Should we even need a CCW

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by lukeisme, Aug 31, 2010.

  1. lukeisme

    lukeisme New Member

    203
    0
    0
    With arizona passing their new law, the debate has been running stong here in CO wether it should be necessary to even have the whole CCW process. I want your opinions. I have talked to several LEOs here and the majority of them say its a waste of time because the ones that are doing the damage are the ones who arent even allowed to have firearms to begin with. With the concealed carry laws set up to protect LEO personel in the first place and they have proven that those like you and I who are responsible and safe were not the issue should they make it legal for us to carry without a permit? We can open carry here in CO with little or no issue except the occasional out of stater from back east that thinks guns are the anti-christ. Here you can carry concealed on your person in your home or car with out a permit. We have some great laws that protect the law abiding citizen and some awsome LEOs to work with. What do you think remove the CCW laws and just allow for CC without a permit?
     
  2. lonyaeger

    lonyaeger New Member

    10,270
    1
    0
    The process for getting a CHL, at least in Texas, requires training about laws concerning handguns and safety procedures, a written test, and a proficiency test. Those serve a valuable purpose.
     

  3. NGIB

    NGIB New Member

    7,143
    1
    0
    In some ways I agree with you Lon; however, the training requirement can be misused. Here in GA we have no training requirement right now. Our state equivalent of the Brady's proposed to the state legislature that we adopt a training requirement. They recommended 40 hours of classroom instruction and a cost approaching $500.

    Who can afford a week off from work AND a $500 fee? This was an end-around to prohibit folks from getting a permit and it never gained any traction. I believe in training; however, I do not believe in government mandates. Many think the 2nd Amendment IS our permit and I agree in principle - but I also know it will likely never happen...
     
  4. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    Training can be conducted in a couple of weekend courses. That's 4 days of intense training time to fill. The legislatures need to get real on this issue and get the fees down where the average Joe can afford it if need be.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2010
  5. Safetyguy

    Safetyguy New Member

    9
    0
    0
    Imagine if you will a 18 year old able to buy a weapon without any training at all.

    While I do not agree that a piece of paper gives us the right to have weapons to defend ourselves, the words on one piece of paper do. The people who wrote those words just figured that youngsters had parents that taught them the right way to take care of weapons. Not today. So in that light perhaps we should expect that people meet with veterans groups, police associations, local ranges, that have competent trained instructors to simply verify the person wanting a weapon knows how to handle it? Someone somewhere has to verify the ability of the person wanting a weapon. I am quite aware that there will always be those who get weapons who should not have them. Think about it, do you think it would be okay to send a kid out in a car and simply let them drive? Not an easy thing to resolve. There is no special key or magic word that can be used to ensure all weapon holders are of sound mind and will do no harm. In fact, that is why there are LEO's and such along with us "Legal Folk" to help somewhat to keep them in check. That's my two bits, I'll be quiet now!:cool:
     
  6. gorknoids

    gorknoids New Member

    2,396
    0
    0
    My background has me cheering for training and certification requirements, including periodic monitoring. My constitutional side has me asking "Who the fork are YOU to ask me about my abilities and intent?"
    Great question. I opt for the constitutional side, as criminals don't give a damn about laws. Putting the onus on the law-abiding gives the maggots the upper hand. I'd rather see everyone armed to the teeth than just the zombies.
     
  7. mach1337

    mach1337 New Member

    363
    0
    0
    Man I would love to be able to get my CCW while im out here in cali. the place were i fell that i need a gun the most is the most impossible place to get a ccw. Here in SD of all the population only .001 percent have a CCW (10,000 out of over 1,000,000)you have to do a course and training and then have a reason that "they" deam valid as to why you want and should be aloud to have your CCW. I want my CCW so when i get mugged buy that guy that doesnt have one i can shoot his *** and not go to jail. I will be gettin my CCW in TN the next time i go home on leave since im still a permanent state or residance. and i believe the TN one is good for 38 or so states! i love my state!

    sorry guys i hate Kommiefornia only 2 years till i get to transfer outta here!
     
  8. A5Mag12

    A5Mag12 New Member

    101
    0
    0
    I didn't read the part about needing the governments permission in the second amendment. Requiring a license to own or carry a gun is against the law and should not be tolerated.
     
