Requirements for Concealed Carry

[corgiS&W]

They are also being lied to about the travesty that is mental health treatment in this country.

The problem is that gun owners haven't done much to correct any of this.

You are absolutely correct on the mental health treatment in this country. The solutions are complex; people wrongly assume that mental problems are easy to diagnose scientifically, and they are not.

I think we, as a population, are hesitant to speak truthfully for fear we will be accused of being judgmental, and we probably will because so many are convinced that we should not express our opinion. Look how often after a tragic criminal act the folks interviewed say what a nice person he/she was. (A psychiatrist friend once told me, "Bob, when you and I were young he would have been considered a weird kid.")

 

[tompehret]

In New Mexico CCW's are limited by type and caliber. At the live fire portion of the required class, applicants fire the type and caliber of their choice. They are limited to carrying that type in a caliber no larger than the handgun used. My wife & I qualified using a 1911A1 .45 ACP and a Colt SAA .45 Colt which gives us lots of options. Licenses good for 4 yrs. but a "re-qualification" (no class, live fire only) is required every 2 yrs.
As for the debate as to why/why should we have to, I agree it's a tightening of the noose even when done with the best of intentions.

 

[Krell1]

I'm in Utah and, though I've been a long time bullseye shooter, I just recently applied for a carry permit here. The course we were required to take was about 4 hours long and we were not required to shoot anything. There were a few people there who had no idea how to open a revolver or semi automatic much less fire and hit anything with one. The instructor did offer a trip to the range the next day to try shooting but it was not a requirement. Also, I doubt anyone took him up on the offer since it was an outside range and it was pouring rain most of the day. Having an expert classification in bullseye I'm confident in my abilities. I previously had a permit in NY but, as I recall, no practical shooting was required there at the time. It's been a long time since I originally applied for the NY permit (50 yrs) so things there could have changed. By the way, SOOOOO glad I moved out of that crazy state.

 

[accessbob]

People in Oregon just have to have some sort of gun safety class. It doesn't have a set curriculum and an NRA course, or one from another trainer, is accepted. We took a concealed carry class (my wife and I) from a great training business (Blackstone Gun Safety) and it was extremely helpful because he went into a lot about the rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES of carrying.

 

[litenlarry]

I live in Missouri, I have had my CCW since MO passed the statue allowing me to do so..Going on 9 years..
Here is a portion of the statute regarding revolver/ semi auto..
Keep inn mind, MO allows you to carry either or..And multiples..G 23 in a carry holster and a jframe in a pocket or such..

(9) A live firing exercise of sufficient duration for each applicant to fire both a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol, from a standing position or its equivalent, a minimum of fifty rounds from each handgun at a distance of seven yards from a B-27 silhouette target or an equivalent target;

(10) A live fire test administered to the applicant while the instructor was present of twenty rounds from each handgun from a standing position or its equivalent at a distance from a B-27 silhouette target, or an equivalent target, of seven yards.

Section 571-111 Firearms training requirements--safety

 

[Zacko]

I've often felt like many things should require some kind of aptitude test, including having kids. But we don't require a stupid test before you can become a parent and we shouldn't require any more testing or qualifying to carry a weapon.

Is it a good idea to be more trained? Absolutely. It seems like every week or so we hear a news story where some dope was "cleaning" his gun and "accidentally" shot himself or someone else.

I dry fire a lot in my living room, pretty sure the reporters on the 10-o-clock news has been shot 10,000 times. I also clean weapons regularly and I have never accidentally shot myself or anyone else. A little common sense and some care and discipline is all it takes.

Oh, all that and shooting regularly helps too!

 

[Silversmok3]

Firearm ownership is a civil right. There is no qualifier in the Constiution that states only the intelligent and the trained have the right to keep and bear arms.

The average person we read about who defends themselves with a firearm isn't typically a tactical genious. Little ol' grandma with her .38 revolver seems to do just fine against the scum of America , no getting off the X required. All mandatory training standards do is impede the ability of people to exercise their natural rights. Rest assured, morons will carry guns no matter what the law on training says.

 

[RGMoore]

In California you need to qualify with the weapon you intend to carry. SN is checked and as far as I know you can only have 2 firearms on a CCW at least in this county.The initial training is 8 hours min and renewal is 4 hours usually provided by an authorized intructor.
Because of the responsibility and liability of CCW I sought additional training at FrontSight.
I agree that if a civics class were required to get voter registration we would have a better country. Either that or raise the min age for voting to 40.l

 

[Silversmok3]

In California you need to qualify with the weapon you intend to carry. SN is checked and as far as I know you can only have 2 firearms on a CCW at least in this county.The initial training is 8 hours min and renewal is 4 hours usually provided by an authorized intructor.
Because of the responsibility and liability of CCW I sought additional training at FrontSight.
I agree that if a civics class were required to get voter registration we would have a better country. Either that or raise the min age for voting to 40.l

What would realistically happen if voter education were mandatory is that the Democrats would game that system too. Some precincts in Chicago lied about vote info in the 2012 election, and it would be no different if a BG check & test were needed to vote. We'd see news articles of permit fraud instead of registration fraud.


