Do You Favor National Concealed Carry If Traning/Certification Is Required?

[Specialized]

Do You Favor National Concealed Carry If Training/Certification Is Required?

I have a question for this group, after reading many varying opinions on other online forums:

Would you be a supporter of a nationwide Concealed Carry permit if training and/or certification were required?

For the purposes of this forum, let's confine the definition of "training and/or certification" to encompass no more formal or extensive training and testing than that required already by states like Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, etc.

To start this off, I'll include my opinion: I personally don't have a problem with requiring rudimentary training in firearm safety, familiarization, and basic skills like aiming, stance, operation, loading/unloading, carry, and a test of basic ability to hit a target at 5-7 yards or so. That said, I have been surprised to read so many strong opinions to the contrary -- good folks that believe our right to bear arms is absolute and that no training or certification burden should be placed on anyone, anywhere. That just seems like a recipe for disaster to me, but that might be because of the training I've had in my past. I'm very interested in hearing not only your stance on this subject, but your reasoning as well. I'm always open to more information upon which to base my opinions.

By the way, in case anyone has a concern about it -- I'm not affiliated with the NRA, or any gun activist group, or anything like that, other than being a member of the NRA (Life), IDPA, and USPSA. I'm asking as a solitary layman. Thanks!

Specialized

 

[ATOMonkey]

I favor national concealed carry without permit or taining.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I try not to cut off my nose to spite my face. While it wouldn't be my choice, I would cert & train for a national carry permit. Better than not carrying or getting caught carrying illegally.

 

[Fletch]

Having been through Oklahoma's process, I can confidently say that it is a joke designed to weed out the truly incompetent. Half the people on this board could probably teach the class as an ad-lib without reviewing the legal requirements first, and hit 90% of the points covered. So right off I'd say I have no real problem with it beyond the basic "I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to exercise my rights".

I'll go one step further. If it were possible to get a truly nationwide carry license, but to do so one would have to complete a week-long course of the sort taught at facilities like Thunder Ranch or Gunsite, I'd still support it. Yeah, it might cost a thousand dollars plus travel and lodging and ammo, but I'd still do it.

I would also advocate in favor of getting "endorsements" on one's license, through whatever process they cared to dream up, that allowed carry into secured areas like airplanes and government buildings. While we're at it, let's get endorsements for post-86 NFA weapons as well. I'd make it my business to collect them all.

It wouldn't be my preferred state of affairs by any stretch of the imagination, but could I live with it? Sure. "Jump through these hoops first" beats "no" any day of the week.

 

[bobzilla]

Having been through Oklahoma's process, I can confidently say that it is a joke designed to weed out the truly incompetent. Half the people on this board could probably teach the class as an ad-lib without reviewing the legal requirements first, and hit 90% of the points covered. So right off I'd say I have no real problem with it beyond the basic "I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to exercise my rights".

I'll go one step further. If it were possible to get a truly nationwide carry license, but to do so one would have to complete a week-long course of the sort taught at facilities like Thunder Ranch or Gunsite, I'd still support it. Yeah, it might cost a thousand dollars plus travel and lodging and ammo, but I'd still do it.

I would also advocate in favor of getting "endorsements" on one's license, through whatever process they cared to dream up, that allowed carry into secured areas like airplanes and government buildings. While we're at it, let's get endorsements for post-86 NFA weapons as well. I'd make it my business to collect them all.

It wouldn't be my preferred state of affairs by any stretch of the imagination, but could I live with it? Sure. "Jump through these hoops first" beats "no" any day of the week.

And that pretty much summed it up for me.

 

[.40caltrucker]

National concealed carry would be awesome since I'm a truck driver. While I hate the idea of requiring training and licensing for a constitutional right, I would definitely pay for good training on the laws nationwide.

 

[rambone]

Why in God's name would I want the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being controlled by the Feds and some BS permission slip? A national registry? Have you lost it man?

The only thing I would like to see happening from a federal level is for SCOTUS to start striking down gun control laws. Strike down state carry permits altogether as unconstitutional. No permits anywhere, and certainly no required courses. That isn't how rights work, my friend.