  9. indyfan

    indyfan New Member

    422
    0
    0
    I believe in Concealed Carry laws. Just because you ban concealed carry doesn't mean that some gang member ain't gonna tuck his pistol in his pants and pull his shirt down.

    Banning Concealed Carry takes away from the responsible ones. The robbers/gang members/whackos are still gonna conceal weapons on their body anyway.
     
  10. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    every criminal that is shot by a law abiding citizen interrupting a criminal act denies the democratic party a vote. that is why they block every effort for common folk to carry weapons. obama and his ilk could give three farts if a honest person dies at the hands of a gangster.
     
  11. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    I guess the real litmus test will be what happens in Az after a year or so with Constitutional Carry. Personally I think that it puts undue regulations on our rights as stated in the BOR. And I"m sorry but I know too many people that have passed those tests in different states and they have no business with a firearm on their person. I'll wager we all know at least one person with a CCW that shouldn't have a weapon. Or at the least not be carrying one around with them. So I'm not too sure that the testing is weeding out the people near as well as some might think it does.If you do know one person like I'm talking about then the requirements are useless. Because that one idiot that tested well but is a true idiot or mall ninja will many times be the one we hear about in the papers doing something stupid.But hey...He passed the course.

    But I will be watching the situation in AZ very close to see how things go with their Constitutional Carry deal. And I believe lawmakers in other states will be doing the same.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2010
  12. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,435
    109
    63
    In Florida it is a 3 hour course at about $55, or a copy of your discharge if you are a vet. A passport quality picture, fingerprints and $115. Wait a couple of weeks and you have it. Probably a lot of Floridians carrying that may be unsafe to them selves and others. A little more training would not be a bad thing.

    In Florida it seems like a way for the state to be profitable, though the permit is good for 7 years now.
     
  13. lukeisme

    lukeisme New Member

    203
    0
    0
    I would be the first to agree that training is an absolute must. But three hours?? Give me a break!!! I am seeing these jackrabbit courses here where they never even go to the range. Is that training? Well in my opinion it isnt anyway. Another issue I have developed is the need to pay for constitutional rights. Hum that sticks with me. I have no problem with the background check but I also know that when you buy a firearm you have to have one then. Also a few weeks, what they can do a background check in minutes to purchase one but not to carry one. I think it really is just another way to make it a pain in the butt to exercise the 2nd ammendment.
     
  14. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    Agreed...Training is a good thing. The more the better. Most the permit holders I know get much more training than any LEO in this area does to qualify. And for that reason I'd more often than not prefer one of those permit holders having my back. Now I do know plenty local and state LEO that train more than anyone could consider necessary. But it's not the standard. I'm all for anyone that carries a weapon getting tons of training. They just might need it. My problem lies in the idea that to be allowed to flex your rights you need to give money to the government to take a class that is all to often not near what the state regs. require and if they do run it right once Billy Bad A$$ gets out with his shiny new card and a copy of Soldier of Fortune goes out to intimidate people or other stupid things. There's a guy on my wife's side of the family that the idea of him even having access to a weapon is a scary thought to say the least. This guy passed his course but is nothing short of a waste of human sperm. And I know others just as bad.I'm sure we all know at least one of these type of people. So I just don't see where putting these regulations in place. My wife's idiot family member can carry a weapon but another guy can't because he's behind on his child support but actually might have done more training, been trained in military but who cares?
    Without the regulations the idiot still has his weapon. But we don't hinder a man or woman that is denied for some reason that has nothing to do with their ability to use their weapon.
    It's supposed to be a right, so why are there stumbling blocks? Why are we required to pay off the government for what was given to us by our creator (As per the Constitution)? I really don't think the weeding out is doing near what we're supposed to believe it is. So the only reason for it has to be income. Simply we are being taxed to carry a weapon. A tax that need be paid again each time we renew.
    A rose by any other name...

    I guess this is one of the bigger reasons when at a public range I look for those that might need a little insight to proper handling of a weapon. If for no other reason just to try and plant the seed of responsibility. The test(s) try to instill this but we all know that you have to go into it with the right mind set or it's going to be like that class in high school that you really didn't care much about. Sure you can pass the exam but what did you learn? Maybe I'm wrong but I really don't think so. We will see how it pans out in Az. If it don't go crap house crazy then I"m sure other states will follow suit. And I don't see that as a bad thing.
     
