Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/)
-   -   Permit requirements (opinions please) (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f17/permit-requirements-opinions-please-2889/)

rimfirerukus 01-01-2008 09:22 PM

Permit requirements (opinions please)
 
I was just sticking my 2 cents worth in another post about the cost of a permit when it got me to wondering about this.

Some states have requirements to have some sort of training to get a personal protection permit (concealed carry or CHL's in other areas ect.) each state calls them something different. My state does not require any training. I can see that it is good in some ways and bad in others. For example: It makes getting a permit quick and easy because it is only a matter of filling out a little paper work. This is mostly personal convienence because taking a class would be near impossible for me given the the fact that I work a 13-1 schedule (work 13 days and have 1 day off) that makes it hard to make a class when I am only off work every other Sunday.
Bad in the fact that some guys are getting permits that should really be getting some classes before they carry a gun. Also like I mentioned in the other post it does not allow for some other states to honor an Indiana permit. Ohio for instence does not honor my permit because our issue system is not similar to thier own issue process in that there is no class or re-class required every few years.

Just curious what others may have to say on this matter.

NGIB 01-01-2008 09:52 PM

I'm kind of split on this one myself. My state does not require training either, which is OK for me as I have a military background anyway. The down side to the no training issue is that you'll have some folks with little or no practical experience and training packing. I'm also pretty sure this is an issue other states look at when they determine reciprocity agreements. For example, South Carolina has a training requirement and Georgia does not. Neither state recognizes the others CCW permit - because of the training? Not sure there's a perfect answer for this one...

gengomerpyle 01-01-2008 10:15 PM

i see florida doesnt recognize south carolina. they both require training classes.

NGIB 01-01-2008 10:23 PM

I was looking at a reciprocity map and SC seems to have alienated a lot of southern states. We share a long border and it seems strange that my GA permit is good throughout the south except there. Not sure it was specifically training but that was probably an issue...

Duck 01-01-2008 10:26 PM

I'm sure there are some people in states that don't require training that could use some, but think about it. Do you know anyone with a CCW that isn't already pretty proficient? Everyone I know (myself included) that has a CCW in Georgia would not need the training.

NGIB 01-01-2008 10:35 PM

I was at the Marietta gun show last month and saw a bunch of folks handling CCW type guns that obviously had no experience at all. Waved muzzles all over, couldn't close a slide, couldn't find the mag release, etc. These folks, provided they have a clean record, could be packing. Not that I want any additional infringements on rights, I'm just up in the air on this one...

Righteous 01-02-2008 01:40 AM

Alabama all you do is fill out a form at sheriffs department and some counties you can have permint the same day, the fee varies county to county but no training required, mine only runs $7.50 a year

hillbilly68 01-02-2008 01:52 AM

This is a tough one. If one says everyone needs the training to carry, it speaks to the anti-gun side of things when you really think of it. We don't need permits to carry, it is our right from the start. Unfortunately the world we live in has twisted and taken some of our rights, so we have to have the permit to carry. A "necessary evil" I suppose. I remember well the world without "shall issue". My opinion is this (and is my opinion only) that since we have to be permitted to carry, this should come with a training requirement. There should be no requirement to get a permit, period. But since there is, the training aspect is probably a good idea. Although the training is nothing more than a liability drill that you must go through, absolutely inadequate for an individual that does not train in their own to carry responsibly.
regards

Duck 01-02-2008 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillbilly68 (Post 13504)
This is a tough one. If one says everyone needs the training to carry, it speaks to the anti-gun side of things when you really think of it. We don't need permits to carry, it is our right from the start. Unfortunately the world we live in has twisted and taken some of our rights, so we have to have the permit to carry. A "necessary evil" I suppose. I remember well the world without "shall issue". My opinion is this (and is my opinion only) that since we have to be permitted to carry, this should come with a training requirement. There should be no requirement to get a permit, period. But since there is, the training aspect is probably a good idea. Although the training is nothing more than a liability drill that you must go through, absolutely inadequate for an individual that does not train in their own to carry responsibly.
regards

So if there should be no requirements to get a permit, why do you think there should be training? Why should there be a requirement for training with a permit, but no requirement if a permit wasn't needed?

rimfirerukus 01-02-2008 04:45 AM

It is an issue that has pit falls on either side. There is no real answer. I myself do not support the idea of the trainning classes. It seems to me that they are more or a way for the state to cover it's ass on the liability issue. But the fact is that there are a number of people that have no buisseness with a gun much less a permit to carry it. I know a few of them. The training classes would not eliminate them as permit holders anyway. Problably only natural selection can do that. As Hillbilly68 stated "it speaks to the anti-gun side of things when you really think of it" and gives the state an excuse in the future to say that the training is to costly and use that arguement to eliminate the permit altogether. Sorry if I sound a little anti big brother but I do not trust our goverment. They have to much control of my life as it is. If you read Ohio's rules for example it seems clear that they are useing the training aspect to limit the reciprocicity of the permits with other states and discourage citizens to from getting permits in the first place. With so many states like Ohio that have been anti gun for so many years and now are starting to give it's citizen's right's to thier defence, it just seems to me that they are not doing it with out catches that work for themselves. Perhaps to have permits issued at the federal level, but one could only imagine the kind of hoops that we would have go through and the cost would most likely be prohibative.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.