Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proficiency Requirement for CCW

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proficiency Requirement for CCW

    I recently took an NRA Pistol class in order to qualify for a non-resident permit in ME and MA. After watching the people who were new to firearms stumble over basic concepts about their gun, and fail the qualification by not even being able to hit 10 rounds on a 8 1/2 x 11" sheet of paper at EIGHT YARDS, I'm starting to feel like proficiency requirements for carry aint such a bad thing.

    I'm the last person to stand in the way of freedom, a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment RKBA, but it seems like it'd be a considerable threat to public safety if these n00bs were given carry permits. On a realistic level, I can see these people being more dangerous than beneficial. I wouldn't even trust them with a staple gun.

    Can someone please walk me through logically why this is bad for freedom?

  • #2
    I could tell you things like the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limitations and forcing qualifications on these people is imposing unconstitutionl limitations on their freedoms, but...

    I agree with you. Being able to own and even carry a firearm is a protected freedom, but there should still be some common sense applied. Firearms safety and proficiency are vital for someone who wants to carry, both for their protection and for the protection of others. If a person is unwilling or unable to show both safety and proficiency with a firearm, then they are not taking steps to protect themselves, they are putting themsleves and others in more risk.
    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
    -Friedrich Nietzsche

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm leaning to that side now... reserving the 2nd Amendment, but having no proficiency with firearms is kind of like reserving the right to free speech, and walking around with turrets uncontrollably swearing at people.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BlackOp View Post
        On a realistic level, I can see these people being more dangerous than beneficial. I wouldn't even trust them with a staple gun.

        I agree. Where I live I hear it is close to impossible to obtain a CCW permit no matter how proficient you are. But that is another subject.

        In regards to the above, it reminds me of a neighbor I once had who told me one day that he was thinking of getting a gun for home defense because of his job.

        He works security for an international firm. When he fires someone for wrong doing, it also commonly includes the fired employee being arrested by federal or local law enforcement and jail time. Apparently some of them leave with a bad taste in their mouth, which is why he is concerned. As a side note, his age and description matches mine so I asked him to make sure his house numbers are big and prominent.

        Over the years I have gotten to known him pretty well. His temperment and judgement are sound and do not concern me in regards to him being armed.

        What does concern me is that he is virtually unable to employ a power tool without inadvertently destroying something. His latest of many mishaps was severing his cable TV cable with his electric hedge trimmer.

        In addition to the problem with tools, One cold morning (high idle) while he was warming up his truck in the driveway, he THOUGHT he had the truck in neutral but when he let off the clutch it lunged through the corner wall of his garage and through his garage door and into his garage.

        He also once left the gas station not realizing that he had forgotten to remove the gas nozzle. He didn't realize it until he checked his mirror for a lane change a block away from the station and saw the nozzle hanging out of his car.

        Then there was the time when we were riding our bikes to a rally in Nevada when he inadvertently filled his Harley tank with diesel fuel. It wasn't until he was about full when the rest of noticed he was holding a green nozzle.


        I guess you could call him "mechanicaly challenged." I am afraid that if he had a firearm he would accidentally shoot himself or someone else. I'm not saying people like him should not own guns. I'm saying people like him should not own GUNS or any other MACHINES!
        Last edited by JPR; 06-04-2007, 12:18 PM.
        Jubilant Patriotic Republican

        America gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when they elected him. Obama is now giving America the doubt of the benefit of his governance......Change you can bereave in!..JPR

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah we've got people like that here in Atlanta... Bobby Brown's pretty famous (or infamous) around here for weapons-related busts. Charlton Heston would say Bobby doesn't need to own a gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            I just qualified recently for my CCW. The instructor is the range master for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office and is funny as hell but dead serious when on the range. In order to pass his class, you have to memorize the four basic rules of handling a firearm, show proficiency in its handling and do better than the minimum score allowed for the license.

            In Florida, you have to get a minimum score of 160 on the range with 240 being a perfect score. In order for this instructor to sign off on your card, you have to get at least a 180. His range, his rules. Most of us appreciate the higher standard also.

            I have no problem with someone owning a gun, but I agree with you guys. It helps if someone is at least somewhat proficient and knowledgable.

            Comment


            • #7
              Proficiency requirments do not unnecessarily limit a consititutional right. Remember, all of our rights come with certain provisos. the First amendment may protect speech, but doesn't give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The Fouth amendments says we need a warrant to searh or arrest, but we all know that there are exceptions to that rule.

              Rights come with responsibility. Having a person prove that they aren't a danger to society while going armed is clearly an exercise in responsibility.
              Originally posted by kontemplerande
              Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BlackOp View Post
                Yeah we've got people like that here in Atlanta... Bobby Brown's pretty famous (or infamous) around here for weapons-related busts. Charlton Heston would say Bobby doesn't need to own a gun.
                I understand your concern, but I cannot recall someone with a CCW shooting up innocent bystanders to prevent a crime. They should be encouraged to spend some time at the range, but not required.

