So, the Gun "Enthusiasts" here are 100% OK that a person can get a CC License and never fire a gun?

[KansasVoter]

So, I can spend $65 for the Utah license and $55 for a class in another state for a total of $120 and be allowed to carry a 45 Auto in 32 states in the USA.

And all this even though I could NEVER have fired a gun in my life.

And never stepped in Utah in my life.

Does this really sound OK to all of you Pro-Gun people here?

It's like walking into the DMV and having an instructor talk to you about driving for 8 hours and then taking a test and then leaving and being able to drive a car.

I am shocked the NRA and Gun "Enthusiasts" do not throw a fit if they really care about this being such a big responsibility.

Because there is not more outrage about this issue it proves the issue is just allowing people to carry guns, not safety.

It is ridiculous that these 32 states allow someone to get a license and never fired a gun.

Shit, a CC license should have a much higher standard of training.

Amazing and proof this is more about show than actual safety.

[rrneck]

1. Yes.

It's like getting a drivers license in California and driving to New York. What's the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Training_requirements

Training requirements

Some states require concealed carry applicants to certify their proficiency with a firearm through some type of training or instruction.

Classroom instruction would typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon. Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues.

Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. During range instruction, applicants would typically learn and demonstrate safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency.

CCW training courses are typically completed in a single day and are good for a lifetime.

Some states, e.g., Florida, recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Such states will ask for a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.<18>

Not all states require training, or hands-on training. For example, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington have no training/safety certification requirement whatsoever. Virginia only requires applicants to view a video and pass a 20-question multiple-choice test online.Text

edit to add wiki entry

[KansasVoter]

2. Shit......

You don't need to have drove a car to get a CA drivers license??? Shit I had no idea!

[rrneck]

7. Edited my post if you're interested. nt

[KansasVoter]

9. Stil did not tell me if you are OK with the Utah law. And did not address the CA drivers test.

[rrneck]

14. Yes, I'm Ok with the Utah law,

but I'm open to suggestion.

[SoCalNative]

3. The difference is

if you have a CA driver's license and MOVE to NY, you will need to get a NY driver's license eventually.

[rrneck]

5. True, I didn't think of that. nt

[newfie11]

16. if you have a utah ccw I do not believe it is valid in NY n/t

[KansasVoter]

24. I said 32 states.

[bossy22]

4. question

if you havent ever fired a gun; you probably don't own, then why would you pay $120 for something you are never going to use?

Your solution is in search of a problem in this matter.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

13. Why is the Utah law insufficient?

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/CFnewapp.html

What Must Accompany the Application?

* A Photocopy of your Driver License

* Photograph. One recent color photograph of passport quality. *Photos may be taken at the Bureau of Criminal Identification.

* Fingerprint Card. One fingerprint card. Must be filled out completely. Writing and prints must be legible. Fingerprint should be taken by a trained fingerprint technician. Fingerprint cards that are not legible will be returned to the applicant and will cause a delay in processing the application.

*Fingerprint services are available from BCI or may be offered through your local law enforcement agency. There are private businesses that also offer this service. Check in your local phone directory. Photos and fingerprints may be obtained at the Bureau of Criminal Identification (3888 W 5400 S, Taylorsville, UT.) The cost is $13.00 for 1 photo and $13.00 for up to 3 fingerprint cards.

* Weapon Familiarity Certification. Applicants must complete a firearms familiarity course certified by BCI. The course must be completed before you apply for a permit. Please have your instructor complete the certification information on the application. View a list of (in-state) (out-of-state) certified instructors.

[KansasVoter]

25. So you think someone is qualified to CC who has never shot a gun? Yes or no

[Statistical]

28. No. Someone doesn't have to prove to the govt they are "qualified" to excercise their rights.

Why not a civics test before voting? Why not a language test before starting a blog? Why not a course in crowd control before a march?

I think VT model works just fine. Until the govt proves that additional requirements are needed.

[KansasVoter]

31. Jesus, I learned more from your NO answer than I have up to this point.

[cleanhippie]

156. Well, now you know, and know is half the battle!

[rrneck]

32. I would rather

require range time (which the Utah seems to require) as well as training for defusing confrontational situations.

[KansasVoter]

80. Utah requires NO range time.

[rrneck]

101. Then I would prefer that they did. nt

[KansasVoter]

104. Wow, I am surprised.

[rrneck]

108. Why?

[KansasVoter]

110. Because you are arguing this whole thread.

[rrneck]

119. Nope

[Travis Coates]

37. Yes NT

[KansasVoter]

83. Your credibility is gone long ago.

[Travis Coates]

103. So do you think I was lying when I said yes? NT

[AtheistCrusader]

125. Hahahaa Utah Residents have to take a class aaaahahahaha suckers

Though, that may be why a Utah Permit is valid in more states than the Washington permit. But I drove to montana last summer, and it was nice, reciprocity all the way.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Works for me.

Until the constitution's "full faith and credit" clause applies to my concealed carry license, you do what you need to do to be compliant with the laws from other states.

Nothing wrong with getting a Utah license through the mail. Same qualifications apply regardless of your zipcode. Utah still gets its fees and its paperwork.

What are the concealed carry qualifications in your state?

[KansasVoter]

11. Not sure, but you need to go to a range and prove you can shoot.

And it is amazing you are OK with the Utah law. But not shocking with the pro-gun group.

[ManiacJoe]

15. I don't have a problem with it.

Theory vs practice. In practice, those who carry tend to go to the range to keep their skill at a reasonable level. Those who do not practice also tend to not actually carry, at least in my experience.

Repeating the question: What are the qualifications in your state?

[NewMoonTherian]

98. self-delete: responded to wrong post n/t

[HockeyMom]

10. Why should you have to pay ANYTHING?

It should all be FREE, just like VOTING, as so many have said.

[KansasVoter]

12. So you should need a fee for driving and a test but not to carry a gun?

[Statistical]

18. You need to pay a fee to drive but not vote.

One is a privilege and the other is a right.

