The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 9, 2012, 01:01 PM   #1
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,787
GA May Change Age for CCW

In the Georgia Legislature there is a bill in process that would lower the age for a permit/license from 21 to 18. While on the surface it sounds like a good thing what concerns me is the addition of a training requirement for 18 – 20 year olds. Currently Georgia does not require formal training and I wonder if this might be a first step to a mandatory training requirement for everyone.

What do you think I am just being paranoid?

Should there be a formal training requirement for everyone?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...rry-con/nLPBX/
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 02:27 PM   #2
Sefner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 769
Quote:
Should there be a formal training requirement for everyone?
No, but if the People of a State want to require training then the cost of the training should be subsidized.

I also don't see this as a step to training requirements for everyone. I see it as a step in the right direction. Good on GA.
__________________
gtalk:renfes steamID: Sefner
Sefner is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 08:40 PM   #3
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Good for GA, (except for the training requirement).

Comment on the comment that 18 year olds are not mature enough...(and I'm old enough to draw SS, and have been for several years)...that is pure BS.

If an 18 year old can go in the military, or an 18 year old can vote, drive a car, get married, purchase a house etc..that same 18 year old is mature enough to own and carry a handgun for his or her own SD.
hermannr is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 08:56 PM   #4
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
hermannr- theres a difference between a punk kid and a punk that goes into the military. The military shapes him, who's shaping the other kid?


Edited by Al Norris.
RamItOne is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 09:02 PM   #5
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 248
Changed my mind... staying out of this one.
SamNavy is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 09:30 PM   #6
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
I'm only going to say this once.

RamItOne, calling everyone who is between 18 and 20, a "punk," is not only painting with a broad brush (something we don't do here), but it is an invective. That, is forbidden at TFL, and doubly forbidden in this area where we are explicitly talking about Law and Civil Rights in a rational and adult manner.

You don't have to like it. You do have to abide by this rule.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 10:00 PM   #7
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
Nowhere did i say all 18-20 year olds are like that. Many conflicts have been started off of misinterpretation.


Using the argument- if they can be in the military at 18 they should be able to ccw doesn't hold water. The military molds and forms many kids into men. They receive excellent training, far more than any state run training class.

Back to the OP
I never knew that Georgia didn't require any training class to apply for a ccw. Yeah the fl one is a joke, but at least its a step in the process. IIRC texas has a two day class with around 100 or so rounds fired and requires a certain proficiency in your shooting to pass.
RamItOne is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 10:20 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
I'm of two minds on the whole thing. One one hand, it's not much different than requiring a hunter safety course for minors.

On the other hand, a training requirement that starts its life as a well-meaning and unobtrusive measure could balloon into something more restrictive and unworkable in subsequent legislative sessions.

All things said, I've seen no evidence that a training requirement reduces accidental or negligent injury, nor that sitting through a state-mandated class turns anyone into less of a boob.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 10:39 PM   #9
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
Tom- Yup well meaning govt programs can grow into an evil monster. I'm sure the very short and from what I saw extremely basic required course in Florida won't make much of an impact on how someone handles their firearms, however I do think it makes it one more step that someone who may only think its cool to carry a gun may not take. In texas it took two days, most places would conduct the training on weekends, my job always had me working weekends so it was a strain to get the license, fortunately texas considers your vehicle just as your home so I could keep a pistol in the truck.
RamItOne is offline  
Old March 9, 2012, 11:17 PM   #10
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
The requirements are odd, and it looks like a new curriculum would have set up. No word on who dictates the exact curriculum or who licenses instructors.

Quote:
The course of firearms instruction shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Four hours of classroom instruction on the following topics:
(A) The laws of the United States and Georgia regarding the possession, carrying, storing, and use of firearms, including laws regarding self-defense and the use of deadly force; (B) The proper methods of handling, carrying, and storing firearms safely; and (C) Fundamentals of how to operate, load, fire, and unload firearms safely;
(2) Four hours of instruction on a firearms range in the actual operation, loading, and firing of a firearm at targets, firing not less than 400 rounds of ammunition at targets at various distances
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 12:16 AM   #11
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,787
Quote:
On the other hand, a training requirement that starts its life as a well-meaning and unobtrusive measure could balloon into something more restrictive and unworkable in subsequent legislative sessions.
Yes, I am very concerned that this could morph into mandatory training for everyone. I do not believe I should have to pass a test to exercise a Constitutional right. Yes, I realize we place various constraints on our freedoms all the time, but I question the benefit of this potential restriction.

