What Do You think Is A Reasonable Level Of Training Before Issuing A Permit?

[RSillsbee]

There is a lot of contention about Wisconsin ditching the training requirement for concealed carry. My question is what reasonable level of training do you think should be required before a permit is issued?
I am aware that the following is purely anecdotal but in the “class” I attended there wasn’t one person who didn’t have some prior firearms experience and some knowledge of basic firearms safety. I don’t imagine too many absolute beginners elect to get their permit w/out some prior experience

[TheWraith]

1. I would favor a competency test rather than required training.

Many people don't need to be "trained" to handle a gun if they already know. There should be optional training courses for people not familiar with it. But in order to avoid wasting the time and money of people who already know how, a simple range test would be plenty. Demonstrate that you know how to safely handle, load, fire, and clear a handgun. In and out in 15 minutes. If you don't know how, go take the class.

[RSillsbee]

2. Sounds reasonable to me NT

[OffWithTheirHeads]

4. You should also know the laws in your state regarding handguns

When it's o.k. to use it (or brandish it) and when it's not. Arizona is simple, California is not.

Of course in Arizona, the test for CCW is do you have enough money to buy a gun. If the answer is yes, you can carry.

[TheWraith]

6. I agree with that.

Actually I've suggested before that the other part of getting a permit should be demonstrating knowledge of laws about self defense and carrying, with a simple written test.

[RSillsbee]

7. It is NEVER ok to "brandish" a weapon

You draw a weapon when there is a credible threat to your (or another's) life or you believe that you will suffer grievous bodily harm if you don't defend yourself.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

10. Do you think that every applicant for CCW knows that?

I think that is my point.

[Euromutt]

20. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion

Though I'll concede it probably depends on what you understand by "brandish." Say you're confronted by a person with Ability (e.g. a knife), Opportunity (he's 20 feet away) and who presents a credible threat of Jeopardy (his words or actions indicate intent to harm you using aforementioned knife). In response, you draw your weapon and present it at him, whereupon he decides discretion is the better part of valor and scarpers. So you're left pointing your gun in the direction he ran in, which means that by some people's definition, you've been brandishing your weapon from the moment you drew it.

[RSillsbee]

61. But as you said that's some people's definition.

Brandishing is a pretty specific word, it means to inappropriately use the weapon as a threat.

[Straw Man]

11. New York State law doesn't mandate training.

In fact, New York law forbids live fire training for anyone who doesn't have a permit. There are a few exceptions. For example, those under 21 (but over 14) may fire handguns in the presence of a certified instructor, but those over 21 cannot. The patent absurdity of this needs no explanation.

There is considerable variation between counties and the county judges who preside over the permit system in this state. Some counties require some level of training; my county requires a six-hour course that doesn't involve any handling of firearms. It's mostly an overview of function and safety, with a little bit on the laws thrown in. It taught me nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- that I did not already know, including some information which I knew to be false.

[TheWraith]

12. Oh believe me, New York specializes in absurdity.

Including the fact that someone who owns a pistol and keeps it exclusively in their home needs a permit, and that other people--including, say, that person's spouse--aren't legally allowed to use or possess said pistol without having their own, separate permit on which that pistol is also listed.

Personally, I suspect half of the rules are just moneymaking moves by the counties. In my county it costs around $100 to apply for a permit, regardless of whether you get approved or not, plus nickel and dime fees like $15 for a copy of your permit, $15 to add or remove a pistol from your permit, etcetera... and mine is supposed to be one of the cheapest counties.

[Remmah2]

41. In Erie we're still paying $8/transfer.

Kathy Hochel was our former county clerk. She's pro 2A. Recently she went to Washington in a special election where she took a congressional seat. I hope she continues her pro 2A views.

[Prophet 451]

29. Ditto that and an addition

I've long been in favour of a similar competency test prior to purchasing a firearm at all. Once you do the test, you get a little certificate or card that says you've passed the test which you have to show the dealer when you purchase your firearm.