Of course prior to the 1966 it was considered acceptable to require a tax to vote.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections changed all that.

So Held: A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Answer this.....

How does a state's conditioning of the right to bear arms on the payment of a fee or tax not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

I think eventually we will see a lawsuit that asks just that.

[KansasVoter]

27. I have a right to free speech....still need a permit to march or gather in a group. Difference???

[Statistical]

34. That is why it is a question for the court.

However most certainly it is 100% prohibited to charge a fee for elections (despite elections being very expensive).

Just because you have to pay a fee doesn't make it right just means nobody has successfully challenge it yet. I have no problem with permits on public streets however I don't think someone should have to pay to obtain one.

Permitting a march is useful because it prepares the city, it avoid an unexpected large group of people that may disrupt traffic, and have inadequate police presence. Still I 100% oppose requiring a fee/tax for exercising of a right, ANY right.

[KansasVoter]

42. No, permits are common and not being challenged.....

And there is a cost to track CC permits and do background checks.

[Statistical]

47. There is a cost to hold elections.

Just because it hasn't be challenged yet doesn't make it a precedent. Our legal system doesn't work that way. The absence of a court case is evidence of nothing.

It was 100% Constitutional to charge a tax on voting until 1996. 1966. Imagine that almost 200 years after the country was founded. Until their is precedent one way or the other it is simply unsettled law.

I didn't say any such lawsuit WILL 100% win I simply said you will see a lawsuit likely on a state/city which has excessive fees (NY, CA, Chicago).

[KansasVoter]

49. You know there is an amendment against the Poll Tax correct?

How is the election fee even part of this argument?

[Statistical]

53. However the court didn't rely on the 24th in their decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_Board_of_Elections

So Held: A State's conditioning of the right to vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

How is a state's conditioning of the right to keep and bear arms on payment of a fee or tax any less a violation of Equal Protection Clause of the 14th?

[KansasVoter]

59. I think it is admin costs. Which I understand. Like my march fee example.

I guess I would not disagree if you wanted the state to eat those costs as a matter of principal for the 2nd.

But my point is not the cost but the fact I think someone should know how to shoot before getting a permit to carry a weapon.

I am really surprised, more so here, that good gun owners would not want the same thing.

[safeinOhio]

132. In the Chicago case

the court has ruled that it is a civil liberty to buy and have a handgun for defense of the home. Court has never ruled that the 2nd protects the right to carry a loaded handgun in public. In that decision it stated that reasonable restriction on handguns are, for the most part constitutional. There are reasonable restrictions on voting rights. Must be a citizen of the US, citizen of the district for a certain length of time and not a convicted felon. I'll bet the court would side with states on fees for CCWs, to pay for administration and regulate a practice with inherent dangers to the safety and health of others. I think the court, on the other hand, will find against fees for owning and keeping a firearm in the home, but not on purchase fees.

Most "shall issue" laws are made up of reasonable rules and regulations. As for the danger to others because of a state issuing a permit without proper training or testing, it is and will now be up to other states to adjust their reciprocal CCW laws. If you feel that law is a danger to your state, I'd suggest contacting your state representative to adjust the laws on honoring those CCWs in your home state. You can go to http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php
to see if it already does or does not. This map changes all of the time as states adjust to new laws in other states.

Just as I'm fine with Vermont laws for Vermont, I'm fine with this law for Utah. I think it is up to states. If you look at the above link, you'll find if you are a resident of Vermont that requires no CCW you'll see that other states are not going to let you carry in their states. Your only option will be a Utah or other state that lets out of state resident to get CCWs. I will also bet Utah CCWs will be real popular in Vermont.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. The background check fee is separate from the permit fee.

35$ for the permit, 30$ for the FBI background check.
At least in this state. Course, that was about 10 years ago, may have changed.

[Statistical]

135. You want to know the sad thing..... NICS is free.

It was condition of the law that access be provided to the states for no cost.

So they charge you a separate fee for a service they are provided free of charge from federal govt. :)

[AtheistCrusader]

150. We can't use NICS for this.

We have to be fingerprinted, and that is sent in to the FBI.

I think maybe the non-FBI portion of the fee may be for running the prints against the State Patrol's database... You could have committed a crime that might sit in either db, without one agency being aware of the other's record.

[Statistical]

151. Most states that take fingerprints never run them.

It is just "to do something". Maybe your state is different but VA for example all the fingerprint cards sit in a warehouse.

Global fingerprint searches for everything and anything (aka CSI) simply don't exist. Certainly not for things as mundane as a CCW. It can literally takes weeks if not months to run an exhaustive search against the FBI entire database and that computer time is very valuable. It is used for solving real crimes not putting law abiding persons finger prints against a database with 30 million+ records just to get a negative (or false positive) 99.9999999999% of the time. Even then it is routine for any search to generate dozens (sometimes hundreds) of false positives. Computer matching just isn't that good, which then requires forensic experts to peer over the print.

Nope most states do an NICS check, NCIC ("FBI" check as a backup), a local check (normally for outstanding warrants which won't show in a conviction check), take & store the prints and collect a 500%+ overhead for it.

WA for example says nothing about the prints will be run simply that they will be taken. Given that a permit must be issued in 30 days it is a virtual impossibility than anything is done with the prints. Likely like most states they collect them and then put them on file to "do something" to stop "gun crime". Think of the children, we must do SOMETHING.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.070

By statute the fee ends up going to:
$30 going into general fund (state budget)
$4 going to entity that did fingerprints
$28 going to entity that "issued license".
$6 going to state gun range & wildlife fund.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Ours actually get sent in.

We get the card back, with FBI notations on the back, and take it in for submission for the actual permit.

Same for the adoption agency.

[Statistical]

154. OK we can agree to disagree.

The prints might be added to the non-criminal FBI database (military, bonded employees, Police, financial workers, CCW, etc). However it is extremely unlikely any search/match is being done. It is very costly both in $$$, time and computing power to run a match.