 

[christman]

OC and CC should be a non-issue no matter where. It didn't have it in the original writing, why should we have it now?

 

[Fletch]

Why in God's name would I want the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being controlled by the Feds and some BS permission slip? A national registry? Have you lost it man?

The only think I would like to see happening from a federal level is for SCOTUS to start striking down gun control laws. Strike down state carry permits altogether as unconstitutional. No permits anywhere, and certainly no required courses. That isn't how rights work, my friend.

Again, if my choices are between "red tape" and a flat "no", I'll take the red tape every time. A flat "yes" is of course preferable, but I don't see any chance of that happening anytime soon, especially with SCOTUS explicitly protecting "state interest" in some forms of regulation. We might like to believe that SCOTUS would do its job and strike them all down, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Why in God's name would I want the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being controlled by the Feds and some BS permission slip? A national registry? Have you lost it man?

The only think I would like to see happening from a federal level is for SCOTUS to start striking down gun control laws. Strike down state carry permits altogether as unconstitutional. No permits anywhere, and certainly no required courses. That isn't how rights work, my friend.

OC and CC should be a non-issue no matter where. It didn't have it in the original writing, why should we have it now?

You guys should read closer. The question was "would you", not "should we have to".

Do you CC or OC without an LTCH because the LTCH is "unconstitutional" or did you submit to the man and do what he requires?

I'd like to know who the other six people are that would go naked even given the opportunity to arm themselves.

 

[RichardR]

"shall not be infringed" (unless citizens actually try to exercise this right).

 

[rambone]

You guys should read closer. The question was "would you", not "should we have to".

All four answers were conditional "yes" answers.

I'm not sure I'm on board with the idea at all, presumably because the Feds would then be in charge of the carry laws instead of the states. There needs to be another choice, "NO - rethink this and let the states stay in charge."

Giving the power over to the Feds is like opening Pandora's Box. What they can giveth, they will eventually taketh away.

I'd rather see the states fight their own battles for liberty and leave the Feds away from the subject completely. State laws are easier to fix than Federal laws. Not to mention Federal laws invariably are hundreds of pages long with lots of little "gotchas."

 

[edporch]

My prediction is if training/certification is required, the anti-gun folks would use this like the Chicago machine does.
YES, you can have a gun, but we'll make the hoops you have to jump through so much that most people can't or won't be able to do it.

NONE of our OTHER rights are subject to training/certification, we're just expected to use them responsibly so we don't infringe on the rights of others...

 

[ATOMonkey]

I agree, they'll just regulate the training to the point that no one will be able to have one anyway. They'll "lose" the paperwork, or reject applications and not be required to give a reason why.

Not a good road to trod.

I'd rather have a resounding NO, than give the Feds any more authority or excuse to spend money than they already do.

 

[jeremy]

I do not have a voting option in this Poll.
As my choice is uhhhh, neither. What part of shall not infringe is being mis-understood?!

 

[ATOMonkey]

The part where is also says "well regulated."

At least that's my favorite anti-gunner argument.

Oh and "What does infringe mean?" That's another beauty.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

"well regulated" is best dealt with by eating a bowl of Raisin Bran...

 

[Burr Head]

From an old cop's perspective...this should blow your mind...I say if you want to carry a gun you should be able to go to the hardware store like my dad did and buy it like you do a sack of nails. If you want to carry it, stick it in your pants and carry it. If you screw up with it, kill somebody with it while committing a crime, then the same hardware store has rope too. Hang the SOB's that kill and rape the day after their convicted...now that's the right way to curb crime. BH

 

[jeremy]

The part where is also says "well regulated."

At least that's my favorite anti-gunner argument.

Oh and "What does infringe mean?" That's another beauty.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well Regulated in the context of the Amendment means well equiped.

"well regulated" is best dealt with by eating a bowl of Raisin Bran...

I prefer Mini Wheats...

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm having jelly donuts this morning!!

People will take a word or phrase and argue it out of context and others with an axe to grind will support them.

This is the way Con Law is being taught these days. Not the plain meaning of the constitution, but how can you weasel the words to make them advance your agenda.