[Common Sense Party]

59. I had about 8 hours before getting my Utah permit.

Although not required, our instructor took us to the gun range for part of the class time, so every student could demonstrate they could actually safely handle and fire a gun.

I did not feel like any of my constitutional rights had been taken from me in this. I feel better knowing other CCW holders around here have had some training.

[SteveM]

66. I'll go with this. Plus instruction on the law pertaining to firearms.

Of course, states like Vermont may not choose any training, but that is an individual state power, whether Texas or Florida likes Vermont's approach or not.

[jmg257]

3. Can you clarify? The thread a few days ago said they were eliminating live-fire training.

Does the permit process include any class time?

[RSillsbee]

5. Wisconsin isn't the point

The question is what do you think is a reasonable level of training (regardless of the state)that a person should have before being issued a permit.

[jmg257]

8. OK, but just so we are clear(er), I found this at the end of the article linked to

in the other thread:

"Under the law, anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon must obtain a permit from DOJ. Applicants must receive training through courses conducted by national or state organizations that certify firearm instructors, courses offered by police departments, technical colleges and universities and courses for police officers and private detectives. They also must provide written proof they've completed such a course."

I am assuming that is the revised current law (so maybe it isn't clearer!).


While live-fire is always fun, I think a good 6 hours class time should be enough to cover the basic handling & safety aspects, state laws, reasonable notions about self-defense, etc. I would also like to see some handgun handling time for each applicant, even w/o firing.

[oneshooter]

9. I tend to favor the Texas model. 8-10hrs of classroom and a 50rd live fire test

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

I also like the required signage http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm

and the DPS keeps very good records on line http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[petronius]

14. If it were up to me, I'd prefer something toward that end of the scale as well

With comprehensive coverage of laws relating to carrying (when, where, etc), use of force, interactions with law enforcement, conflict resolution (maybe some role-playing scenarios), and a demonstration of physical proficiency.

Shall-issue after that, and a fee structure that was not a barrier to any person...


(So that 'Section 30.06' - was that deliberate, or just luck-of-the-draw?)

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Luck of the draw. N/T

[Katya Mullethov]

13. Same as voting

What could go wrong ?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. None, just like Washington State.

If I elect to get the license, it is my responsibility to ensure I carry legally, and safely. I will seek out what training I need. Both legal, and marksmanship, plus insurance, proper retention, proper clothing to conceal it, etc.

If I fail to do so, and fuck up, it's on me. I will go to jail for it. Suffer severe judgments, etc.

I like the system just the way it is.

[customerserviceguy]

16. What other Constitutional rights require any form of training

or qualification before you are entitled to avail yourself of them?

[jmg257]

30. What other constitutional right can involve me getting shot in the ass by an

unsafe uneducated enjoyer of that right? :)

[customerserviceguy]

31. Well, voting rights come to mind

Somebody could get enough of their friends together, and elect a jackboot government. Why not have a minimal standard of education before you can vote?

[jmg257]

32. Because an uneducated voter in and of him/herself is not going to shoot me in the ass by mistake!

Even if he is smart enough to gather with a bunch of his friends to vote enbloc.

[PavePusher]

37. No, but the people they vote for could.

And they could even do it by design rather than by mistake.

[jmg257]

43. That's why I carry! For defense from those who would purposely try to shoot me in the ass!

[one-eyed fat man]

33. How about protesting in Oakland?

or do you nor count the Oakland PD as among the unsafe and uneducated?

[jmg257]

40. What about it? Were those protestors accidently shooting each other in the ass?

[oneshooter]

34. How would you know it was a mistake? n/t

[jmg257]

42. Ha - one never knows does one!? :)

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Lets see

the first amendment could be misused to:

incite a riot
commit conspiracy
start a fucking war
commit fraud

etc.