At one time I worked as a programmer for a contractor employed by FBI. I know back in 2002 the waiting list for high priority investigations (murders other violent crime designated priority by DA) was sometimes weeks and running a complete search against the roughly 142 million prints takes weeks longer. Given that only $4 of the fee is allocated for "taking prints" I will remain suspicious that anything is done with the prints.

[HockeyMom]

169. Required by law to be fingerprinted to work in public schools

in both NY and Florida. Yes, I had to pay for it. I suppose they are checking for exactly the same things they would for in CCW licensing.

Fingerprinting can now be done with an optical scan which will be fed directly into the database. It doesn't take long for results to come back. I belive it took 24 hours when I had it done.

[ManiacJoe]

93. Your permit to march/gather is not about speech.

The permit is about scheduling for limited public resources (city parks, city streets, etc.).

[NewMoonTherian]

99. You shouldn't need that permit either. n/t

[Callisto32]

117. Why not go the other way and condemn the permit to speak as well...

instead of being an authoritarian and controlling more and more things?

[HockeyMom]

36. So if a gun is a right,

then shouldn't it be totally FREE? As in, why even have to pay to purchase a gun. They should be free of charge to all citizens. That is the logic of the voting agrument.

[Statistical]

38. No that is your bogus argument that I refuted before.

A gun isn't a right, it is an object. A person has the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee that right..... IT GUARANTEES IT FROM GOVT INFRINGEMENT.

In voting states are prohibited from charging a fee to vote or register however there are still cost associated:
* some people have to take time off work (lost revenue)
* some people need childcare (incurred cost)
* some people need transportation (incurred cost)
* some people need identification (requirement which has indirect cost)

Still the government isn't required to reimburse these costs. Nobody said the right has to be free. That is your strawman. The govt however can't charge an ADDITIONAL FEE/TAX on voting.

[PavePusher]

Stop beating that horse.

There's nothing left to it.

By your argument, there should be no charge for books.

Please stop playing stupid, you do not wear it well.

[Callisto32]

118. You have failed to respond to this before, but I will try again.

Based on a different discussion, but the principle applies here as well:


A different view on "right."
Posted by Callisto32 in Guns
Mon Dec 21st 2009, 11:46 AM
For those of you from outside this forum, or who have forgotten about me in my long absence here is the same old disclaimer: I am a libertarian, (note the lower case "l"), not a Democrat, or anything that could probably be confused therewith.

I would say that if the bill states that you cannot get an abortion on the public tab, it is fine. Of course, I don't think that the state should be paying anybody's medical bills, and certainly not calling it a right to receive health care. Here is why. For something to be a right, I believe, it must be able to be fulfilled entirely by the voluntary actions of the person asserting the right. So, for example, you would have the right to enter into contracts with medical professionals for the tender of care in exchange for any valuable consideration you may agree upon. You cannot simply have a right to health care. Because if you have a right, you cannot rightly be denied it, and so someone HAS to provide that service for you. This is tantamount to enslaving the person who is forced, by your "right," to provide a service. Firearms are the same way. If there was a bill that was going to use tax (read: "stolen") funds to provide the populace with firearms, that would be wrong too because of the force involved in moving the wealth around. But, if someone can acquire a firearm and all of the accoutrement, and use that firearm, both in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, then he has a right to possession of that firearm.

[PavePusher]

74. Driving is not a Constitutionally enumerated Civil Right.

See what U.S. law says about fees and taxes on Civil Rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. Good point, but at least Open Carry is free.

[cleanhippie]

157. yes. Pretty simple, huh?

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.


Get your facts together before posting nonsense, please.

[Travis Coates]

106. It IS free in Vermont, Arizona and Alaska

No rivers of blood in the streets

[Katya Mullethov]

136. Because that is what we are here for

We pay for " it" .

[geckosfeet]

17. The state I live in, MA, has relatively strict gun laws. But the only requirement

for a class A concealed carry permit is taking and passing a class certified by MA state police. I have known people who have failed the written test for the class. The class also requires some some dry fire and handling of an unloaded pistol.

Besides that there are some pretty stringent application requirements. If have an arrest record you can pretty much forget about it.

Oh yes. About $100 for the class and another $100 for the license application. That buys you the right start dumping money into the firearm/ammunition sinkhole.

[aikoaiko]

19. Gee, you'd think with all the millions of people carrying concealed legally,

there would be a lot of blood in the streets and yet......

There are just a few incidents of people lawfully carrying, whether from states with classes, no classes, practical shooting tests, or no practical shooting tests, who misuse their concealed weapon in a shooting.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. You must pass a "Weapon Familiarity Certification" course but there is no range time.

I don't think I have a problem with that.

[Statistical]

21. You want to know what is REALLYY SCARRY. In VT you can carry with no permit.

Just put a gun in a holster and carry it.

THE BLOOD IN THE STREETSSSSS. Oh wait VT has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the United States. :hi:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

26. OF course not.

However their is no evidence that allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms increases violent crime rate. None.

Just thought if you are going to freak out about UT which requires some coursework you would really freak out about VT where if you aren't prohibited from carrying a firearm and want to you simply do.

Or VA while CCW requires a permit one can open carry with no permit, no coursework, no range time, no nothing. It has been that way for 240 ish year and hasn't been a problem.

[KansasVoter]

29. Yes or No, it is safe to CC if you have never shot a gun?

[Statistical]

30. I have no problem with it.

None. The empirical evidence indicates it is not a problem.

Still if States WANT to impose that requirement I have no problem with that either.
Also States are not REQUIRED to accept UT permit. They could no longer accept the permit and maybe UT would change the requirements.

[one-eyed fat man]

44. Does having a license make you a safe driver?

yes or no

If you're the kind of shithead who drinks and drives, you'll still drink and drive even after they revoke your license.

