To Permit or not to Permit

T

TomMarker

New member
I was going to post this in another thread, but felt it was too OT...

I may require some of Lawdog's "asbestos underoos" for this one :)

Assuming that Ohio finally gets CCW, and the "priveledge" to apply for a permit rather than Vermont-style carry, I am hoping that there will be a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate some amount of gun safety and marksmanship. I don't exactly relish the idea of having to beg the state via paperwork to exercise my right to self-defense, but I honestly feel that gun safety knowledge is near an all-time low. Go to a public range in Ohio and you know what I'm talking about. Go to a sporting goods store right before hunting season and you know what I'm talking about.

There's a huge difference between keeping a 1911 in the nightstand, and carrying it IWB. IMHO. I personally don't think that my abilities are at a level where I would trust myself to be 100% responsible. I know a lot of people who think they are, and are dead wrong in their belief. Read a few of the "what would you do?" threads and look at the spectrum of answers you get. Honestly, I wouldn't trust some of these folks to CCW.

I'm not saying that I would require everyone to take a NRA endorsed class, as I'm sure that's quite a racket for them, but I think there should be some sort of "safety quiz" before you can get your permit.

I know that the licensing people like to compare handgun registration to automobile registration, but I'm not asking people to register their guns. I'm saying that I think that people who want to take the responsibility to defend themselves can prove that they can do it without putting everyone else at risk.

Are there groups of people out there who are allowed to publically carry firearms (police, military, etc) who don't get some sort of official training? I seriously doubt it.

I know there are a few states which require what I'm talking about. I'd like to hear from folks who went through this ordeal, and tell me what you thought of it... I'm sure there will be a huge difference between folks who have a lifetime of experience with firearms, as opposed to people who had an epiphany, and realized they NEEDED a gun, pronto.

Of course, if firearms safety/marksmanship were standard fare for kids while growing up, this probably wouldn't be a big problem. But that's not how it is everywhere.

Thoughts?
 
Tom, the major problem with the training requirement is, who makes the determination? You can damn sure bet it won't be someone with a clue about guns.

In El Paso county (CO), you have to provide a DD214 (which is useless), or a certificate from an NRA basic pistol course (better). However, it's only a matter of time before someone who snoozed through class shoots off his own foot, or someone else's. Then the bureaucrats will shriek, "See, the NRA training isn't good enough! WE must set the standards!"

Before long, you'll have to shoot one-inch groups at 50 yards, weak side, in 15 seconds. But hey, you'll meet some artificially imposed standard, so it's OK, right? At least until the examiner (a govt employee) has a bad hair day and tears up your app.

I absolutely agree that training is a Good Thing. A absolutely DISagree that govt-mandated training is necessary or proper.

Long story short (too late!), there's no easy answer to this one.
 
Tom, let's extend your premise a little further. There are 80-some million people in this country who own guns to hunt, target shoot, for self-defense or just to own them.
Probably only a small minority have had formal training. Should we require that everyone who owns a gun go through a government-run training course? Al Gore thinks so, and methinks his plan is a backdoor attempt to deny purchases by making the requirements unrealistically strict.

There are no government-mandated tests for journalism, yet Dan Rather is on the air. ;)

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Monkeyleg,

I understand your concern, and I played the exact arguement in my head while posting.

As I said, I think that CCW is a completely different scenario than home defense/hunting/target shooting. CCW will put you in a lot more "gray area" situations than when you hear a thunk in the dark at 3am.

So do we just hope that if you apply for CCW that you've taken the responsibility to train and learn what you're doing?

I realize that this is probably just an academic question, given the small number of problems (A/D, losing your gun in a school auditorium, etc) combined with the off-chance that you will be in a "grey area." But it just seems that as more and more people have the opportunity to CCW, that we will have more people who have no idea what to do.

Would it take a real idiot to just go on sheer macho bravado and say "I don't need no steenking training." ?? Yes, but there are a lot of idiots out there :)

I agree with Coinn... no real easy answer here.
 