Also, I really question how much good these classes would really do. The biggest factor in responsible gun ownership is judgment and not really sure that can be taught in a short class at a gun range.

As for 18 to 20 year olds not being mature enough to own guns I kind of disagree with that. Yes, there are a lot of idiots in that age group, but dang there are a lot of irresponsible forty year olds also.

At the end of the day I wish Georgia would simply lower the age to 18 and leave the other requirements alone.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 09:07 AM   #12
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I'd say the 18 is probably too young both to be in the service and to carry a weapon as a civilian. Moreover, the age you can get your driver's license is definately too young. Invariably accidents involving young teenage drivers involve alcohol, which they are invariably drinking illegally. Better to raise the driving age and lower the drinking age.

I mean where it's legal in the first place. Lots of things are illegal in this country.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 09:36 AM   #13
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,186
Ahhh.
More of I can have a gun and you can't.

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 02:26 PM   #14
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,940
Here in Indiana, the minimum age to get a LTCH (License to Carry a Handgun) is 18 and we have no training requirement (it's been this way for decades) and we don't seem to have any more issues than any other state.

As to whether or not those aged 18-20 should be allowed to carry, consider the following: at 18 years of age, one is old enough to enter legally binding contracts, get married without the consent, or even knowledge, of his/her parents, and be prosecuted and punished as an adult for any crimes that he/she may commit. While it is true that, for the most part, those who join the military are more closely supervised than civilians, a person who joins the military also takes on a great deal of responsibility in that he/she chooses to give up a good amount of his/her freedom while enlisted and that he/she will be expected to fight and possibly die for his/her country should the need arise. So great is the responsibility associated with military service that we do not allow those under the age of 18 to enlist without the consent of his/her parents or legal guardian. Finally, even though there has not been a draft since the Vietnam War, young men are still legally required to register with Selective Service at age 18 and, if the draft were to be reinstituted, could be conscripted into military service against their will.

So, it seems to me that, at age 18, people in this country are old enough to bear all the responsibility of an adult, but they are still denied certain rights because they are "kids". I have yet to meet anyone who magically turned from a pot-smoking delinquent or beer-guzzling frat-boy into an upstanding responsible adult at the moment the clock struck midnight on their 21st birthday. Are there young people who should not be trusted with a firearm? Sure there are but there are also people well into their 40's, 50's, 60's and beyond who should not be trusted with a firearm or even a pointy stick for that matter. It simply boggles my mind that we tell someone that he/she is old enough to bear all the same legal responsibilities as someone multiple times his/her age, but in the same breath and with a straight face tell that person that he/she can't carry an effective means with which to defend his/her life and the lives of his/her loved ones because he/she is still a "kid".

I have always considered self-defense to be the most basic of all human rights. As such, I simply cannot rationalize how a person can be legally cast out into the world to fend for himself/herself with no one legally required to protect him/her at 18, but at the same time deny that person the right to carry a handgun to defend his/her own life with until the age of 21.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old March 10, 2012, 10:37 PM   #15
thegunwire
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6
Quote:
If an 18 year old can go in the military, or an 18 year old can vote, drive a car, get married, purchase a house etc..that same 18 year old is mature enough to own and carry a handgun for his or her own SD.
While there would be plenty of bad seeds that the antis would use to ruin the bunch, I agree with this. I would probably change the highlighted word from "mature" to "old".

I know plenty of people my age that shouldn't be voting.

I know plenty of people my age that shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

I know plenty of people my age that shouldn't get married. Or have kids.

I know plenty of people my age that have lost the house that was more than they could afford.

