CPL w/o training? i think its crazy

[beaucoup ammo]

Some Know How Required

IMO, a person should have at least a working knowledge of the handgun's' dynamics: "Do this..and that happens".."Do that..and this happens" combined with knowing the Four (4) Golden Rules in their sleep.

To turn a person loose with a weapon they're not familiar with.. let alone hasn't fired..isn't safe.

A qik analogy if I may. In my early b'cast days I was a DJ. There was a fund raising event where local "personalities" were asked if they wanted to take part in a motorcycle race. Heck, it was for charity and sounded like fun, so I said, "Sure!"

I'd never been on a motorcycle in my life. It was an indoor arena, packed to the gills..and down goes the flag. I gave it waay too much gas, the bike went up from under me..lands on top of yours truely and soakes me in gasoline. That stuff can really burn in tender areas. My fault entirely..very embarassing..but preventable. A little working knowledge of the machine, a turn or two around the track and I'd a been good to go.

So many lessons here, it's hard to know where to begin...but you get the idea.

My suggestion is: (1) be sure people have at least a working knowledge of handguns before they're licensed to carry them and (2) make it Affordable!!

#2 is very important. I plunked down $140 for my CHL here in Texas. That's an obscene amount of money. Licensed instructors with a strong fondness for The 2ND could Volunteer their time to get licenses in the wallets and purses of folks who can't afford to pay extreme prices for what is fundamentally a right.

Take Care

 

[Lone_Gunman]

i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun.

Who cares if you are comfortable. It is her right to have a gun, whether you want her to have it or not.

The founding fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution to protect people like her from people like you.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Combining two posts in this response:

You speak of a "20 question" test being sufficient. That test would be pretty darn close to useless. What you want is some feel-good measure in place so you can feel safe walking the streets. It sounds very much like certain other arguments I hear relating to gun control.

As I said, I've been in the commercial training business for a long time (and have two graduate degrees in the field.) Most tests are designed by people who have no idea how to design a test. When you look at a test, there are three important questions to ask:

1. Does this test measure anything at all?
2. Does the thing measured add up to a fair measure of the desired performance?
3. How do you know that?

See, the thing is, many states have no testing or training requirement, the streets do not run with blood because of all the lowly untrained CCW people. I live in PA, no training required for a CCW and we issue as many as or more than most places; we have no problems here from untriained people killing others in the streets over pink cell phones.

You have issued the key challenge to those who say mandatory training is necessary -- show us how the streets are running in blood in those states which do not have mandatory testing. Show us the problem before forcing the "solution" on us.

 

[Herself]

[...] convienence store robbery. [...] While the turds were on the way out the door, the clerk shot one of them in the back and killed him. NOW the DA is deciding whether or not to bring charges against the clerk for manslaughter because he was no longer in grave danger when he shot.

Should he be put away or praised? Would you know if you didn't attend at least a class on the CCW laws in your state?

Let me get this straight: you believe the morality of the action depends on the state in which it occurred? Or that the law is always right, and should govern our individual reactions to such matters?
If charged, he will have his day in court.

--Herself

 

[USMCRotrHed]

What I believe is....

By the letter of the law, the clerk acted in a manner that is illegal. He technically shot a person who was no longer and immediate threat. If he was taken to trial, I was on the jury, and presented with the case as I have heard it. I would probably find him guilty. Personally, I think he did the right thing. If he doesn't get charged or fired, how many more time do you think his store will be robbed while he is on duty?

Would I have done the same thing or acted differently? I can't honestly answer that. I wasn't there.

I also think that whether or not he gets charged depends on when the DA runs for re-election and what he thinks the public perception would be if this guy was let go or put in jail.

But the point is....I might not have known the law in this regard if there had not been any formal training that covered what is a good shoot and what is not.

 

[thumbody]

i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun.

I can guarantee you Sarah Brady would say the same about you

 

[beaucoup ammo]

"More Training..Tighter Restrictions?" FYI

The Wisconsin State Journal
01-17-2006

The state Senate today overwhelmingly approved an amended version of a bill that would let Wisconsin residents carry concealed weapons, setting up a veto override fight.

The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who has vowed repeatedly to kill the measure.

A veto override takes 66 votes in the Assembly and 22 in the Senate. Republicans control the Senate 19-14 and the Assembly 60-39.

But the Senate passed the bill 28-5 Tuesday. The Assembly approved the measure 64-32 in December, but one Republican was absent and a vacant seat has since been won by another Republican. Those two votes would give the GOP the 66 votes they need.

"We've done our homework," said Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, the bill's main sponsor. "There's a momentum. A great majority of the people in this state think they should have the right to defend themselves."

The Senate was the first house to pass the bill in December.

The Assembly amended it later that month to require more training for gun owners, tighten restrictions on carrying concealed while drinking and set up new school zones where concealed weapons would be illegal. The changes drew six Democrats to vote with the GOP.

