guncurious

Can anyone tell me if there are any other states beside Nebraska that have laws where it is mandatory to take a training/gun safety class in order to acquire a concealed pistol license? that would be awesome. Nebraska Concealed Carry and Handgun Training Classes, Greater Omaha Chapter of the National Safety Council

Also, Do you think it would be a good idea for more states to enact the same policy?

philster

Yup. I'm a huge gun fan, and would own ALL OF THEM if I could afford them! But I support all reasonable "hurdles" to gun ownership. If you've ever looked at a loser and thought "man there ought to be a license required to have a kid" you're being a huge hypocrite if you don't think the same thing about guns.

For the record I don't think waiting periods help anything. Background checks yes. But if someone goes to the gun store with the intent of getting a gun to cap a MOFO they are mad at, is 5 days really going to make a difference? "Man... I spent 500 bucks, and now I don't even remember why I wanted to kill him!"

deadshot2

Lots of States require training in order to obtain a CPL or their equivalent.

There is not standardization though so what is acceptable in one State isn't even a bare minimum compared to another. Some states require a demonstration of one's ability to hit a target at varying distances and others don't even care if you know how to load it as long as you can pass a test.

Some states require classroom training and a test while others allow you to take an online test to fulfill training requirements.

Utah has a course that is taught all over the country so people can get a Utah non-resident license. Requires classroom training. Florida allows one that has served in the Military to provide a copy of their DD-214 to cover the training requirements.

With that kind of variety is there really any benefit?

I too believe in training for carrying a handgun. Not so much for proficiency but in the laws that cover the use of deadly force in Self Defense.

The biggest obstacles to introducing a training requirement is the belief by many that this would be an unwarranted infringement. Couple that with the profiteering motive by trainers, the fight over standards for training, and the desire of Law Enforcement to take control of the process, and I agree, it would be an infringement but of a different sort. An infringement due to the bureaucracy, not law.

philster

That's kind of what I mean by "reasonable hurdle". Any obstacle to getting a gun should be based on logic, not fear or bureaucracy. Basic background check for ownership. You want to carry in public? Then sure, why not proficiency testing. My club will give you a key to the pistol range to shoot off hours if you qualify for proficiency. Isn't even that hard. 6 out of 10 in the black on a B-17 target at 25 yards.

rodrob

To get a conceal carry permit in Oregon you have to have a class. We live close to Oregon border and see class ads in newspapers frequently.

FatFugg

I may get bashed for this, but I think all states should require at least a knowledge test if not a skills test.

Personally, I found it ridiculous that when I was 21 all I had to do was go down, fill out the paperwork, get fingerprints, wait for them to verify that I wasn't a criminal & voila I'm legal to carry a pistol! With VERY little firearms experience & "0" pistol experience, the state of Washington decided I was competent to carry a pistol!

Luckily, I spent some time at the ranges & made some friends that had a lot of firearms knowledge & I sponged off of them & from books.

TheRedSkull

2nd Amendment is a god given right, i dont support government regulation where it can be avoided, i dont think another hurdle is the way to save people or to make them earn a given right, they may lose that right later, but i cant support that kind of regulation, we can police that with current laws and common sense...

DevilDoc

I'm from Texas originally, and training was required there. But you had to go through a state approved course, and it was expensive. In the end, it was around $500 for the license and training. Poor people should be allowed to defend themselves too, don't ya think? The state pays for driver safety, why not gun safety? It doesn't matter if gun rights die by quick legislation, or slow suffocation.. Once those rights are gone, they're gone.

Guncurious. Here we are talking about this again. Didn't you listen the last time? Changing the way you ask a question in hopes that you'll get a different answer, doesn't change anything. Incremental erosion of rights is still erosion of rights. You keep floating by us these worn out gun control ideas to see what "gun people" think of them. I have an idea. Instead of asking people on the internet what they think about guns, why don't you go to a gun range and rent a gun. Better yet, go spend a few hundred dollars on a training course. Oh, you don't have the money for that? Well, not everyone does. Why shouldn't the government say you have to go through a training course before you can OWN a gun? It sounds perfectly legitimate, right? Until you realize that you're CHARGING PEOPLE TO EXCERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Why not require training on voting? You know, $2 or 300 to train you on history and civic responsibility. Voting is too important to be in the hands of the ignorant, right? You see the slippery slope?