I live in Kentucky. I comply with Kentucky law for both my truck and my pistol. Since you have your panties all in a wad over Utah's laws, why don't you write your State Representative in Utah a letter and ask him to sponsor a bill to suit you. I am sure they will take your wishes as a "Kansas voter" and how you want their laws changed to heart!

Damn but you need a bigger.............

[KansasVoter]

48. Dear Mr. Angry......

But you do need to drive a car before getting your license.

You are like 20 minutes behind the rest of us.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. And you can pass that test, without truly knowing how to drive a car safely.

There are other failsafes, and a gun+license is a considerable expenditure, with which a reasonable person is probably going to drop a few bucks on a lane at the local range.

[one-eyed fat man]

138. Driver's testing and such.

Back in 1970, after coming back from my second tour in RVN, I discovered that my then wife had taken a job driving the bus for a local church's pre-school. I was astounded, but I suppose, unsurprisingly, no one at the church suspected that a thirty-two year old American woman, born and raised, would not have a driver's license, for they never asked to see it before turning her loose with a school bus.

She had never had a license! She was in most other respects a safe and concientious driver. She had made a perfect score on the written test countless times. She had done well on her road test. She failed parallel parking, knocking over at least one post every single time. I was married to her and didn't know she didn't have a driver's license until I asked her if driving a bus required a special license in Florida!

So armed with masking tape and a grease pencil I made reference marks on the car and drilled her over a period of days to line up certain mark with a certain pole turn the wheel so many times, back up until another mark lined up with another pole until she had a procedure down by rote. Then a trip to the Florida State police and after 16 years of failure, she finally passed.

To this day the woman cannot parallel park anything except an 1962 Chevy Impala and even then only if the space is delinieated by the four poles in the testing set up.

The lack of a license did not make her unsafe, just stupid for risking the repercussions of driving without one.

On the other hand, if you are the sort of shithead that drinks and drives, you will still drink and drive after the state revokes your license. So between the two examples, let's just settle that most testing only weeds out the people who don't know how to take tests.

As for Utah's only requiring a written test on their law, aside from the training certifications, fingerprints, background checks etc, evidently they feel the important part is for people to know when or if they may or not use deadly force. You could be the greatest pistol shot since the Lone Ranger, but if you shoot the most evil bastard since Charles Manson without legal justification, you still go to jail! "The bastard just needed shooting," doesn't sway many juries, even in 'Bloody Kansas.'

In addition, as a slef-proclaimed Kansas voter, I just find it amusing you have your knickers all in a twist over the law in Utah. You sound as worked up as one of those TV preachers if they just saw in the paper that Utah had allowed polygumous gay marriage!

..........and by they way Mr. Angry sends his warmest regards to Mr. Stupid.

:rofl:

[Statistical]

145. Funny story and you are a good husband.

I could visualize you out there making marks with greese pencil.

Personally I hated the parellel parking aspect of test. I was never good at it. Good enough to get a license but there are so few parallel spots in VA that I never get the practice and if I have to park I will just find a "normal" spot. :)

[Hoopla Phil]

57. LOL. Funny post.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. Sure why not, since we're discussing mythical creatures approaching the scarcity of the unicorn

I'm going to go with 'yes', perfectly fine to get a permit, prior to learning to shoot.

My mom got her motorcycle endorsement by taking the safety class, and at the conclusion, since she met the legal requirements of the test, she got a pass, and boom, endorsement, even though technically, it would have been tragic if she'd headed out on the road that day, I'm sure.

So my brother and I have been working on getting her skills up to actual safe practice, not mandatory minimum legal.


People who A)Acquire a permit, and B)Acquire a gun, usually try it out at a range or something.

[rrneck]

147. When I bought my motorcycle

I rode it to get a license. I took the test and the lady handed me the paperwork as if the process were over. I asked her, "what about a road test or something?" She just looked at me like I was an idiot and said, "You rode it over here didn't you?"

[TPaine7]

172. No, as a general rule, I would say it is not.

As I see it, there is a right to responsibly keep and bear arms and there is no right to irresponsibly keep and bear arms.

Since certain people lack the ability to responsibly bear arms--toddlers, drunks, people who see things that aren't there, etc.--those people can be barred from bearing arms. They quite simply cannot exercise the constitutional right--the right to responsibly bear arms. People without training or practical knowledge fall--to some degree, at least--into the same category.

Most people have a rudimentary knowledge of guns--they know which end the bullet comes out of and how to fire a gun. And people with no greater knowledge than that have successfully used guns defensively. But I think a state could constitutionally require you to demonstrate knowledge of gun safety principles and the ability to successfully hit a human sized target at self-defense distances to carry concealed. People who already know what they're doing should be able to walk in, take the test, and exit in fairly short order.

Charging is a different matter. Requiring half a day or a day's training, and then making you pay the teacher's salary and all of the associated administrative costs is a convenient way to separate the poor and working class from their betters. It's an all too familiar theme.

[knownothing]

22. KansasVoter, don't know about Utah, but in KY

You have to take a firearms training course that reviews the law, and then you have to fire 20 rounds at a live target at 7 yards and hit it at least 13 times. In other words, if you have any semblance of control over a firearm you can pass the test.

But, KV, what you fail to realize is that by and large, most CCW holders probably have fired a gun before, perhaps even done so many times. Oh, and you failed to respond to my question on the other thread over whether you think people have the right to defend their lives effectively. Not a big surprise.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Utah requires a "Weapon Familiarity Certification" course, but no actual shooting test.

Texas has a 50 round course of fire to basic capability.

[Travis Coates]

33. Are you aware that 3 states allow CC W/out a license?

And that 40+ allow OC W/out a license? Yet the streets in these states don't run W/ blood.

[KansasVoter]

50. So your view is that no state should have any restrictions?

[Travis Coates]

55. My view is that if you can legally own a gun you can legally carry it.

So, I would restrict persons who can't legally own a firearm for carrying (because that works so well in Chicago)

What restrictions would you impose?

