I rarely post videos as I usually don't watch them, can't sit still for them. I enjoyed this one and Crowder brought up some historical precedents I was not aware of. We need more like him.
I rarely post videos as I usually don't watch them, can't sit still for them. I enjoyed this one and Crowder brought up some historical precedents I was not aware of. We need more like him.
#RESIST
I hate the argument that some pro gun people try to make about the process of getting a concealed carry permit. There are no hoops to jump through besides a minor inconvenience for paperwork and the 'training' you get is downright laughable in that anyone can pass it. In MO, I believe the requirement is 20-30 out of 50 shots total from both a semi-auto and revolver anywhere on a B-27 target at 7 yards. The 8 hour class is more about gun handling and safety and state law, not constitutional law.
I think that we can all agree that the gun buying public or the public in general is not very intelligent in regards to these matters.
The bigger issue is that of requiring people to go through extensive training and "qualification" to exercise their rights. Imagine if you had to have a permit for "free speech" and have to go through a class? The outrage?Originally Posted by johnson
There should be a very optional but heavily encouraged suggestion to anyone who applies for a permit to go through different training. Should there be a mandatory requirement? In my opinion? No.
My state has a training requirement. The thing that bugged me the most about it were two folks in the class that were complete and total novices and they knew it, yet since they'd been "trained" in the class, they felt they were good to go. I think they walked out of there with a false sense of readiness that they wouldn't have had if there were no training requirements. To be clear, I am not ripping the instructor. He taught what the state required, and made it a point to encourage further learning and training. Still though, I got the impression that those two felt they knew all they needed to know.
Last edited by Jared; 12-24-2015 at 07:28 PM.
I am always concerned about the "training requirement" because that requirement can be set so high that no one can meet the standard. Do not get me wrong, I think you should be trained but I do not trust the "government" to set that standard. Either it is a right or not.
Here in FL,you get issued a CWHL at the border.
Kidding.
My CCW class was taught by a Pinellas Cty LEO. All I had to do was put three rounds on paper at 3 yds and I was good to go. Class was 3 hours.
Do I think that is enough training?
No.
Do I think more should be required to exercise my 2A rights?
No.
I empathize with this view.
On the other hand, I think the grandmother who wants a revolver bedside should be able to do so.
But I get what you are saying; it is not optimal. But the 2A is pretty clear on this, IMO.
In Alabama you pay $20 and if you haven't messed up bad enough that you have a felony or demestic violence or something of the like you get a permit. My county (as well as most others, in fact I think now it's the whole state?) is a SHALL issue. If you can legally own a pistol you can get a permit to carry it. No classes, no paper work, no questions.
Last edited by Luke; 12-24-2015 at 08:46 PM.
Oh no, don't take what I said that way. I'm with VoodooMan. I want no training requirement. That way, the two novices I referenced would ( in a perfect world) say, "holy shit, I've got a permit to carry a lethal weapon, I better actuallyearn to use this friggin thing.". Like I said, that's a hope and an ideal scenario. As it was, they knew they knew nothing, but since the state said " this is what you need to know to get a permit," they walked out thinking that was all they needed to know.
I'm all for a permit with no training requirements in keeping with the spirit of amendment 2. And I sincerely hope that people take that responsibility serious enough to get good training. It's just that I feel that state minimum training fosters the mentality of "I'm good to go" when people really aren't. And like I said, I think those two needed a good bit more, on the law, on the fundamentals, on all of it. But I'm afraid they'll never get it, because the state now says they are "trained.".
So again, not ripping the instructor. He definitely encouraged further learning. Not supporting a training requirement, quite the opposite in fact.
I think if you're going to test people on marksmanship in order to issue a permit, you should probably have them fire more than 3 rounds, but on some level, the classes are more about safety, legalities, and what you're obligated to do in the event that you ever draw your gun than anything else. I suppose 3 rounds is enough to determine at least that you don't point your gun at things that you shouldn't, etc.
It's weird how different states have such different requirements. MN, where I live, for example, specifies that there has to be a live fire test, but does not specify what it has to be; it's completely up to the instructor to determine what constitutes a valid test of his/her students' skills. I had to fire 30 rounds over several strings on a timer, albeit with VERY generous par times. My wife only had to fire 5, untimed. (Edit: Just to be clear, we got our permits at different times with different instructors.)
Nobody in my class failed the live fire test, but one person was urged to get more practice in (I didn't see his target, so I can't quantify his performance). I wonder what percentage of people taking required classes are failed for poor marksmanship. I can't imagine it's very many.
Last edited by olstyn; 12-24-2015 at 09:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