That vote sent the new version of the bill back to the Senate for final approval. Both houses must approve identical versions of a bill before it can go to the governor.

Doyle spokeswoman Melanie Fonder said the governor is confident his veto will survive. She declined to elaborate.???

 

[wbond]

I agree. OR requires a class. WA does not.

I agree. Oregon requires a class. Washington does not.

I just renewed my WA permit. I'm looking for a class, but think one should be required.

I'm going to apply for an OR permit. OR does requires a class.

I thinks that's good.

A class should at least cover legal issues, but basic gun handling and markmenship should also be taught. I've heard a great many handgun shooting victims were shot with their own guns after being disarmed. That's another good reason for a class + practice.

The NRA could teach the class for all I care. Whatever, as long as it's a good class.

 

[NineseveN]

IMO, a person should have at least a working knowledge of the handgun's' dynamics: "Do this..and that happens".."Do that..and this happens" combined with knowing the Four (4) Golden Rules in their sleep.

In agree, however should is a long way from must.

A qik analogy if I may. In my early b'cast days I was a DJ. There was a fund raising event where local "personalities" were asked if they wanted to take part in a motorcycle race. Heck, it was for charity and sounded like fun, so I said, "Sure!"

I'd never been on a motorcycle in my life. It was an indoor arena, packed to the gills..and down goes the flag. I gave it waay too much gas, the bike went up from under me..lands on top of yours truely and soakes me in gasoline. That stuff can really burn in tender areas. My fault entirely..very embarassing..but preventable. A little working knowledge of the machine, a turn or two around the track and I'd a been good to go.

So mandatory motorcycle training would have saved you? I'm sorry, but that kind of thought just doesn't bear out in the real world. Someone who is foolish enough to have attempted to operate something as large, powerful and dangerous as a motorcycle or even a firearm without taking it upon themselves to get educated beforehand won't get much from mandated training anyway. Kind of like when you have Biology in High School. You were forced to take it, you probably passed, but can you tell me which fish species can climb trees or what Glucagon is and what it does? Without Google? My point exactly.

A large part of retention and application has to do with maturity and respect (for yourself, the person administering the material, the subject matter etc...) and without that, all of the training in the world won't make you a great motorcycle rider, nor will it make Sissy Picklephone a safe firearms owner...of course there is a difference, there is no constitutional right to keep and bear motorcycles.

 

[wbond]

Regarding the legality and morality issues raised in this discussion...

See the related thread I started before I saw this one.

It's call "Legalities of Self Defense".

I don't claim it to be anymore on point than this thread, but it has some related and differing views about the same subjects.

 

[NineseveN]

Most tests are designed by people who have no idea how to design a test.

Words with more truth than these have not yet been uttered aloud amongst men.

 

[Herself]

By the letter of the law, the clerk acted in a manner that is illegal. He technically shot a person who was no longer and immediate threat. If he was taken to trial, I was on the jury, and presented with the case as I have heard it. I would probably find him guilty. Personally, I think he did the right thing. If he doesn't get charged or fired, how many more time do you think his store will be robbed while he is on duty?

As a juror, you have the right to conclude the law itself is immoral, and thus vote as you have already said you "personally think." If you believe it is proper to kill criminals in the commission of their crimes, then you can stand up for that when you serve on a jury. Check "jury nullification."

But the point is....I might not have known the law in this regard if there had not been any formal training that covered what is a good shoot and what is not.

I very much doubt that any of them are a "good shoot;" the only good shooting is the one that doesn't happen. (I'm going to take flak for that opinion, I know). Any time you shoot someone, you are making a very deliberate choice that the person you're shooting at needs to be stopped, no matter what has to happen to stop him.

If that's the case, the law can go climb a tree, for all I care. I'm not dieing just because some law says what I have to do to survive is not a "good shoot." And I'm not shooting a guy I don't have to just because the law says I can, either.

IANAL and none of the handgun courses I have taken could have made me into one.

"It is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six."

--Herself

 

[Woodland_Annie]

Here's my take on the training requirements. Whether right or wrong. I gladly sat through the class because in my state it is basically a class that reviews the laws regarding concealed carry. They give you the information that WILL KEEP YOU FROM BEING SUED. The firing portion of the class is only enough to verify you will not shoot your toe off during the draw.

That's how it was for me. They gave us a written test. I had already answered the questions by the time the instructor came into the room and read the questions and answers aloud. But I found the studying to be worth it.

I would have done the $125 and 12 hours of training even if it weren't required because I felt it helped me and made me more comfortable with the idea of carrying a handgun. My friend and I are in fact looking for classes to help our defensive shooting even more.

But I'd still rather have it be my choice rather than the state's.

If you want to put blame on someone for the requirements, default to blaming a lawyer!