Damn spell checker's on acid

[KansasVoter]

63. Even with me hating CCW, I think you should have to prove you can shoot a gun.

If I was pro CCW I think I would even want it more.

[Travis Coates]

78. In Colorado other than in Denver

I can legally carry a firearm openly W/out any permit, W/out any fee & W/ out any test (actually there is no shooting requirement in Colorado for a CHP) but if I put on a jacket I have to go to class?

Please explain the rationale behind that.

[KansasVoter]

96. I don't agree with that either.

In kansas you need to take a hunter safety course to get a hunting license. Makes sense to me.

[Travis Coates]

102. Colorado State Constitution

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).


There's my OC permit

[PavePusher]

87. What about Open Carry?

Very few states that have O.C. require any test or licence for it.

Does that make it even more dangerous that C.C.?



Please note that New Hampshire also does not require a range "test", and also issues permits by mail.

If you can demonstrate that there is an actual problem relating to this lack of "test", then you might have a talking point. Otherwise, you are simply trying to stir up angst where none exists or is warranted. There's a term for folks who do that.

[KansasVoter]

95. No, but common sense says you should have actually have shot....

a gun before you are licensed to carry one.

I do not know why you would disagree with that.

I would have thought 70% here would have the same view.

[PavePusher]

107. May I see your proof of training and state issued licence...

for the rest of your Civil Rights, please?

First, Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendment Permits spring to mind for starters...

[Glassunion]

112. I lost my 13th Amendment card.

NOT GOOD!

Downside is it costs $600 for a replacement.

So screwed!

[mvccd1000]

133. Common sense says...

... you should not need a government license to exercise a protected right.

I do have a problem with states that don't require range time to get a CCW. Not for the "no range time," but for the fact that they require a permission slip before their citizens' rights are in effect.

As so many others have pointed out, you don't need a license to OC in most states. Where are the issues with that? You don't need a license to CCW in two (soon to be three) states. Where are the problems with that?

It looks like we still have a lot of states infringing on our protected rights. THAT'S what I have a problem with.

***I fully agree that people should acquire some education before they own or carry a weapon. I don't think you'll find many people who say training is not important. What some of us disagree with you on is allowing the government to prohibit the exercise of a right without that training.***

[PavePusher]

137. And you have failed to address any of my counterpoints.

As usual.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. I would prefer that, yes.

[spin]

35. I agree that those who carry concealed should be required to qualify on the range ...

In Florida you can go to a gun show and take a quick class and show up at a range to fire a few shots. I call this the quick and dirty approach.

A far better choice is to take a longer class with a good instructor that requires far more time on the range.

I personally agree with your viewpoint. I have to admit that I did get my concealed weapons permit and didn't have to prove my proficiency on the range. I merely had to make a copy of my military discharge papers. Of course, I had been a regular handgun shooter for years and was very familiar with Florida concealed weapons law through research and asking questions of my range master who taught the course. Still, I would have no real problem if I had been required to take the course. It would have been somewhat of a pain in the ass because of my work schedule at the time as I worked the graveyard shift and ten to fifteen hours of OT a week.

Still, we don't seem to have any major problems with the Florida Concealed Weapons program. If problems do show up, we can always change the law.

[KansasVoter]

43. Thanks. You are the only one who thinks you should so far. I agree.

[cowman]

51. My personal belief

is that you should be able to prove your proficiency with the weapon you will be carrying, Here in NV we have to submit a fingerprint card, valid I.D., a background check, then we have to take a gun safety course, a class on the use of force and the NRS statutes that pertain to CCW and then we have to qualify on the range.

[KansasVoter]

62. I agree with you. Same in Kansas which does not recognize the Utah law for the lack..

of the firing range requirement.

But Cowman I am surprised how many people here don't think it should be a requirement.

I hate thinking I might be in a store and a guy robs it and some citizen might be firing their virgin shot at the bad guy!! :-)

[cowman]

64. Just my personal opinion

but range time should be a requirement for a CC no matter what state.

[cowman]

69. And I will say

that if the robber wants only the money, let them have it and just observe and get a good description of the perp. Don't start a gun fight unless absolutly necessary.

[KansasVoter]

73. I hope I am there with you. I think others might not have your level of logic.

[cowman]

81. Logic and wisdom come

with age and experience.
I have enjoyed our conversation today.

[KansasVoter]

89. You too! No hero stuff!! :-)

[cowman]

For the next 2 months

no hero stuff, just giving orders. Tell your daughter I will post some pics of WilyCoyote later for her.

[KansasVoter]

92. Damn cute!!

[spin]

116. I learned that lesson years ago in a martial arts class ...

The instructor was teaching jujitsu. He emphasized self defense techniques and taught how to disarm an attacker who had a gun, knife or club. Obviously, this is dangerous and you can still end up seriously hurt or dead even if you are an expert in the art.

He always told the class, "If your situational awareness fails and you find yourself in a situation where an armed attacker is demanding your money, look into his eyes. The eyes are the mirror of the soul. If you believe that all he wants is your money, give it to him. You can always replace your money, your driver's license and your credit cards. You can't replace your life."

The instructor told us to use the skills he taught only in those situations where you were certain that the attacker intends to serious hurt or kill you.

[oneshooter]

39. Here is the course of fire for a Texas CHL

Range Qualifications for Texas CHL


A total of 50 rounds are fired during the course of the qualification test. A score of 70%, or 175 points of a possible 250, is required to pass. The target used is a TX-PT which is a human-shaped silhouette target measuring 45 by 24 inches. All shooting is from the ready position, which means the gun is already in your hands and aimed in. No holster shooting or shooting from concealed is required.

