Permit requirements (opinions please)

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by rimfirerukus, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. rimfirerukus

    rimfirerukus New Member

    11
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    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...
     

  3. gengomerpyle

    gengomerpyle New Member

    16
    0
    0
    i see florida doesnt recognize south carolina. they both require training classes.
     
  4. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    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...
     
  5. Duck

    Duck New Member

    140
    0
    0
    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.
     
  6. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    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...
     
  7. Righteous

    Righteous New Member

    573
    0
    0
    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
     
  8. hillbilly68

    hillbilly68 New Member

    994
    0
    0
    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
     
  9. Duck

    Duck New Member

    140
    0
    0
    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?
     
  10. rimfirerukus

    rimfirerukus New Member

    11
    0
    0
    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 *** 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.
     
  11. 1919A4

    1919A4 New Member

    94
    0
    0
    If you want to carry a gun around me and my faily, and you are a law-abiding individual with no criminal record or history of substance abuse, I'm fine with it but I still want some proof that you know how to handle and shoot it safely and have an understanding of when you can and cannot discharge it. That's just common sense in the real world. If we're supposed to be more responsible and law-abiding than the average citizen, as gunnies love to claim, then it's impossible to argue against allowing untrained individuals or those with shady pasts into our midst.
     
  12. cddbrowns

    cddbrowns New Member

    1,075
    0
    0
    IMO, the old days had fathers that would teach the children how to use firearms safely. Since in many cases that does not happen anymore, some sort of training should be required. Hell, make it a middle school class. :)

    Sent from my HTC using FirearmsTalk
     
  13. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    This thread is 3 years old. But its still relevent.

    Study after study has shown that states which have mandatory training have the same amount of negligent discharge as states with no training requirment. It all boils down to individual responsibility.

    Training requirements just throw roadblocks in the way of liberty. If left to their own devices people will and do seek training.

    Im not totally against permiting as it gives the police and citizen a means of quickly proving the individual is probably not a prohibited person.
     
  14. lonewolf101

    lonewolf101 New Member

    528
    0
    0
    I think once you get a background and you PASS then it should be up to you how you want to carry it and another thing I dont like is the WAITING PERIOD in WIS.it 48 hrs and I thought this INSTENT CHECK was to be in place for handguns in the early 90's wasent that a bill that the NRA had passed?.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  15. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    The waiting period thing makes no sense to me. Ive already got a safe full of handguns...
     
  16. FatPat

    FatPat New Member

    130
    0
    0
    There is no way to slice mandated training and it not be an infringement on your, my, everybody's rights.
    I've done a lot of searching, and can find exactly zero evidence that mandatory training decreases negligence. IIRC some States' mandatory training is a written test that has no reqirement to show competence manipulating a firearm.
    Mandated training is another .gov control. Another hurdle to jump. Nothing more.
     
  17. lonewolf101

    lonewolf101 New Member

    528
    0
    0
    dont have any yet but I have to make two round trips to pick it up after the WAITING GAME IS OVER! and gas is NOT cheap!:mad:
     
  18. hydrashok

    hydrashok New Member

    692
    0
    0
    As I said in other threads:
    It's not like we're beating a dead horse around here... :cool:
     
  19. Marthor

    Marthor New Member

    447
    0
    0
    18 months of mandatory military service for every American Citizen at age 18.
    Wallah... everyone is trained. :D
    ...Although the going trend is to abolish mandatory conscription like France and Germany have done fairly recently.


    Here's another idea. Add firearm safety training as a class in public highschools... everyone gets trained. :cool: