# Am I wrong?



## mvslay (May 6, 2007)

Before I post this question let me know where I'm coming from.

I'm a current CCL holder and have been for 7 years. Over the last year and a half I've been actively improving my pistol abilities. I am a NRA member. I was also in the Army.

My state is a "may issue" state. But in my county it is for all intents and purposes a shall issue situation, granted you pass the background check.

The one thing that bothers me is, that there is no requirement for firearms training in order to obtain a CCL.

One of the main reasons I would like to see this changed is so that my state could expand its reciprocity agreements.

But at the same time I would like my state to become a shall issue state.

Also having served in the military, and having positive control of my weapon's security drilled into my head I believe this is an overlooked element of CCW with some of my fellow CCL holders.

Lastly, from observation at my local shooting ranges two things are evident. Most of the general public do not treat firearms handling with the proper amount of respect. And marksmanship is at an appalling levels. Some shooters are so bad they can barely hit a full size silhouette at 7 yards.

So I guess the first question is: Of those here that were required to take a class was it helpful.

Next question: Was there a practical shooting requirement in order to pass the class. If so was it stringent enough or too lax.

So for now, I believe I'd support an amendment to my state's CCL law to add a requirement for a training course and to change it to a shall issue state. The intended effect would be expanded reciprocity and a shall issue status state wide. In addition CCL holders would be more capable of defending themselves with greater confidence. And lastly I believe it would help the law abiding remain law abiding by clarifying where when and how they may carry legally.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

mvslay said:


> Before I post this question let me know where I'm coming from.
> 
> I'm a current CCL holder and have been for 7 years. Over the last year and a half I've been actively improving my pistol abilities. I am a NRA member. I was also in the Army.
> 
> ...


Arizona requires 8 hours of training plus a basic shooting test. The shooting test consists of 5 shots from 5 yds. and 5 from 10 yds. into an (If memory serves me) 14"x18" target. You must hit 7 out of 10.

I wholeheartedly agree people should obtain training. My only disagreement is in Government dictating the training. I believe in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The constitution does not give the government the right pick and choose under what set of conditions we can carry therefore they should not be able to add restrictions such as training at will.

:smt1099


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

I had an odd situation. I got my paperwork from armored transport after the armed security class. So my class lasted five days, the fifth day being the shooting a la security, which is apparently a bit more than they do with the regular CCL class. The classroom time was way, way more. 

My mother took the regular class and she said it was a wonderful help. I told her I suspected it would be and it was good to take it just to learn the laws and such and also how to care for her guns. The only thing she didn't like was that the instructor seemed to be teaching them how to find loopholes in the laws. Which I agree with her about. 

Personally, I think it is a good idea. I like the idea that they teach you the laws, they teach you how to care for your gun, and they teach you how to shoot. Far too many people jump into gun ownership without knowing anything and refusing to learn, which isn't only dangerous to themselves but to those around them. So I find myself suggesting the CCL class to a lot of people on a daily basis.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

As TOF stated, Arizona has a training and shooting requirement. But the shooting is child's play, and in no way replicates shooting under any kind of stress. The class I took (which as 16 hours as required at that time) had a considerably more stringent qualification, which was fine with me. The wife and I both passed with flying colors, but we were both experienced shooters already.

I don't think you are wrong to want to see more/better training required. I have had the same experiences you have had on the public ranges. The skill level of most gun owners is several notches below abysmal. Many are borderline dangerous, especially the mall ninja types. Few can hold a group the size of a pie plate, even in slow fire. 

Many gun owners object to training requirements based on the "infringement" wording of the Second Amendment, but I am unconvinced that the 2A protects a right to carry a concealed weapon. It was written in the context of a militia, which is a quasi-military (if much less formal) organization, to act as a counterweight to a potentially tyrannical government. Military or paramilitary organizations don't carry concealed pistols. Thus, under the broad concept of federalism, the states would seem to be free to regulate the practice within their borders.

Obviously, the downside of training requirements is that once they exist, they can be progressively made more difficult until not even Rob Leatham can pass, and thus CCW is eliminated.


----------



## scooter (May 9, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Many gun owners object to training requirements based on the "infringement" wording of the Second Amendment, but I am unconvinced that the 2A protects a right to carry a concealed weapon. It was written in the context of a militia, which is a quasi-military (if much less formal) organization, to act as a counterweight to a potentially tyrannical government. Military or paramilitary organizations don't carry concealed pistols. Thus, under the broad concept of federalism, the states would seem to be free to regulate the practice within their borders.
> 
> Obviously, the downside of training requirements is that once they exist, they can be progressively made more difficult until not even Rob Leatham can pass, and thus CCW is eliminated.


 Why do people always try this spin???
It was written in the context of the PEOPLE ( the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms) so they could be armed/prepared to FORM a militia if ever needed to stand up to said tyrannical govt. You know... like the one developing in DC


----------



## neophyte (Aug 13, 2007)

mvslay: Sir; as I see your question. No you are not wrong, because each state legislature overly; what-evers, it'll take time, and in the end we may loose.
"Sucklead," and I come from the same state; I'm in the south; she's in the north, [never met] Her position/job requirements are totally different from us; the general population. 'She has already spoken of her requirements' 
State requires 4 hour class-room 4 hour shooting. minimal shooting 50-60 rounds.
Having done that; I speak of the Military relationship to the weapons.
" I walked into the Armory; signed my name; was asked what 'I' need to qualify with' "what-ever" . Okay; see you in 6 months." Now do I suspect Military training? Being "Joe Average" basic ranking; walk in; sign name; walk out. 
What is my point? Self observance. 
Many fine folks have weapons that they don't have a clue about; whether its about safety, function , responsibility, consideration, and what-ever else goes on. Irresponsibly; time well spent in learning understanding the ramifications of said weapon/weapons; isn't being done.

All of that to say? 
Any agreement between states should show a level of responsibility; conducive to safety not Politics.
Will it change? 
Sir; I see "Mike Barham's", and "scooters" points. and agree with each.
Does that make it right? The subject is sensitive. The subject is all to real.
Being members to Local, national, regional, group/groupings; allows us to stay informed. Staying informed helps with the directing our energy toward the common goal. Melodrama hasn't a place. Fact based; should be our concern. 
Did I get into the ball park or just miss the point


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

scooter said:


> Why do people always try this spin???
> It was written in the context of the PEOPLE ( the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms) so they could be armed/prepared to FORM a militia if ever needed to stand up to said tyrannical govt. You know... like the one developing in DC


It's not "spin." It's right there in the Second Amendment if you care to read it. The Amendment refers to a "well-regulated" militia. Elsewhere in the Constitution there is a definition of the militia (able bodied men between 18 and 45, I think). It has been broadly agreed that "well-regulated," in the context of the time, means "well trained" or "well practiced." Thus, I think that the "militia" is all able bodied men (and women, as we have advanced in our thinking a bit since colonial times) who are trained and skilled with their weapons.

So how is a training requirement for CCW out of line?

And how does concealment fit into the picture of a people armed to resist tyranny, anyway? Does someone plan to take on an infantry squad with their trusty 1911? CCW is for resisting comparatively petty street crime. Thinking about puny pistols in the context of some grand struggle against a despotic government is delusional at best.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> It's not "spin." It's right there in the Second Amendment if you care to read it. The Amendment refers to a "well-regulated" militia. Elsewhere in the Constitution there is a definition of the militia (able bodied men between 18 and 45, I think). It has been broadly agreed that "well-regulated," in the context of the time, means "well trained" or "well practiced." Thus, I think that the "militia" is all able bodied men (and women, as we have advanced in our thinking a bit since colonial times) who are trained and skilled with their weapons.
> 
> So how is a training requirement for CCW out of line?
> 
> And how does concealment fit into the picture of a people armed to resist tyranny, anyway? Does someone plan to take on an infantry squad with their trusty 1911? CCW is for resisting comparatively petty street crime. Thinking about puny pistols in the context of some grand struggle against a despotic government is delusional at best.