Ultimately, we cannot force people to get educated. Pass a law mandating 1000 rounds of practice and a trip to Gunsite Academy for a CCW permit, and the average Joe would say "F-it I'm carrying anyway, and the Sheriff be d---ned"

Or they'd not , and get shot by some scumbag who breaks the law for a living.

The ironic thing is the Average Joe is well within his Constitutional rights to skip the permit .

 

[GaryS]

I agree that if a civics class were required to get voter registration we would have a better country. Either that or raise the min age for voting to 40.l

Keep in mind that both gun control and literacy testing for voting were started in the south after the Civil War. Both were specifically aimed at preventing black people from exercising civil rights.

Set a standard high enough and many people will not be able to meet it. Or some people will never be able to meet it while others will magically always pass.

 

[corgiS&W]

Firearm ownership is a civil right. There is no qualifier in the Constiution that states only the intelligent and the trained have the right to keep and bear arms.

I fully agree, and I suspect there are some who wish to take away that civil right. But I also suspect that there are many who are not thinking about eliminating a civil right provided by the 2nd amendment, they are simply frightened. And I can understand that. They hear about violent acts committed by mentally damaged people using guns, and the media surely fans the flames. Many, or perhaps most are pushing their own anti-gun agenda, but perhaps there are some who are going along with the flow because they are uninformed, poorly informed or just misinformed. I am suggesting that to influence these people, both in and out of the media, we may need to set aside the 2nd amendment rights argument for a time and take some actions and say some things that will ease their fears and/or provide them with better information.

At a recent dinner with a friend, a retired university professor, fisherman, golfer, and skeet shooter made what I thought was an interesting comment. He said that many people come to a reasonable conclusion about gun ownership based on zero information. They think the only reason people want to own a gun is to shoot people. It's a bit like thinking the only reason to own a fishing rod is to kill fish.

I guess I'm thinking there are at least two groups that could be addressed with our concerns: 1) The confirmed anti-gun group should probably be ignored, as they cannot be swayed. 2) The fearful who do not have any understanding of gun ownership and just want to feel more safe. These latter folks might benefit from knowing that many folks like to shoot guns to improve their skills at doing so just like golfers like to lower their score and runners like to decrease their times and weight lifters like to increase their strength. Fight the battle that has a chance to be won. Don't waste time trying to convince the atheist to become a believer or the creationist to acknowledge the earth is older than 10,000 years. Those are losing battles.

 

[Silversmok3]

I fully agree, and I suspect there are some who wish to take away that civil right. But I also suspect that there are many who are not thinking about eliminating a civil right provided by the 2nd amendment, they are simply frightened. And I can understand that. They hear about violent acts committed by mentally damaged people using guns, and the media surely fans the flames. Many, or perhaps most are pushing their own anti-gun agenda, but perhaps there are some who are going along with the flow because they are uninformed, poorly informed or just misinformed. I am suggesting that to influence these people, both in and out of the media, we may need to set aside the 2nd amendment rights argument for a time and take some actions and say some things that will ease their fears and/or provide them with better information.

At a recent dinner with a friend, a retired university professor, fisherman, golfer, and skeet shooter made what I thought was an interesting comment. He said that many people come to a reasonable conclusion about gun ownership based on zero information. They think the only reason people want to own a gun is to shoot people. It's a bit like thinking the only reason to own a fishing rod is to kill fish.

I guess I'm thinking there are at least two groups that could be addressed with our concerns: 1) The confirmed anti-gun group should probably be ignored, as they cannot be swayed. 2) The fearful who do not have any understanding of gun ownership and just want to feel more safe. These latter folks might benefit from knowing that many folks like to shoot guns to improve their skills at doing so just like golfers like to lower their score and runners like to decrease their times and weight lifters like to increase their strength. Fight the battle that has a chance to be won. Don't waste time trying to convince the atheist to become a believer or the creationist to acknowledge the earth is older than 10,000 years. Those are losing battles.

A CCW permit wil not appease the sheeple.

Someone who trusts government enough to assign it the authority to determine whose life is worth defending isn't our friend. Such people blow where the wind goes; and the winds of public opinion are driven by our crooked media .

The Constitution stands as law no what the common man thinks or finds trendy. We gun owners must anchor our stance on the law and the truth of the US Consitution. When that document becomes irrelevant to the debate, so does liberty and our national mandate.

 

[gunny4053]

Although I believe proper training would be a good thing, in some cases a very good thing, mandating that you must complete a standardized course creates a whole new situation. If you live in a non-gun friendly State, they could feasibly make their "standardized course" and subsequent test requirements so outrageous as to be unachievable. Unless you meet certain qualifying criteria, such being an LEO or other such occupation. These individuals would get essentially a free pass, while "Joe Public" suffers the painful process with only hope of succeeding as his motivation to even attempt it.