And I know plenty of people my age that shouldn't handle guns.

I'm 41.

I'm not sure an extra 3 years does all that much for a person at that point in their life, when so many people I know that are around my age have had 23 years since they were 18 and they're still incompetent at so much in life.

- thegunwire
__________________
www.thegunwire.com

Last edited by thegunwire; March 10, 2012 at 10:42 PM.
thegunwire is offline  
Old March 12, 2012, 12:49 PM   #16
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
What's wrong with training?

I see no problem with requiring training as long as it isn't overly burdensome, or if it's an attempt to somehow suppress the right. Well-regulated means, among other things, well-trained. The constitutionality of training is written right into the amendment, IMO.

In addition to safety and knowledge of the law, it ought to include marksmanship training. But I DON"T think any low performers should be denied the right unless they are in a lawfully prohibited class.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 12, 2012, 01:02 PM   #17
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,404
Good post Webleymkv
2damnold4this is online now  
Old March 12, 2012, 01:17 PM   #18
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Well, frankly, there are probably more people around (age, say 41, and older) who have a much better idea of how other folks should live than all the 18 year olds in the world and up to age 21 for females.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old March 12, 2012, 01:37 PM   #19
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
That training requirement doesn't seem too unreasonable, but in the area of 2nd amendment restrictions/"gun control" legislation, there seems to be a good bit of fear of laws that could be subject to something akin to "mission creep". I'm not sure why that is, but i doubt it is completely lacking in justification.

In MS, there are currently two options on carry permits: carry in lots of places without training using the basic permit, or carry almost anywhere with an "enhanced" permit and a couple of days of training. Of course, many people like me settle for no-permit-required, legal "car carry". I like having options, though.
orangello is offline  
Old March 12, 2012, 03:26 PM   #20
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Is there any factual evidence that CCW permit holders with mandatory "training" are safer than permit holders without mandatory training?
Don H is offline  
Old March 13, 2012, 06:59 AM   #21
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I believe I mentioned this in another thread somewhere. That question about mandatory training parallels the same issue with driver training. The answer is probably too little, too late.

Oh, I know you ought to be "checked out" on some of the elements of basic operation. Handguns, at least, pretty much all work the same way, just like cars. Yet when you first sit in a new car, you can have a heck of a time figuring out some of the controlsl. Same with a handgun. But that isn't the problem.

By the time you're old enough to sit behind the wheel and drive the family car, you've already had over ten years of sitting next to the person behind the wheel picking up all their habits. Of course, you only pick up some of them. The rest are probably invisible. But there's still all of the hands-on things you can only learn by doing and to an extent, you have to sort of learn them all over again when you have a different car.

With guns, you probably spent ten years watching gun handling on TV and in the movies. Add to that the fact that you're an American, and you're an expert on handguns. That's why the adoption of the 9mm Beretta was so controversial; everyone is an expert when it comes to handguns.

Last year I spent a week driving a right-hand drive car in the U.K. with a six-speed manual transmission. A diesel, too, by the way. I managed but the first half-mile was, uh, embarrassing. After than I was fine, mostly. Same with a handgun. The same principles apply to a Glock that apply to a 1907 Savage .32. They just work every so slightly differently.

But maybe I'm assuming too much.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old March 13, 2012, 07:28 AM   #22
Glock Guy
Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2012
Location: Ga
Posts: 45
I think it's a terrible idea. The maturity difference in the two ages are too far from each other imo.
Glock Guy is offline  
Old March 13, 2012, 11:06 AM   #23
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Maine offers CCW permits at age 18. Have they experienced more issues with those under 21 than those permit holders 21 and over?
Don H is offline  
Old March 13, 2012, 12:35 PM   #24
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
Is there any factual evidence that CCW permit holders with mandatory "training" are safer than permit holders without mandatory training?
None that I (or anyone else) have been able to find.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 13, 2012, 01:01 PM   #25
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
I suspect that the number of CHL holders that get up to any kind of illegal shenanigans is so small that you wouldn't be able to draw many valid conclusions from the data.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15061 seconds with 9 queries