wouldn't be spending much more (if any). So, lawful carry wouldn't be any more out of the reach of the poor-er of us than it is now (and I easily qualify as one and could even get on welfare if I wished yet I could & would pay $300 if needed for me to get my ccw). It might take an extra month but it's more than legal for someone here to carry openly anywhere that you can carry concealed.

Gun control? You're damn right. It's a dangerous object in the wrong hands. I don't see anyone stating that people should be able to drive whenever they want without getting instruction. Oh, and owning guns is a right, NOT concealing them. If it is, I must have missed that part of the 2nd.

[Haterade]

Oh, and owning guns is a right, NOT concealing them. If it is, I must have missed that part of the 2nd.

That depends on what you consider the "bearing" to be in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

It certainly says nothing specific to "owning" guns either. Its says Keep and Bear. That means own and carry. Method of carry I'm not sure was addressed. What was the definition of "bear" in the 1700's... I think it most likely meant to carry. I doubt it was broken down to carry openly or concealed. No matter what it meant, it wasn't important enough to specify then, so why should it matter now? I choose to bear my arms in a manner not visible to the general public. If that violates the Constitution in any way, please let me know!

[dave421]

That depends on what you consider the "bearing" to be in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I guess you have a point. In my opinion, open carry is assumed but I suppose it is something open to interpretation.

[TonyM1]

I don't see anyone stating that people should be able to drive whenever they want without getting instruction

.

I don't see an ammendment that makes driving a right.