In a recent thread FYIMO [which I assume means for your information, my opinion] made a statement about having to qualify with a semi-automatic in order to be able to carry one. If you qualified with a revolver you were only permitted to carry a revolver. My state has no such requirements, and I would be interested in hearing from others on the forum [in light of all the brouhaha concerning guns in private possession] would respond to tighter state regulations for gun owners. What would you be willing to accept? I have a Weapons Carry License, and have held it for more than 25 years. Wouldn't additional training and qualification [with documentation] be advantageous to [and not a particular imposition upon] responsible gun owners? Wouldn't it send a positive message to those who might not want to own a gun [and think no one else should want to, or be able to, either]?
Requirements for Concealed Carry
- Thread starter corgiS&W
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Corgi, each state has its own rules for carrying.
Some make sense and some don't. Mostly don't.
Some make sense and some don't. Mostly don't.
In Virginia you can just take a course online. In West Virginia you havta shoot 50 rounds as part of the qualification but not necessarily with the same gun you intend to carry.
Hill_Country
Member
Texas has the requirement to qualify with what ya carry - revolver or SA. Qualify with a SA and you can carry a revolver.
Makes no sense, but back in the day when cc was first passed in the legislature there were all kinds of trade offs to quiet the anti-gunners. 10 hour training class for example.
Of course additional training is a good thing, but it also functions as a tax and a restriction on my right to KABA. Until there is a demonstrated need for specific training, it should be up to the individual to obtain training.
Makes no sense, but back in the day when cc was first passed in the legislature there were all kinds of trade offs to quiet the anti-gunners. 10 hour training class for example.
Of course additional training is a good thing, but it also functions as a tax and a restriction on my right to KABA. Until there is a demonstrated need for specific training, it should be up to the individual to obtain training.
In Missouri you have to shoot a course with both a auto and a revolver. You can carry what you want.
I'm not sure there will ever be a demonstrated need for training. I am just suggesting that voluntary training or qualification might ease the minds of those who are making demands based on no information or misinformation. If I can do something to ease the discomfort [or whatever] in those who have inadequate information or wrong information, and also have no desire or willingness to acquire that information, would it not be wise for me to do that something?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,669
- Reaction score
- 21,359
More training and proficiency are better than less, but if you mean will mandating such training will ease anti-gun sentiment the answer is no. Ignorance about guns can be changed by providing information, but there is no reasoning with the true anti-gun crowd (and no amount of training, positive gestures or goodwill on our part will change this).
baldeagle8888
Member
to corgiS&W
I have to concur with murphdogs answer.
By the way corgiS&W, how would you like to have to pass either/or a spelling or grammar test before you could use the 1st amendment. Afterall, you wouldn't want someone to not understand what you said or meant.
baldeagle8888
I have to concur with murphdogs answer.
By the way corgiS&W, how would you like to have to pass either/or a spelling or grammar test before you could use the 1st amendment. Afterall, you wouldn't want someone to not understand what you said or meant.
baldeagle8888
a tough answer..at my CCW class, an elderly gentleman who had never owned a gun brought his brand new M&P .40 to qualify...He had no clue how to operate, load, or shoot it...Me and my buddy actually walked back to the cars for cover when his turn was up....it was that scary.....thank god, the instructor loaned him a revolver to shoot.
I know my opinion will not be well received here, but I would like to see a higher standard for qualifying...wouldn't hurt the seasoned enthusiast but would make it a little more safer for those in the circle of a newbie...
JMO...exercising another right
I know my opinion will not be well received here, but I would like to see a higher standard for qualifying...wouldn't hurt the seasoned enthusiast but would make it a little more safer for those in the circle of a newbie...
JMO...exercising another right
Try this on,
"I'd like to see a higher standard for education before qualifying to vote. It won't hurt the seasoned follower of current events, but it will make for more informed voters."
Or,
"I'd like to see a higher standard for education before writing for the newspaper. It won't hurt the seasoned reporter of current events, but it will make for more informed readers."
The Supreme Court long ago struck down literacy tests for voters and the text of the First Amendment is quite clear about the government imposing standards on reporters. Why is it that some gun owners think it is OK to treat the Second Amendment as a lesser civil right than the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth?