Course of Fire:

3 yard line - 20 shots:

1 shot in 2 seconds, 5 times
2 shots in 3 seconds, 5 times
5 shots in 10 seconds, once

7 yard line - 20 shots:

5 shots in 10 seconds, once
1 shot in 3 seconds, 5 times
2 shots in 4 seconds, once
3 shots in 6 seconds, once
5 shots in 15 seconds, once

15 yard line - 10 shots:

2 shots in 6 seconds, once
3 shots in 9 seconds, once
5 shots in 15 seconds, once



Minimum caliber to shoot is 32, if you qualify with a revolver you are restricted to carry a revolver. Qualify with a semi-auto and you can carry either. No listing of your CHL pistol is recorded. License is good in 32 states (including Kansas!) and is valid for 5 years.

More here: http://www.texasbestchl.com/range_qual.html


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

41. including Kansas!

:rofl:

[KansasVoter]

45. Why is that funny? Seriously......

At least Kansas has a requirement.

What am I missing in your laughing icon?

[rrneck]

56. First Utah, now Texas.

You're gonna be up to your ass in gun tot'n yahoos. Nobody'll get shot, but it might bruise your delicate sensibilities.

[KansasVoter]

60. What in the fuck are you talking about.....

The Texas law makes my point. You need to shoot there to get a permit. Utah does not require it.

Are you drunk or just not paying attention.

[rrneck]

100. What point was that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=328136#328441

165. First off sorry.........
As you might know.....I miss some of these posts. A lot to respond to. I saw your other one and found this.

I don't know if this will meet your level of an answer but......

I believe someone should be able to have guns in their houses and property all they want. I would march on DC if the democrats or anyone wanted to ban all long guns from being held in homes or private property. Or for hunting. I am not in favor of carrying handguns open or concealed. Long guns are fine. I know you disagree so we do not need to discuss the details.

So for you to assume I am anti 2nd is wrong. I just interpret it very different than you do. I would receive an F from the NRA for my feelings. I am not waiting to take your guns away, except carrying handguns.

But wait, there's more (This thread)...

KansasVoter (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-11-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. Even with me hating CCW, I think you should have to prove you can shoot a gun.
If I was pro CCW I think I would even want it more.

[KansasVoter]

109. I still do not know what you are trying to get to.

I am not in favor of CCW

But if a state has it you should at least have to fire a gun first.

Is there more to this?

[KansasVoter]

46. Don't you think it is as least better than nothing?

[Hoopla Phil]

54. A Texas CHL is recognized in 32 states now (even Kansas no less). I did not

realize that we'd got that far. Groovy.

[KansasVoter]

67. You realize Texas has a range requirement correct?

That was all I was asking. And some normal peole here think it is a good idea.

[Hoopla Phil]

68. Ha Ha Ha! No I didn't realize that. Must have got my Tx CHL out of a Cracker Jack box.

I see most normal people understand that the 2A has to do with bear as well as keep.

Oh, I guess you missed this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=328639&mesg_id=328695

And maybe this one too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=328639&mesg_id=328664

[KansasVoter]

70. Then how is Texas and Kansas a joke on me? You might be the worst.....

opponent I have on this forum. You hardly make any sense.

[Hoopla Phil]

72. Remember, the one who laughs last, didn't get the joke. Maybe

you'll catch on. But the fact that you haven't only speaks to you, not me. LMFAO!!!

[KansasVoter]

75. LOL.....write me tomorrow when you re not drunk.

[Hoopla Phil]

82. Your the one that not only can't figure out the joke you keep asking people

about it and you call ME drunk? Ha Ha Ha. Now that's funny.

[rrneck]

52. What should the requirements be? nt

[MisterBill45]

61. He doesn't think there should be any requirements

because he thinks all guns should be banned except the police and military. -Which makes the entire thread nothing but flame bait since the original question is pure sophistry.

[KansasVoter]

76. OK.......please post one place I said that, just one. I cannot wait for your lame search!

[MisterBill45]

58. I'll support having to get permission

from the government to take my private property on my person, for the purpose of defending my safety AFTER having been deemed "suitable" by the local PD...just as soon as you support having to get a permission slip and pass a test to vote, write a letter to the editor and post on the internet..unless your state has randomly made something that's a monor misdemeanor everywhere else into a prohibiting crime of course. After all, clearly anyone who has been convicted of a DUI, EVER, ANYWHERE, can't be trusted with a gun. But they can be trusted to vote for GWB twice.

See how that works? Of course you think that having the means to defend yourself is a privilege instead of a right, hence you compare it with a drivers license, which is NOT a right.

Funny how with millions of Americans carrying guns every single day, the number of actual crimes committed by CCW-holders with their guns is so small it doesn't even make a blip on the crime statistics. Take your hoplophobia and go hide in your closet somewhere. You are divorced from reality and immune to all argument and fact on the subject. Every time you are specifically refuted on a point, you start another flame-bait thread saying the same thing in slightly different words or with a new straw-man argument. It too gets refuted and so on, and so on....

You lost the argument. Give it up, it's killing liberal candidates all over the country.

[KansasVoter]

65. Thanks for not answering the question. Never shot a gun and carrying concealed. God Bless the NRA.

[MisterBill45]

84. I thought my answer was quite clear: NO

Look, I'm a firearms safety trainer. You'll find no stronger advocate than me for training. But you don't make laws to require training and permission to exercise a fundamental right.

If there were a proposal to pay for free firearms safety courses for all, I'd vote for it. One of the reasons I'm an NRA memvber is because they are the foremost firearms safety advocates in the world.

But you want to use the law as a cudgel to coerce behavior YOU think everyone should be following. There are others who feel exactly the same way only on the other side of the fence on every issue under the sun. You may get your way on one issue, but next time they will get THEIR way and sodomy will be a crime again in Texas, or Dildos in Alabama, or whatever.

We have far too many laws as it is. Every person on this board is a felon. Probably many times over. You just haven't been caught for any one of thousands of ridiculous laws on the books. You don't change behavior with laws. You don't change people's minds with coercion. All you can do is lead them to the water and tell them how good it will taste.