I thought it WAS their fault!

 

[MN_Strelok]

she looked like she was FORCED to get her CPL b/c her boyfriend made her.

So what makes you think she's ever going to load the thing, led alone carry it?

Sure, plenty of people buy a gun, stick it in the sock drawer and never practice. However, I have yet to meet anyone who actually carries on a regular basis that hasn't sought out training on their own. Maybe I just know a lot of unusually responsible people?

Besides, she's probably more likely to run you down in a crosswalk while talking on her cell than she is to shoot you. Feel better now?

 

[pete f]

Just look at all the blood running in the streets of Vermont and ALaska because of the lack of training there.

Should you take some training before you get your permit or start carrying.
YES> but should you HAVE to take training, I do not see that.

I know a woman who was granted an emergency permit, no waiting, after her ex was released from jail and he showed up at her door with an ax. luckily she was not home, but the cops decided that if he had chopped his way into the house, he was likely a risk to her. Should she have been required to wait for the nest carry class?

I think every one should get firearms safety. everyone, just like sex ed or drivers ed in school, on class should be firearms safety. Then when you are 21 OR active Duty Military, you are legal to carry providing you meet the letter of the law. no felony's or adjudicated TRO's, no mental illness or illegal drug use. I do think federal and state law needs to be ammended to allow purchase and possesion of weapons if no adjudicated TRO, OFP's etc are ever held up. (Meaning a restraining order may be filed, but you have the choice to go to a judge and have it rescinded, and erased. some places issue a TRO with every divorce filing.)

 

[MD_Willington]

 

[KriegHund]

but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?

Your 21 years old- thats enough for me.

Shouldnt you need training to speak in public places?
Shouldnt you need training to vote?
Etc etc...

 

[El Tejon]

KH, most 21 year olds do need training to speak in public. I recommend enough training so that all "rapper jargon" is eliminated.

You know what I'm sayin', gee?

 

[MD_Willington]

In WA State I have enough hoops to go through with the Alien Firearms license, I don't want to have to then go take training for a CPL, I don't have the time or money...

I knew I should have bought the house 15 minutes away in Idaho...hindsight is always 20/20

 

[Double Maduro]

UDUB,

Did you read the brochure they gave you?

You start out saying it is about training then say it's not about training. Make up your mind.

You sound a lot like a guy who pops up here every once in a while, once he called himself "swampfox".

I think you are trolling for a reaction so that you can take it back to your anti group and use it to further their cause.

Have a good life,
DM

Oh, and by the way, ibtl

 

[USMCRotrHed]

Juries and "Good Shoots"

As a juror, you have the right to conclude the law itself is immoral,


I very much doubt that any of them are a "good shoot;" the only good shooting is the one that doesn't happen. (I'm going to take flak for that opinion, I know). Any time you shoot someone, you are making a very deliberate choice that the person you're shooting at needs to be stopped, no matter what has to happen to stop him.

--Herself

In the few legal classes I have taken at school, the jury decides only the facts of the case. It is the judge's responsibility to decide matters of law. Once the judge decides that the law applies, the jury takes that law and applies the facts of the case to that specific law.

As far as the "good shoot" comment. You won't catch any flak from me. By good shoot, I meant legally defensible. I've heard it said before that "a fight not faught is a fight won." Good words to live by. I pray my CCW only gets used as an ornament on my belt that only I know about. But I study and train as if I will need it tomorrow morning before I've had my coffee.

 

[UWstudent]

UDUB,

Did you read the brochure they gave you?

You start out saying it is about training then say it's not about training. Make up your mind.

You sound a lot like a guy who pops up here every once in a while, once he called himself "swampfox".

I think you are trolling for a reaction so that you can take it back to your anti group and use it to further their cause.

Have a good life,
DM

Wow, before your accusation of me being somebody else, why don't you read all my post in this thread which would answer some of your questions sir.

I plan on having a good life

 

[Herself]

In the few legal classes I have taken at school, the jury decides only the facts of the case. It is the judge's responsibility to decide matters of law. Once the judge decides that the law applies, the jury takes that law and applies the facts of the case to that specific law.

Often said but not, in fact, true. Unless you think judges should be privy to the deliberations and private thoughts of jurors?
See http://www.fija.org/ for the general info. At http://www.caught.net/juror.htm you will find their Juror's Handbook, which includes this instructive bit of history:

...the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule.

When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.

[...]As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Sometimes the law is an ass. When it is, it needs to be questioned and even set aside. Juries are how we do that in individual cases.

--Herself

 

[thatguy]

Do we need training to exercise any of the other Constitutional rights?

 

[USMCRotrHed]

Research time

OK, I see your going to make me do my research and report back. I'll do that, and if I am wrong I will let you know. Thanks for the piece you just posted, I will begin there before I dig up my old textbooks and other materials.