The vast majority of gun "accidents" don't happen when CPL licensees are carrying. It's suicides and accidents in the home. The really preventable accidents are kids getting their parents guns, and that's a small fraction of the total number of gun deaths per year. And there are training programs available through the NRA. So why doesn't the state encourage the Eddie Eagle programs in schools? Why aren't there aggressive training programs for kids? There's your big piece of information to put on whatever school paper you're writing.

deadshot2

If I'm not mistaken Oregon accepts the Maryland "Online" Test for firearm safety as qualified training. If so I guess it is a step forward. Can't really insure safety or proficiency but it's better than some training which amounts to "the bullet comes out this end" type.

bigggbbruce

2nd Amendment is not god given... It was written by our founding fathers as a means to protect our country from those who would object to our independence.

Guns are not for everyone. All to often I am at the range. When some yahoo pulls up with "the gun I just bought today" and is not able to handle his gun safely.
I put down my gun down and step behind them for 2 reasons, 1.not to get shot 2. to provide basic training that they should have recieved before they were handed the gun.

philster

Totally support this, or proof of any NRA basic safety course, which should in my useless opinion, be the national standard. Ever see some of the more advanced NRA courses? They aren't as Ninjafied as some of the famous tactical schools, but they are rock solid.

I don't support adding a "means test" into the process. $500 is beyond ridiculous! Fishing licenses are getting crazy too, but anything over a low paperwork processing charge is out of line IMHO when you consider a carry license doesn't grant access to a shared resource that is supposedly "patroled by agents" like a fishing license does.

I just want folks to have basic firearm safety knowledge and be able to score at least 60 at 15 yards. Which is ridiculously easy. And yes, if you can't do that, I don't think you should be allowed to carry in public. I would love to require periodic requals too, but that starts getting complicated, and it's an added expense on the shooter.

TheRedSkull

you are correct god didnt give me that right, but may as well of imo...

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.

i think adding tests and such infringe, 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass that right, if they later prove themselves incapable that can be dealt with without adding more rules and complications...

i want less regulations not more...

philster

So do I. But I also don't want a mall-ninja pulling out a sig, and holding it sideways, shooting at a bad guy with me and my family in the background. I don't want you in public holding a gun unless you know how to use it. I see so many idiots at the range it ain't funny.

FatFugg

TheRedSkull

sadly being stupid isnt usually illegal, but the range might want to look at banning those that violate range policy.
but i agree common sense isnt common, nor is it in great supply these days...

philster

The range, heck all ranges in King County are in a very delicate position politically. Survival is always in question. You have to let the public shoot. The range masters do a great job, but someone can put themselves and others in danger faster than anyone can react. The rules are clear, and there are preemptive rules, like if you can't put shots on the paper, you will be asked to leave. But you have to let folks demonstrate they need to be asked to leave.

DevilDoc

Because that happens all the time, right?

This. The government doesnt need to enforce range policy. Can some of you even imagine what life would be like if you didn't have an all intrusive government in every aspect of your life? And yes, the right to defend myself is god given. The right to live a free life is god given.

I hope everyone realizes that Guncurious is a budding anti-gunner, and your posts are just helping him form his opinions. Think about that when you post.

philster

Only needs to happen once for me to have a very bad day...

DevilDoc

So, you mean this has happened at least once?

philster

You want to search it up go ahead. I have better things to do. If someone sees no benefit to forcing people to prove they can hit the side of a barn before letting them conceal carry, they just may be leaning toward the fanatic side and I see no reason to debate with them. We always hear "If someone had been at that arizona shooting with a gun a tragedy could have been avoided!" Only if they could actually shoot, under a butt load of pressure.

"If we don't let everybody carry, I could lose my right to carry" is not a good argument to me. It's far more likely that if we aren't careful of who we let carry, we will all lose our right to carry. It'll only take one case of 3 innocents getting shot by well meaning citizen, when the bad guy only shot 2 to start a shit-storm our carry rights might not survive. We make people prove they can keep a car inside in the white lines. We make people prove they can actually see to get a license. That's discrimination right there! I see no difference.

svytlana

except a defensive weapon no mater what it is, is ba right from birth as an american(human) and driving is a privalige. mother mature provides for the self preservation instinct no matter the weapon. we arnt created to drive.

philster

Wow... I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Kinda hard to read. But Freedom of movement is guaranteed in the constitution. And if right to privacy is the basis of Roe v. Wade, than certainly if pushed, freedom of movement would most likely be found to cover driving.

DevilDoc

She's saying driving a car on a public road is a privilege, where self defense is a right. A privilege can be taken away, a right can only be given up. Roe v Wade extrapolated to mean that the 14ths due process clause equals a right to drive? Did you pay a lot for your law degree?

bigggbbruce

As an example: I was in the range parking lot. A man pulled up in a Lexus 350. Jumped out with a small caliber hand gun. Fired 3 rounds, after every round he turned a loaded gun on the firing line to chase each brass. I was yelling at him from my car and was trying to get the range master involved. Before I could he was in his car and gone... If I see him again it will be on...

bigggbbruce

I have a commercial license.. If I am late on child support they will take it from me.. saying it's a privilage... even though that is my living and taking it prevents me from paying my support... go figure....

philster

Didn't say that. I said that if the right to privacy allowed Roe v wade, then the right to freedom of movement, if pushed, would likely cover the manner in which such movement, was accomplished. A right to drive...