As for a safety issue, as with all your rants opn this subject, you have yet to actually post any data that support your fears of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I've carried a gun every day for years. Once, it probably saved my life. The rest of the time it's never even come close to leaving my holster except at the range and to clean it.

[KansasVoter]

88. Wow, firearms safety trainer and thinks people should CC with no range time!! God Bless America!

[Glassunion]

105. Please read the following.

"Look, I'm a firearms safety trainer. You'll find no stronger advocate than me for training."

How did you get the following: "Wow, firearms safety trainer and thinks people should CC with no range time!! God Bless America!"

[MisterBill45]

111. I didn't say that

I said I don't and never will support the government coercing people under threat of law into getting an "approved" training course to exercise a fundamental human right.

If you cannot grasp the difference between thinking something is a good thing and thinking that even good things don't need to be made into laws, your powers of comprehension are in serious need of repair.

Once again you make the argument of someone I would never trust with any sort of power because you would not hesitate to force me to do what you want because "it's good for me" or whatever other excuse you make for coercing private behavior that has not demonstrated any significant harm.

YOU have yet to show any data whatsoever that people with CCWs without a training class are killing people left and right or whatever your assertion is. Just because something is smart for people to do doesn't mean you need to make a law to force compliance with it. That's not a remotely liberal idea. Sounds like something I'd expect from the GOP, only their windmill is gay whales who hate Jesus. Yours is guns. Same attitude, only the flavor is different.

[slackmaster]

158. KansasVoter has a vivid imagination

And a tendency to attribute to people things they never wrote and perhaps never would.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Yeah, actually, the NRA didn't have a damn thing to do with it in my state.

But keep on beating that powdered horse bone slime. Little more thumpin' and you'll have jell-o.

[Glassunion]

66. Flame bait.

There is a better way to ask the question.

Best bet, would be not to make assumtions and accusations about what somone's answer would be. It keeps the conversation more civil.

[KansasVoter]

71. Only two have said they think a range requirement should be required. Say a lot.

[Glassunion]

79. Few things.

No one is required to give you an answer.

The fact that you have not received enough answers to your liking means absolutly nothing and proves no point whatsoever.

You are not looking for a discussion on the topic. You seem to be trolling to get folks upset. The tone of your OP does seem to convey that.

[KansasVoter]

91. Funny......

Many have PMed me that this forum has a lot more "discussions" now than before. Many do not agree with your view.

And I think you are just jealous. That is OK!

[Glassunion]

97. Funny, I did not say.

What did these mysterious folks tell you was my view on the topic?

Why would I be jealous? Of what?

[SteveM]

170. I was going to answer, but...... flamebait. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

85. Make that three. I am just now getting around to this thread.

Before someone carries a gun in public, I do believe they should be able to demonstrate basic proficiency with it. However, as an above poster shows, it appears that UT does require some sort of range time.

However, I must admit that VT does not seem to have ever had a problem with allowing anybody to carry concealed or open. So it is possible that my concerns could be over wrought.

[KansasVoter]

90. I agree with you. Even though I best most have either way.

[slackmaster]

159. That doesn't make any sense.

Even though I best most have either way.

:crazy:

[PavePusher]

94. You're right, it does say a lot.

It says we look at the evidence and make a reasoned judgement, and that evidence leads to a judgement that says there isn't a problem in search of a solution here, no matter how shrilly some people rush around all over a forum playing Chicken Little.

[X_Digger]

152. +1 n/t

[benEzra]

141. Meh. There is a range requirement here in NC...

but I don't think it matters one bit; judging by the experience of states without range quals, there's certainly no public safety problem with not requiring them. And of course, you wouldn't be satisfied if I had a certificate saying I passed the firearm qual for the North Carolina Highway Patrol or the Virginia State Police (which I'm pretty sure I could do, if it were open to non-LEO's), because in your eyes I still wouldn't have a "good reason" for a carry license, right?

[Statistical]

142. Exactly. The OP argument is intellectually dishonest.

The OP stated position is that nobody has a right to carry a weapon. Period. Under no situation, no cirumstance, no level of training.

So this plea to stronger training is rather transparent. It is just an attempt to increase the regulatory overhead and reduce number of permits issued.

[beevul]

77. Do your arms hurt?

You are stretching beyond belief.

"It's like walking into the DMV and having an instructor talk to you about driving for 8 hours and then taking a test and then leaving and being able to drive a car."

A license to carry, is NOT a license to fire.

Firing, as you use it, would be the equivalent to driving.


Do you ever get tired of your crusade, or its effect on people you claim you want elected and in power?

[KansasVoter]

86. LOL.....wow, that was the lamest one yet!!

[onehandle]

113. The goal:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ytmmefaB3q4/SVD6kCq-NQI/AAAAAAAABG4/gWt3yDCHSM4/s400/guns+vending+machine.jpg

[Travis Coates]

115. Damn, are those CZs?

I want a machine like that

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

121. Probably tanfoglios... ewww...

[NewMoonTherian]

114. I'm not ok with it.

I feel it should be recognized in all 50 states. I also don't approve of the state charging a fee for the license. The test fee is ok, but the state should only be reimbursed for the exact cost of the background check.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MisterBill45]

122. Sadly we can't do federally mandated reciprocity

pesky little thing called the tenth amendment.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

123. I don't have a problem with it...

a few primary reasons, in addition to others, are:

#1) Even with a carry license, whether an experienced shooter or not, one is still criminally and civilly liable for every shot they fire. This is a strong influence on anybody who has a carry permit to know how to use their firearm.

#2) People with firearms and plan to carry one have generally fired that (or other firearms) in their lifetime, if not recently. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if someone carried a firearm and had never used one. I'm sure it's happened but I'm also sure that it's so rare as to be an anomaly... making any concerns of Utah's law more of a solution in search of a problem.

#3) MANY states allow permit-less carry of some sort with no training OR experience. In fact, Utah's practice seems par for the course. It's fairly common so I'm not concerned in the least... there are bigger fish to fry, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. We don't even have a test in Washington. Must be why the streets are knee deep in blood.