[SteveM]

67. You make a good point...

The argument concerning concealed-carry (or for that matter the carrying of hunting arms) is that in the public domain, the state has an obligation to insure the bearer in public has some minimum training. While I sympathize with that, in reality if someone is competent to have a firearm in his/her home for self-defense/militia purposes, then there should be no un-due restrictions on carrying as well (as far as the competence of the arm bearer) for self-defense. Ironically, hunting with arms requires training, a measure which is probably constitutionally defensible since neither self-defense nor militia duty is contemplated.

[Abin Sur]

17. None, not that there should even *need* to be a permit.

[jberryhill]

18. Between pull-up pants and going potty every time /nt

[Union Scribe]

19. A trip to Gunsite.

Paid by the state, of course. It's in their best interest that carriers are well-trained. :thumbsup:

[PavePusher]

38. I like.

Can't afford gunsite yet. Bugger.

[the other one]

21. My driver's license requires periodic renewal

and it requires that my automobile be registered and insured.

Gun permitting should require no less.

[LAGC]

22. Is driving a vehicle a constitutionally-protected right?

:shrug:

[the other one]

23. Is gun ownership?

The ammendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you see the word gun anywhere? Arms in terms of state militia is what I read. Gun advocates always avoid the first half of the ammendment, and then assume "arms" equals "guns".

A shoulder-mounted grenade launcher is an "arms". An F-16 is an arms too.

I want my constitutionally protected right to a nuclear weapon. (pretty stupid, but certainly implied by gun nuts)

The constitution was pre-police and pre-US military. It was drafted at a time when state militias where the defense of "the people."

At one time a gun represented six weeks of pay to the average man; now it is less than one week.

I don't think it unreasonable that the states determine the definition of "arms" and determine what constitutes legal possession of them.

[mvccd1000]

24. Thank goodness your fringe views have been shot down by court after court. n/t.

[the other one]

26. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

It's what made this country great.

Also avoiding discussion of serious issues has helped too.

Is the War on Drugs in the Constitution?

Are public schools?

Even a strict constructionist should do better than that. Unless they are in the pocket of gun manufacturers, or rascists like the founders of the NRA.

[oneshooter]

35. "rascists like the founders of the NRA." Ya gonna back up that statement with proof

Or continue to pull "facts" out of your ass.

[PavePusher]

44. This I'd pay money to see.

The semantic contortions required should open a wormhole to Alpha Centauri.

[oneshooter]

49. Really don't expect an answer. He is the type that believes in the

"because I said so" rule of evidence. Has nothing but what he pulled from his ass.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

69. I read that statement out to nearby Bouldin Creek Cafe patrons. LOL! nt

[AtheistCrusader]

56. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAAHA A AHA HAHAH AHAHAHAHA

I mean I don't even...

[SteveM]

68. Hmm, who were the racists? BTW, the South was in no position to found anything. nt

[LAGC]

25. Is free speech no longer protected because we don't use quill and parchment any more?

No, we rely on the Supreme Court of the United States to expand our constitutionally-protected rights to keep up with the times and technology.

Back in the Founders' times, the "militia" meant every able bodied adult male. Thanks to women's suffrage and civil rights, women and minorities are now included too.

Just because we no longer rely on unorganized militias since we have modern police and military doesn't mean the basic right of the PEOPLE (the same PEOPLE as mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments, by the way) has changed at all.

As for the type of arms people should be allowed to carry, it was pretty clear that the Second Amendment was talking about infantry-grade arms, those that a soldier can carry on his person. Small arms? Yes. Heavy arms like planes and nukes? Not so much.

[the other one]

27. The courts have never held for free speech.

They have defined strict limits on speech time and again.

It was never intended to apply to individuals, but to the press.

The courts have held to the doctrine of "without prior restraint". That means that the government can't take your printing press before you use it, but they can sure as hell arrest you once you have said the wrong thing.