DevilDoc

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Driving a car is no where close to bearing arms.

philster

It's not semantics. It's a completely different argument. And I would reply to you that concealed carry is nowhere close bearing arms in a well regulated militia.

Might want to research what that means. The supreme court has determined that it means the imposition of proper discipline and training. So how am I wrong when I state that there should a requirement of a reasonable amount of training and a demonstration of proficiency?

And I would argue that driving a car is more central to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness than owning a gun is. Ever need to drive to the emergency room? How about a job interview? How about taking your wife to the hospital for childbirth if you live out in the boonies? I haven't had to shoot any of my guns yet to protect myself, or my family.

DevilDoc

What are you doing on a gun forum?

I'd be curious to see which SCOTUS ruling enumerates training as a requirement to being a member of "a well regulated militia". To my understanding, the Selective Service Act nicely fulfills the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd, therefore my right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Might want to look up DC v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago.
Driving a car on a public road is not a right. It is important, but not essential to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". All of the activities you listed could be accomplished by calling an ambulance, calling a cab, or riding a bus or a bicycle. Personal ownership of a car or the unrestricted use of one is not a right. Road taxes on gasoline, registration, and inspection fees are just that. Fees for use. You are paying for the privilege of using taxpayers roads, and that privilege can be revoked, even for example, for unpaid fines for civil violations. Takes a lot more to lose the right to own guns. See where i'm going with this?

What part of the constitution guarantees movement?

philster

I'm on a gun forum because I like and own guns... Duh... I have the shortest legal shotgun possible for defense purposes. I have high capacity magazines for my handguns. Gun owners are like snowflakes. We don't all buy into the party line that there should be NO regulation. I'm all for closing the "gun show" loophole, but I feel that I shouldn't have to use an FFL to receive a legally purchased gun as long as I pass the background check. I'm complicated like that...

in D.C. vs Heller the supreme court determined "well-regulated implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training"

Edited to add: Okay, I guess if I was willing to jump through the hoops I could have a shorter shotgun. I have the shortest legal "over the counter" shotgun available.

TheRedSkull

kind of hard to do that without proper equipment, like firearms.
yeah, we dont need firearms to defend ourselves, just like we dont need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, or cars to get about, we can make do however, but i prefer more options to less and less regulation when compared to more.
enforcement of previous rules and use of common sense is what we need more of...
even with tests and such before being required to get a gun we will still have dumb people doing dumb things, because some people are just cool like that...

philster

I don't know where you get the idea I'm anti-gun from anything I've said? Check my other posts! I own guns... I love guns... I belong to the NRA and a shooting club and am about to join another for better access to "action shooting", which critics would probably call "paramilitary training". I'm currently sitting on both target and defense loads. My last pistol purchase was based on the fact that it didn't have a magazine safety, a thumb safety, or a loaded chamber indicator, so I totally embrace personal responsibility and choice.

I just honestly don't want you Concealed Carrying if you can't shoot. And proving you can shoot takes 5 minutes and 10 rounds. What's the big deal?

TheRedSkull

i didnt say you were anti-gun. calm down...
i wasnt talking about concealed carry...
i give up; tell me what the big deal is?

philster

Sorry. Your first line that I quoted sounded to me like I was trying to take everyone's gun away... I'm not. I'm quite attached to a few myself

TheRedSkull

tis all kosher, i think we are all here because we love our guns, but to bring politics and such will always get heated...
we may disagree in areas, but i think we all love our guns...

bigggbbruce

Gee.. philster n theredskull I was gonna say good thing you don't live in the same town.. gettin kind of frisky.....

The issue is some who want to buy a gun have little to no experience with any type of gun... They truly need some sort of training...

Problem is how do you identify them and how do you give them the training to send them on their way...

I've had many guns over 40 years of shooting... I don't feel I need to prove anything....

We enjoy our hobby (sport) but it can be very dangerous....one mistake can be fatal...

DevilDoc

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

philster

You might want to dig a little deeper than wikipedia.

James

Oregon and Nevada both require training for non-residents to gain a CW permit.

Training is NOT a bad idea. Each states laws are differant.

DevilDoc

It's a summary by the Cornell School Of Law. Check the link.