Tom: Simple question: Over half the states have adopted concealed carry reform, with restrictions varying from Vermont's "You're not a criminal or a child." to major league training.

Can you provide any evidence, any at all, that lack of training has presented any problems in the states which don't require it?

As a general rule of thumb, FIRST you establish that there IS a problem, and only THEN do you attempt to solve it. Only problem you've proven the existance of yet is that you're worried; Care for some Prozak?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Well, so far the various training programs required under shall-issue systems elsewhere have NOT been too nasty. Granted, there's no guarantee the training reqs won't ever be jacked up.

To me, when a state like TX or AZ does 12 or 16 hours of training total, the most valuable bit isn't the safety and gun handling stuff at all - it's the typically four hours of "legal use of deadly force" classroom instruction that is probably gonna prevent more problems than any other bit.

What Tom Marker seems to be concerned about is that the "gun culture" in his formerly zero-carry state has been systematically destroyed, therefore the fact that "zero training" CCW states exist with little problems (WA, ID, etc) might not be a sign that no-training CCW will be OK in Ohio.

I can certainly see the argument either way. I think that if putting in moderate, 16-hour-tops training helps shall-issue CCW pass in the first place, it's probably worth it.

In theory, there's a type of carry somewhere between shall-issue and Vermont - call it "Vermont with training". Under such a system, there's no prior requirement to score a permit and indeed, the gov't has no clue who the permitholders are - but licensed private training facilities across the state give "gun training diplomas" that are required to be on your person if you're packing. And like Vermont, you'd better not be a felon.

Under this system, because there's no fees to the gov't the costs would still be reasonable if you increased the training time from 16 hours to something higher. Perhaps even 40 hours, covering far more "tactical scenarios" and such. While that might be a pain, remember that there's no several-months background check so the moment you're done with training and have that piece of paper, bingo, you pack right away. And given the much greater training, it might be easier to "sell it to the sheeple".

Ohio is now, potentially, a really good place to test this system out. It would even appeal to the "I don't want them having my name" crowd folk.

Jim
 
Lott has found difference in problems with permit holders in training vs no-training states.

However, this is confounded by the demographics of folks who get permits. Usually, more educated and older. That might be the operative variable.

This is a touchy issue as it brings two forces in conflict.

One is the RKBA and the possibility that permit systems are so expensive and troublesome that they discourage people.
Another aspect is the basic constitutionality
of such laws - but that's a giant debate as one can see who follows the fight.

The other is that there are sure a lot of dumb folk out there. You worry about couch commandos and inappropriate use of force.
So far, we haven't had many problems - that is probably due to the demographics above.

Personally, I can live with the mixed compromise of systems like TX. The legal part of the course is sobering for folk who having considered the issues.

My solution would be to make the course, very low cost but necessary.
 
Well as to the training. I know people who are LEO who still manage to do strange things. One SWAT team member in my area "pulled the pin" on a flash bang, then dropped it. He then decided to pick it up again. He only lost one finger though.

Or a local cop who shot a doctor in the head "by accident" when he started smacking the window of the car with his glock [he must have been using the barrel, I guess, since that is the only way I can figure he could have managed it]. In that incident the cop did have cause to have his gun drawn but he was using it in a very stupid fashion and UNSAFE fashion.

Friend of the family, who just retired this year after about 30 years in LE, about 5 years ago almost shot himself in the foot with his glock ON THE RANGE! Because he got on the trigger way before he was on target.

This is not meant as a LEO flame, but simply to address your point about "training".

Safe gun handling is simple. I follow Cooper's 4 rules myself. It does require practice though. If your not comfortable yet with your skills then start by practicing around home.

In my experiance most people when armed are more responsible than normal. That is the way I am. Some people are not that way but IMHO those people are usually flakey enough to stand out in the first place.

So far the highest level of safe gun handling I have seen was when I was a RO/SO for a blackpowder shooting event. Had a party of 5 guys walking around a trail with "unloaded" soot burners. I thought I would have to remind someone at least once to be aware of their muzzle even thought the gun was empty. I never had to say a thing about gun safety...though I did go over the rules for the event [ie they had to walk with cold guns etc.].
 