                A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

                It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LeanG View Post
                  I understand your concern, but I cannot recall someone with a CCW shooting up innocent bystanders to prevent a crime. They should be encouraged to spend some time at the range, but not required.
                  Ditto.
                  As the OP showed, many people are uncomfortable with the idea that "they" and "those people" can have guns. They want to control and dictate. That is inherently hostile to freedom.
                  I am not saying people dont need to learn how to use their weapons effectively. I am saying it is none of the gov't's business to mandate effectiveness. Actual on the street data suggest that even people with very minimal skills nonetheless do quite well in stopping crime.
                  Leave it up to the people. They'll figure it out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Every "well regulated militia" needs qualified marksman to fill out their ranks. Thats not an infringement, it's common sense. Like that movie says, I have the right to pursue 'happyness', but not if it makes me happy to put other lives in danger.
                    Jerry
                    "If all else fails, stop using all else!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I would say, it should be a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to be proficient with the firearm you choose to defend yourself with, and that it is not a governmental responsibility to make such a regulation or requirement. There is a legal system in place to deal with people who do irresponsible things. It's not the government's job to be the all seeing, all knowing protector, although it seems to try to be enough.

                      "I am saying it is none of the gov't's business to mandate effectiveness." You are 100% correct.

                      "Proficiency requirements do not unnecessarily limit a constitutional right." Yes, they can.

                      I can make up a firearms proficiency test that very few could pass, therefore limiting your rights. If you are a law enforcement officer, how would you feel if your department suddenly decided to fire all the officers that did not score 100% on your firearms quals? Very few of our guys score a perfect range session. Very few military personnel are sniper qualified. Many more marksmen than experts out there. Who will decide how "proficient" you must be to own a firearm to exercise your rights? Owning a firearm for protection is just as important as voting. Are we going to require people to take and pass a test prior to voting? Prior to going to church? Prior to talking?

                      All that being said, yes, there are blooming idiots out there. We, in our profession run into them daily. There are many people that should not be allowed to possess a staple gun, let alone a bazooka, and should also be removed from the gene pool, however...

                      When one citizen has his rights trampled, or limited, when one person is discriminated against, and forbid to exercise any right granted, all our freedoms suffer. I ,nor are any of us, permitted to make those determinations, as rights apply to us all, regardless of IQ level, class, color, creed, or condition.

                      With firearms ownership comes great responsibility. To your safety, to the safety of your family, and to the safety of others. Someone who abuses this right, to the detriment of others, will have his buttocks sued off, or be jailed.
                      As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LeanG View Post
                        I understand your concern, but I cannot recall someone with a CCW shooting up innocent bystanders to prevent a crime. They should be encouraged to spend some time at the range, but not required.

                        +1. It's all about continuing education anyway.....and no state that requires proficiency does so in any rigorous sort of way. It's all perfunctory...no one would probably argue that that is sufficient to effectively wield a gun all the time, and it doesn't address the "fading skill set" that is defensive shooting. So, we legislate proficiency that means nothing, or we setup a system so cumbersome and expensive that it could never work if we look at that.

                        My state, as of last year, had 239,000+ active permits in the state. We do not have a training requirement, and are one of the original CCW states. It's hard to argue that our system has been a failure, and it's impossible to argue that it suffers in comparison to states that DO have the requirement.

                        A much better situation might be an campaign to get people to the range or IDPA, not a government one but some movement to popularize it. I understand what you are concerned about.......the person that buys and loads a gun and sticks in the nightstand or (god forbid) packs it around. But some piddly program that won't REALLY make for a qualified person is not going to help IMO.
                        Refuse to be a victim-Support Concealed Carry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Shall not be infringed upon

                          Originally posted by BlackOp View Post
                          I'm leaning to that side now... reserving the 2nd Amendment, but having no proficiency with firearms is kind of like reserving the right to free speech, and walking around with turrets uncontrollably swearing at people.
                          I agree it is more responsible for people who choose to carry firearms to be well trained in their use and their safe handling however I dont agree it is for the government to decide what that standard will be and if their standard isn't met having the right to take away that constitutional right that has been guarnteed as a freedom. The freedom exist and the responsibility to obey the laws and handle firearms in a safe manner falls back on the individual citizen, not the government. The government exist to protect american citizens and punish those who act irresponsibly not take away rights that have already been granted in the constitution. That is why we have laws and torts to deal with irresponsible handling and misuse. Laws apply to everyone. Gun Control applies to law abiding citizens only not the criminals who will carry when and how they please.
                          "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nightshift va View Post
                            I agree it is more responsible for people who choose to carry firearms to be well trained in their use and their safe handling however I dont agree it is for the government to decide what that standard will be and if their standard isn't met having the right to take away that constitutional right that has been guarnteed as a freedom. The freedom exist and the responsibility to obey the laws and handle firearms in a safe manner falls back on the individual citizen, not the government. The government exist to protect american citizens and punish those who act irresponsibly not take away rights that have already been granted in the constitution. That is why we have laws and torts to deal with irresponsible handling and misuse. Laws apply to everyone. Gun Control applies to law abiding citizens only not the criminals who will carry when and how they please.
                            I agree, I'm reminded of a quote from the (lamentably) late, Colonel Jeff Cooper, founder of the world famous Gunsite Training Center, It wgoes something like this:

                            Having a gun doesn't mean one is armed anymore than having a guitar makes them a musician.

                            Anyone who's serious about protecting themselves and others, especially their family members will seek out and obtain the training and develop the skills to not only effectively use a firearm (or other weapon) for defense, but when they may legally do so.

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 5640 users online. 320 members and 5320 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X