GA May Change Age for CCW

B

BarryLee

New member
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/bill-would-grant-18-year-olds-permission-carry-con/nLPBX/
 
Should there be a formal training requirement for everyone?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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- 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.
 
I'm only going to say this once. :mad:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Is there any factual evidence that CCW permit holders with mandatory "training" are safer than permit holders without mandatory training?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top