Oh wait.

35$ for the permit. 30$ for the background check. Thank you, here's your permit have a nice day.

Feel free to illustrate how much of a problem it is, since we have 28+ years of history to go with it.

[repeal_nfa]

134. Of course a person applying has fired a gun, come on

Anyone who has never fired a gun in their life wouldn't apply for a carry permit. Anyone who has never fired a gun in their life would WANT to go shooting long before their carry permit arrives in the mail. Anyone who has never fired a gun in their life, and for SOME REASON got a carry permit, wouldn't carry anyway.

[rrneck]

148. When I got my CHL

there were two ladies in my class who had never so much as held a handgun. They rented guns from the range to take the class.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[repeal_nfa]

164. Thanks.

Much appreciated

[benEzra]

139. The carry license is about screening WHO is legally carrying...

but I dare say the average CHL holder shoots more than the average police officer, unless the officer is a gun enthusiast on the side. Of course, you're not after "high standards of training", you're after limiting carry licenses to elites only.

Pssst, don't ever visit Vermont...

[Katya Mullethov]

140. Its mental masturbation

Just than stroking the milquetoasts .

[spin]

165. And the Washington Monument is a phallic symbol...

Satanic Occult Symbols in Washington D.C.


Obelisks are phallic (penis) symbols related to the Egyptian Sun god, Ra. The 4 sides of the Washington Monument are aligned with the cardinal directions (i.e., east, west, north, and south). At the ground level each side of the monument measures 55.5 feet long, which is equal to 666 inches. The height of the obelisk is 555.5 feet, which is equal to 6,666 inches.


The mall in Washington DC is laid out so the gardens and streets form the image of an owl. The owl is representative of the mythical goddess, Lilith. Pleas read, Bohemian Grove Exposed for much more information on the owl.

The street design in Washington, D.C., has been laid out in such a manner that certain Luciferic symbols are depicted by the streets, cul-de-sacs and rotaries. This design was created in 1791, a few years after Freemasonry assumed the leadership of the New World Order, in 1782.

In Europe, occult leaders were told by their familiar spirits as early as the 1740's that the new American continent was to be established as the new “Atlantis,” and its destiny was to assume the global leadership of the drive to the New World Order. The United States of America was chosen to lead the world into this kingdom of Antichrist from the very beginning. The capital is Washington, D.C., which is evidenced by the preponderance of occult symbols.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/dc.htm

Isn't imagination fun? Especially relating everyday items to sexual activity.

[Euromutt]

143. You're conflating two questions

One question is whether a person, before carrying a concealed firearm in public, would be well advised to familiarize him- or herself with the operation of the selected carry piece, as well as locally applicable laws concerning use of lethal force. I absolutely think a person should do so.

Whether a person should be legally required to do all of the above before before being issued a CCW permit is a distinct question.

I think these "discussions" would be a lot more fruitful if you spent less time telling other people what they supposedly think, and more time paying attention to what they're actually saying.

[Statistical]

144. +1. n/t

[X_Digger]

146. What other nuggets of wisdom are you 'shocked' that aren't the subject of 'pitched' 'fits'?

Should I start a scratchpad, or are you slowly getting educated on the issue, and we can expect dribs and drabs of wharrgarble over the next couple of months?

FWIW, I don't have a problem with Utah's requirements. If you have a problem with other states' honoring UT's non-resident permit, then talk to their respective legislatures.

Have fun with that.

[PavePusher]

149. See my post #94. n/t

[cleanhippie]

155. I am also 100% OK with First Amendment "enthusiasts" that can spout nonsense

have their facts wrong, post rhetoric and hyperbole and never really get informed.

[Straw Man]

160. OK, let's try this again...

New York State actually prohibits non-licensees from handling firearms, so there's no legal way to gain any proficiency before getting a CCW. The NRA opposes this. Since you claim that the NRA opposes safety, please explain how the state's prohibition on pre-license training promotes safety.

You have a solution looking for a problem. Outside of New York State, with its draconian prohibition, the "virgin CCW" is as rare as the unicorn. I'm all in favor of people getting as much training as they can, but unless there is some pressing need, e.g. a significant rise in firearms accidents among CCW holders, I see no need to mandate training.

How's this for a compromise? How about 50-state shall-issue with reciprocity in exchange for mandatory pre-license training?

[Taitertots]

161. We are not a bunch of chicken little types like it seems you are

Oh no, the sky is falling the sky is falling. People can have guns without arbitrary and capricious hurdles to jump.

[proteus_lives]

162. Yes.

The fact that it makes people like you angry is just a bonus for me.

[Glassunion]

163. +1

[Kringle]

166. range time, should be required .nt

[RamboLiberal]

167. Guess I'm going to be one of the few here who have no problem

that a person should show they are competent with the gun to get a carry license.

A class on the law and time on the range might prevent some accidents or someone using their gun unlawfully.

I've seen quite a few people on the range or come out to IDPA competition who could benefit from a class and make me a tad nervous they are handling a gun.

My state of PA is even easier than Utah to get a gun. In my area, no fingerprints, no class and only $25 gets you a 5 year license.

I may be taking a Utah class very soon but only for the convenience of being legal in Ohio where I travel to for a few hours a couple of times a month to shoot IDPA.

All that being said IMHO I think we should have a national carry law. That's the one thing I wish the congress would pass. Surprised the Repukes didn't get around to it back when they had all the power.

[MisterBill45]

168. They didn't do it because it's unconstitutional

A 10th amendment case would be a slam dunk. I doubt it would ever get past the first court of appeals.

[S_B_Jackson]

171. Utah's statute requires a demonstration of firearm familiarity...

Whether the person shoots or not is, IMO, not terribly important. Shooting is largely instinctive anyway. What IS important, though, is that person know how to safely handle a firearm. (finger off the trigger, good muzzle control, etc)