The nice thing about amendments is they give people a belief that they have rights, but the courts have made clear that these rights are merely privelages.

Should I say thank goodness the courts have never held to your mainstream views?

[LAGC]

28. Oh really?

Then why is it the Westboro Baptist folks get away with holding their protests and keep succeeding at suing municipalities that try to restrict their free speech rights? Courts have ruled in their favor time and time again. Same with neo-Nazi marches. I think the ACLU would disagree with you that the First Amendment is "strictly limited."

And the SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. It's settled law, just like Roe v. Wade.

[one-eyed fat man]

36. You are wrong on both counts.

From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Early American authorities likewise adopted the English focus on directly punishing belligerent uses of arms, rather than interfering with the freedom of individuals to keep them for defense of home and family.

As in England, the right did not authorize breaching the peace. The Massachusetts Supreme Court in a libel case likened the freedom of the press to the “right to keep fire arms,” which did not protect “him who uses them for annoyance or destruction.” Commonwealth v. Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 314 (1825).

United States v Sheldon, in 5 Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory
of Michigan, 337, 346 (W. Blume ed. 1940)

The constitution of the United States also grants to the citizen the right to keep and bear arms. But the grant of this privilege cannot be construed into the right in him who keeps a gun to destroy his neighbor. No rights are intended to be granted by the constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose. And although that instrument prohibits the passing of any law abridging the liberty of the press, it does not follow, that if the act of which this defendant is charged is a contempt of the authority of the court, that it is any less a contempt because it is committed through the medium of the press.

It is not possible to read this as discussing anything other than an individual right unconnected to militia service. If it did have to do with militia service, the limitation upon it would not be any “unlawful or unjustifiable purpose,” but any nonmilitary purpose whatsoever.

Note that these are both libel cases from the 1820's and the judges clearly compare the freedom of speech and the right to arms as comparable in the they are both individual rights and that neither give an individual the right to cause harm. You have no more right, without justification, to libel or slander your neighbor than you do to shoot him.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. Really?

What limits are there on speech? Oh yeah - NONE.

Speech applies not only to the press but to every person individually. To do otherwise would be absurd.

Are there some forms of speech which can get charges brought against you? Sure are - but there should be. Some speech causes others direct harm, and when you misuse that speech and harm another, you deserve to be accountable for it.

As far as that whole "prior restraint" thing, how about you apply the same to arms? No prior restraint, but penalties for misuse. Yep - that's pretty much what the pro-gun side of the argument is. No restrictions, just punishment for misuse.

The rights exist, but a right does not mean you have free reign to do something regardless of consequence. If you violate the rights of another through your misuse of your rights, then you have the responsibility to accept the consequences.

The courts have held this view consistently since this nation began.

[cleanhippie]

53. Oh, my! The ignorance...

IT BURNS!!!!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Wrong wrong WRONG WRONG WRONG AHAHAHA WRONG

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. Sigh....

This is getting old...

Ok - first off, guns ARE arms. Simple as that. One is a subset of the other. Hence, it is logical and rational to conclude that "arms" equals "guns".

You are correct - a shoulder-mounted grenade launcher or an F-16 are arms. Both are LEGAL to own.

You have a right to nukes. Now go buy one. Good luck with that. They are currently all owned by the federal government who is under no obligation to sell to you. Even if it did, you'd be talking somewhere around 8-9 figures. Kinda self-limiting, dontchathink? Its the greatest bullshit argument used as a piss-poor attempt to say "Well if we can restrict nukes, we can restrict other things".

Who gives a shit that it was pre-police and/or pre-military? I dont see that it has been changed, so you're stuck with it. Sorry you don't like it. Any other rights you want to cherry-pick? By the way - the police are an arm of the state - and they exist not to protect you, but to enforce laws.

What a gun used to cost is irrelevant in the context of ownership being a right. Thanks for pulling the elitist card though. Now we know where yous tand.