A civil right is a civil right. There are those that seem to think that we should give some up in the name of safety and security, all the while forgetting that we'll get neither.
"I'd like to see a higher standard for education before qualifying to vote. It won't hurt the seasoned follower of current events, but it will make for more informed voters."
Or,
"I'd like to see a higher standard for education before writing for the newspaper. It won't hurt the seasoned reporter of current events, but it will make for more informed readers."
The Supreme Court long ago struck down literacy tests for voters and the text of the First Amendment is quite clear about the government imposing standards on reporters. Why is it that some gun owners think it is OK to treat the Second Amendment as a lesser civil right than the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth?
A civil right is a civil right. There are those that seem to think that we should give some up in the name of safety and security, all the while forgetting that we'll get neither.
Last edited:
Rintimtin
Member
I hear and understand where you are coming from corgiS&W. Think about this, Now that I have my gun training to use my guns that I have had a right to for 200 years. I must complete my public speaking class so I can voice an opinion. Its not what we accept many of us are reasonable people and understand that some of these ideas aren't all that bad. But are the other guys reasonable NOT AT ALL. And when you give them the ok for something seemingly harmless it will lead to more and more unreasonable requests and once it starts it just may be to late to counter act it. All of this is my opinion and I have had a public speaking class and I mean no disrespect. Thank you.
I don't think I really disagree with any of the comments so far. I think their are a larger number of people who are uninformed or misinformed about why a segment of the American population would choose to own and shoot a gun, or to collect guns like some people collect watches or coins or stamps. That group simply does not have enough information to make a responsible decision. I have talked with people that fall into this category. I agree that nothing will change the minds of the anti-gun people, but it couldn't hurt to try to influence the undecided not to be swayed by misinformation.
I fully agree that "there is no reasoning with the true ant-gun crowd", just as there is no reasoning with the atheist or creationist, so I don't spend too much effort attempting to convince them otherwise.
Unfortunately, no matter how well I choose my words and construct my sentences, either spoken or written, there will always be some who may misunderstand me.
I'm not sure that a higher standard of education would be the solution. What would probably help is an awareness of what one is voting for or against. I have been a registered voter for about 55 years, and there have been occasions when I have chosen not to vote when I knew I was not well-informed about what was being voted upon.
On your second point, I'm not convinced that the level of education of reporters is the problem, but there certainly are instances where what they write reveals that they are not well-informed about what they write. I believe the greater problem is that they have an agenda and use their forum to sell that agenda. Many readers don't realize this.
25elk
Member
In Georgia, you pay your money and get your license. Afew years back it was $10, when I got mine three years ago it was $25. My wife just got hers last week and it was $75, and the Probate Judge told us the renewal after five years is no longer automatic and the entire vetting, fingerprinting, background check will have to be done again, and in his words,"...God only knows what it will cost five years from now". See where this is going? THEY intend to skin this cat anyway they can and I think whether we do our damnest to try and positively influence to anti 2nd Ammendment folks or not, it won't matter. And yes, I wish everyone who owned a firearm knew how to responsibly use it, but it just ain't gonna happen. It's the reason any sane person uses a seat belt everytime they get into a vehicle.
I've had my Georgia carry license for about 25 years, and yes the cost has steadily increased; but the renewal was never automatic. I have been fingerprinted and had a GBI background check done every time I renewed. The time before this last one took so long [about 3 months] they had to issue a temporary permit.
I suspect the cost increase is more a "tax increase issue" rather than a 2nd amentment issue for the state.
No, these people are being deliberately misinformed by the media. They are being lied to by politicians and the media about firearms, the realities of "gun violence", who commits these crimes and why. 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.
The problem is that gun owners haven't done much to correct any of this.
You totally missed the point. The point is that voting and writing for newspapers are rights protected by the First Amendment. No one would suggest a literacy test for voting, although they were used in the past. The reason that they were struck down is that they are a Constitutionally impermissible barrier to voting. If you can't bar people from exercising one civil right by imposing a test, you can't bar them from exercising ANY civil right by imposing a test.
Do people need to take a law exam before they can exercise their rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Do people need to take a law exam before they can exercise their rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Similar threads
- Locked