It, unfortunately, is a double edged sword. Proper training for all would make us all better protectors of the Second Amendment, and better representatives of gun owners in general, not to mention more qualified to defend ourselves and our loved ones. But it may also provide a way to limit our ability to do so, by governments and individuals forcing imposed requirements so strict as to be unattainable.

IMHO

 

[RSBH44]

I'm in Utah and, though I've been a long time bullseye shooter, I just recently applied for a carry permit here. The course we were required to take was about 4 hours long and we were not required to shoot anything. There were a few people there who had no idea how to open a revolver or semi automatic much less fire and hit anything with one. The instructor did offer a trip to the range the next day to try shooting but it was not a requirement. Also, I doubt anyone took him up on the offer since it was an outside range and it was pouring rain most of the day. Having an expert classification in bullseye I'm confident in my abilities. I previously had a permit in NY but, as I recall, no practical shooting was required there at the time. It's been a long time since I originally applied for the NY permit (50 yrs) so things there could have changed. By the way, SOOOOO glad I moved out of that crazy state.

Yes it is a CRAZY state but as of right now you do NOT need to qualify to recieve a pistol permit. You do however have to jump through many hoops which in turn discourages many from applying. I've had mine for over 20 yrs. I also just received my Utah CCW permit. I would like to see more classes dealing with the handling of a pistol offered to new permit applicants, but I don't agree with mandating it. Then of couse there is the question of the additional fees for such a class and NY and it's individual counties already charges you out the wazoo as it is.

 

[timn8er]

In Oklahoma to qualify for a CCL you must take an eight hour
classroom course followed by live fire on the range. If you
qualify with a semi auto, you are also covered for revolvers.
If you qualify with a revolver I believe you also have to qualify
with a semi auto(if you want to carry both). I don't remember if there is more classroom
time involved. There is no restriction as to caliber in either case.
Including the cost of the course, background checks, it runs
around $175.00 for a CCL. I've heard about people going to
Texas to get their CCL, but I don't know how they beat the
residency requirement. It's suppose to be quite a bit cheaper there.

 

[GaryS]

Were I to be asked, I'd say that requirements such as these are Constitutionally impermissible restrictions on a Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. To me, it's the same as requiring a current affairs or literacy test before one is allowed to vote.

I don't know that a requirement such as this will ever be brought before SCOTUS, but if it were, I'd hope that they would agree.

There is just to much room for the issuing authority to make it practically impossible for some people to qualify for their permit. Again, this was done in the post Civil War south to prevent blacks and other "undesirables" from voting.

In Oklahoma to qualify for a CCL you must take an eight hour
classroom course followed by live fire on the range. If you
qualify with a semi auto, you are also covered for revolvers.
If you qualify with a revolver I believe you also have to qualify
with a semi auto(if you want to carry both). I don't remember if there is more classroom
time involved. There is no restriction as to caliber in either case.
Including the cost of the course, background checks, it runs
around $175.00 for a CCL. I've heard about people going to
Texas to get their CCL, but I don't know how they beat the
residency requirement. It's suppose to be quite a bit cheaper there.

 

[cballman]

Here in Kentucky we have to take a minimum class of Six hours, then fire at a target while the instructors watch, Have to hit 11 out of 20 in the black at 7 yards. $75 to $100 for class. $20 to Sheriff and I think $25 to State Police for background check. Yes we had people in the class that had just bought a gun and fired it the first time there. Scary as could be.

 

[corgiS&W]

Were I to be asked, I'd say that requirements such as these are Constitutionally impermissible restrictions on a Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. To me, it's the same as requiring a current affairs or literacy test before one is allowed to vote.

I suspect that when the 2nd amendment was written people were much more adept at handling weapons [and other tools for that matter], Today, we are seeing people that might hurt themselves with a hunting knife walk into gun stores buy a gun and walk out without ever getting any instruction in how to handle a firearm. [In many states you can get a CCW without demonstrating proficiency with a gun and then buy one and walk out of the store the same day.] The reality/practicality of the situation today is that we may need to acknowledge the need for familiarization with firearms when purchasing and carrying, and be willing to accept "an add-on" that was totally unnecessary at the time the 2nd amendment was written. This "add-on" doesn't eliminate the "right", but it may reduce some fears amongst those who have no desire to carry a weapon.

As a previous poster mentioned, and to which I added a few comments, we, as a general population, need to be more willing to speak to the issue of mental health care and identification. We really don't want to have unstable folks having easy access to guns, as is clear from the stories the media inundates us with on a regular basis.

 

[remat457]

Who determines what "qualify" means? Feinstein? Holder? CLEO? NRA? Makes a big difference.

 

[corgiS&W]

Who determines what "qualify" means? Feinstein? Holder? CLEO? NRA? Makes a big difference.

Excellent question! I hadn't thought about that, but maybe "old timers" could have some input to their representatives on that question. Who better to offer suggestions than those who are knowledgeable about what a responsible citizen ought to be able to demonstrate to be qualified.