Since you don't think it is unreasonable for the states to determine how a person may exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, are there any others you think the states should be able to modify? That line of "thinking" allows a state to decide blacks may still be slaves. I'm going to conclude, in the interests of assuming you wish to be intellectually consistent and honest, that you have no problem with slavery or the repeal of women's suffrage?

[cleanhippie]

52. Why, yes. Yes it is.

now what?

[jmg257]

54. I never ignore the militia observation. Please have all restrictions

on militia-grade firearms (and their accoutrements) like the M16, M14, M4, MP5, M9, P226 lifted please.


Thanks!

[gejohnston]

72. using terms of the time

and technical military terms used today:
F-16 is a weapons system. Given the expense and required maintenance crew, owning one is absurd.
Rocket launchers are assault weapons.
arms are small arms that can carried by an individual.

Nukes are ordinance not arms. The NRC and international treaties would have a problem. What "gun nuts" implied this?
The original intent was to have a Swiss style military, not an empire.
With wages dropping, you might revisit that less than a week of pay, but how is it relevant?
The states and feds do, Heller was about the boundaries of reasonable. DC was not reasonable.

[PavePusher]

39. No, your licence is independent of your registration and insurance. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Your license allows you to drive

on public roads and highways in all fifty states. You do not have to own a car. Nor do you have to plan a trip checking to see what state honors your license.

You do nor have to register a car unless you operate it on public highways. There are thousands of farm and ranch vehicles which have no plates and are driven by 12 year olds daily.

So, if you are proposing that my license to carry a gun in public be expanded to all fifty states, your driver's license analogy has some merit. But if you think I should have a license to keep a gun in my own home, bullshit!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. One does not need a license...

...to own a car. Registration is not required for ownership. Insurance is not required for ownership.

All of those are required only if you intend to drive the car on public roads, and then only because the fact that normal operation of a car is inherently hazardous.

Transporting a car does not require a special license for that car. Granted, you must have a license to drive the truck transporting it but that has more to do with driving the truck than with the car being the cargo.

To make it completely analogous, one should not need a license to carry a gun unless one operates it in public. So basically, you're saying unless I discharge a firearm in a public place, i need no permit to purchase, posses or even carry a gun. Thanks!

[slackmaster]

51. Mirror Test

Hold a mirror near the applicant's face. If it fogs up, the person is good to go.

[PavePusher]

58. Well, that would certainly be more stringent than for voting in Chicago.... n/t

[SteveM]

70. LOL! Glad I read that before ordering my drink. nt

[digonswine]

60. It does not matter--

they will pass the class and have their guns. Look at drivers--it would appear that many have never been through any type of training. I am not sure that training affects behaviors in practice. If I am wrong, and training does increase safe behaviors--then some level should be required.

[eallen]

62. Texas mandates classroom instruction and a range proficiency exam

It doesn't train people to use a gun. Applicants have to bring their own, to qualify for the CHL. The expectation is that you already know how to shoot.

If you qualify with a revolver, your CHL is not good for automatics. If you qualify with an automatic, it is good also for revolvers.

I think it makes fine sense to require people to pass a range test, before they get a CHL.

:hippie:

[RSillsbee]

63. If you qualify with a revolver, your CHL is not good for automatics.

Now that is just dumb

[oneshooter]

65. The reasoning is that there are more controls to manipulate on a semi-auto

versus a revolver. Safety, slide release, and that many smaller people would not be able to handle the slide. One thing they did do is lower the minimum test caliber from 38 to 32.

See my post #9 for the DPS website

Oneshooter
Armed and livin in Texas

[-..__...]

64. Know which end of the gun the bullets come out of.

Seems simple enough to me.

However, in the permit holders best interest, it would be advisable to learn and be aware of local, state (and to a lessor extent, federal), firearms laws.

[Hoyt]

71. Enough social training to know you and society will be better of if you don't stick a gun down your

pants before venturing out.