Whether we like it or not, many people turn to the government rather than God for help when they have a calamity. If the government has to pay for our calamities they want to control our conduct (hey, they want to control it anyway). When you see road signs shot-up, you know there is, at a minimum, a need for training and something more drastic. I think it would be good if our schools had mandatory intro course on gun safety and another on for learning to shoot. People from the community could teach these courses.
The fees for concealed carry permits are a problem for the most need (of carrying a handgun), like single mothers who work at night. The fees should be done away with.

------------------
Alexander Solzhenitzyn:
"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
 
I'm philosphically agin any training requirements.

You screw up = you buy it - just like with anything else. If you are to operate ANY machinery (or, quite frankly, walk across the street) you should avail yourself of the inherent risks AND act accordingly.

Case in point. We now have driver's licensing. One (sometimes) does the driver's ed, takes a test, passes/gets the license & off you go. The tests are a joke & there is no proficiency updates/on-going testing, & still, in almost any major city (listen to the trafic reports) you'll hear of the "single vehicle roll-overs" (& these on clear, un-rainy days!), multiple pile-ups in fog (worse in snow) ... many people are just plain stupid.

I've seen idiots talking on a cell phone, reading a newspaper on their steering wheel, all the while tooling along at 60MPH - in traffic (yes, at the same time).

No amount of training will "absolve" these type folk of their "inate superiority."

Even with on-going proficiency training, doubtful to me that there will be any benefit.

(Obligatory no LEO-slam statement here). Even with yearly/(whatever) qualifications, some just don't take that they carry a deadly weapon seriously & as a result of that carelessness, will/do have unintentional discharges. It is the same with the general population

It is a matter of personal responsibility.

&, as pointed out above, I don't know that there even is a "problem" in search of a solution.

I would suspect that most that go through the CCW "qualification," are some of THE most responsible persons around. And, to date, stats seem to back that up.
 
The training program for CCW in my county is subject to approval by the Sheriff. It consists of the basic NRA defensive handgun safety course plus 4 hours of range time plus a qualification where you shoot with both hands and strong hand only at a nine inch pie plate at fifteen, ten and five yards. Weak hand is tested only at ten and five. The shooting is timed, but the limits are liberal. Passing scor is sixty or seventy percent.

There is also an evaluation by a police psychiatrist that consists of a "personality inventory" type of test and a half-hour conversation. And a criminal history check by the California Department of Justice.

I'm not sure I want everybody I meet to be carrying a gun. The fact is, half the people are below average, and the bottom ten per cent of them are downright defective.

Regards,

Ledbetter

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited July 19, 2000).]
 
Coin,

Having read many of your posts, I am reluctant to take exception to your comments. However, I respectfully do so in this case. You stated: "you have to provide a DD214 (which is useless)".

As you know, everyone with military experience has some basic firearms training and familiarity. I agree that at the "low end" this training isn't much, although I suspect it is every bit as good -- or as bad -- as many elementary NRA or state "hunters safety" courses (at least that's my experience).

Beyond the "low end", though, many military personnel receive and assimilate very extensive small arms training -- and they have many years of sound handgun practice. I suspect none of us would denigrate the handgun/small arms proficiency required of SEALs, certain Rangers, Air Commandos, etc. In addition, there are many non-special warfare types who have decades of excellent, hands-on sidearm experience.

To summarize, that DD-214 may mean little or it may mean a great deal. It varies by the individual. IMHO, suggesting that it is "useless" for all is simply wrong.

Regards.
 
I'm with labgrade.

No safety nets. If you want to carry a gun concealed, then do so. If you make a mistake, then you bear the consequences. If it's put out that way, then people who want to avoid those consequences will either train themselves through much study of the applicable laws or will take a course.

But I do not believe either should be mandated by the government, nor should the government be allowed to "permit" me to carry concealed. It's a clear infringement of my right to defend myself, which is the utmost of all rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top