  15. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,435
    109
    63
    I agree on the 3 hours and no or very limited range time being an issue. Being years removed from regular shooting, and not growing up in a family that did any shooting, I took an 8 hour (that became a 11 hour) NRA course. We spent about two hours on the range shooting various size and calibre hand guns. I feel that was a well spent day for beginners or others who have been casual shooters over the years.

    I now have a Florida CCW, but still feel that futher training will be good. That and a lot of shooting. Fortunately the shooting is to be looked forward to.
     
  16. Phelenwolf

    Phelenwolf New Member

    876
    0
    0
    If I remember correctly Az is the 3rd state to pass a law that does not require people to have a CCW permit. So maybe you should look at the other 2 states and see how they are doing. I believe they are Alaska and Vermont.

    I strongly believe that if you have never handled a weapon you should have to get some formal training. I have been hunting and shooting since I was able to hold a rifle by myself at age 6. So I have been around weapons going on 34yrs now.
     
  17. Snubshooter

    Snubshooter New Member

    90
    0
    0
    The Constitution is Quite clear THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL MAY NOT INFRINGE ON MY RIGHT TO OWN AND CARRY WEAPONS on my person. Constitutional Carry is the ONLY legal way to carry. Now, should a person have common sense enough to be properly trained and be proficient in the use of those weapons yes. But under the CONSTITUTION that is each individuals decision.
     
  18. bullpuppies

    bullpuppies New Member

    7
    0
    0
    I cringe thinking about how ignorant some gun owners are. But I cringe more thinking about how ignorant some law makers are.
    I'd rather take my chances with the gun owners.
     
  19. pmanton

    pmanton Member

    135
    6
    18
    I'm an Arizona resident and I have to disagree with concealed carry without going through a course.

    Both my wife and I went through the 8 hour classroom and live fire exercise to obtain our concealed carry permit. There were people who could NOT pass the live fire exercise despite being given numerous tries.

    Now these same people will be packing pistols. They will put holes in everything except what their shooting at. Some applicants could not even loade their weapons.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Paul
    Salome. AZ
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2010
  20. DrumJunkie

    DrumJunkie New Member

    4,823
    0
    0
    Well, I'm 46 and have been around and using weapons since I was about 5-6 years old. But that isn't what qualifies me to buy or possess a weapon. I know people that have ben around them longer than me and they have a permit and the have no business with a weapon. I know at least one person that can not get a permit because he owes child support (he got hurt at work and was denied disability for 5 years but couldn't work) that is probably one of the most qualifies people I know.The paper serves no real purpose. if this is able to happen. You're only allowing regulations on something that was guaranteed to you by our Constitution. That's like saying you have the right to free speech but you need to pass an English lit class first. If this training actually weeded out the idiots then maybe it would hold water. But I am still waiting for everyone that permit holder that can honestly tell me that they know no one in their state that has a permit but really should not. If this is not the case then the entire argument that is serves a real propose is moot. Should people get training? Hell yes they should. But to say you have to get the training to buy a weapon or to carry one on your person is a rail against the founding fathers and their ideals of this nation. You can not possibly tell me that they trained every person that owned and/or carried a rifle in the 1700's If this was the case then I would think that it would have been written in also. Or at the very least there would be a lot of documentation alluding to this fact.

    What I'm getting at with the Az. litmus test is it will be a little different than Alaska and Vermont. They have a much different demographic. So people will be looking to see what happens there before they look to the states that have been that way already.

    I find it interesting that so many of us believe in getting back to the founding principals of this nation but are so willing to place restrictions. I heard so many times during election campaigns how they all supported the 2A. All they wanted was to put "a few common sense regulations" in place.
    That quote "a few common sense regulations" scares the hell out of me. Who's common sense are we to use? Obama has been putting his "few common sense regulations" everywhere he can. And he probably really believes he is using common sense. But I think we can all agree that most all of it really makes not much or no sense at all. So who's sense do we use? It seems that most the people on this forum will agree that the Constitution makes sense. So why are we so willing to chip away at it? It seems to me that we either use the Constitution or we don't. This living breathing constantly changing document that the powers that be believe should be changed to force their will isn't a good idea. I have read many posts that reflect this. I don't think I'm near important or smart enough to decide on changes to or restrict the Constitution. It seemed to me that it worked pretty well until people went to using their magic eraser to make all the changes we see now.