Mike, I believe I read in one of your posts that you had to rely on your puny pistol during an attack on your location in Afghanistan a few day's back. I expect it was at least a bit comforting to know you had it while going to get your big gun.

The English thought all their modern, for the time, war making equipment and trained soldiers could defeat the rag tag colonists also. That seems to have been wishfull thinking.

Stay safe and keep the rifle closer.

:smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Mike, I believe I read in one of your posts that you had to rely on your puny pistol during an attack on your location in Afghanistan a few day's back. I expect it was at least a bit comforting to know you had it while going to get your big gun.


It was indeed, but bear in mind that I was in a fortified FOB in a defensive posture, not in the offensive mode that would be required in a fight against a tyrannical government. Apples and oranges.



> The English thought all their modern, for the time, war making equipment and trained soldiers could defeat the rag tag colonists also. That seems to have been wishfull thinking.


Weapons were much, much more equivalent between the redcoats and the colonial militias than they are now between a modern military force and American civilians. Bear in mind also that the British did not use even close their full military might when fighting in America, which is really the only reason we prevailed.

When our infantry squads here encounter insurgents/Taliban/terrorists, even those with good modern weapons, we crush them every time they fight us in open combat. I do not know why anyone believes it would go better for lightly-armed Americans in some hypothetical revolution. There is a reason our enemies have resorted to IEDs and such, and it isn't because they enjoy the fine art of bomb-making.



> Stay safe and keep the rifle closer.


Thanks! I mainly rely on the pistol around the base, though obviously I bring heavier firepower when I step outside the wire or when on guard duty. The chances of our enemies here overrunning one of the bases are basically nonexistent, so a pistol is fine and much more convenient.


----------



## scooter (May 9, 2006)

Mike...where in my post did you see ANYTHING dis-agreeing with training for CWL holders?????????
Furthermore I HAVE read the constitution AND the federalist Docs. which it appears to me you have a 2nd grade comprehension of them. So I guess the best we can do is agree to dis-agree and leave it at that.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike, you somehow twist every 2nd amendment comment to imply we all, except you, want to overthrow our Government and fight our son's and daughters. You are simply wrong. I believe you are misreading what is said or simply making an argument where none exists for your own enjoyment. In regard to balance of power factors, time changes everything. Enjoy what we have while you can. I intend to.

:smt1099


----------



## jfdavis58 (Jul 10, 2007)

Back to the questions at hand.

My home is in New Mexico.

It's a shall issue...
15 Hours including a (trivial) safe gun handling and shooting component (10rnd @ 7yrds, 15 rnds at 3yrds, target is approx 12in wide 18in high--no time limit but don't dawdle). With ten years of competitive shooting I took maybe 3 seconds at the longer range, perhaps 4 at the shorter-more rounds! Some folks took 4-5 minutes.

And then there is an every 2 year shooting requirement (same target, round count and range), every 4 year 4 hour refresher including new/changed laws and shooting.

The beginner class is very informative covering storage, children, law, after shooting trauma, gear, basic marksmanship, practice and further training suggestions, cleaning and gun maintenance on and off the range, and ammo selection. Perhaps there was more; want me to check my notes?

In NM the instructors work very hard to stay-in-touch with there students-a real networking thing. My instructor has my e-mail and home addresses, he's been to my home-I've got his. Many classmates also maintain contact with each other both through the instructor and directly. I think the whole experience is/was very beneficial and well balanced.



mvslay said:


> Before I post this question let me know where I'm coming from.
> 
> I'm a current CCL holder and have been for 7 years. Over the last year and a half I've been actively improving my pistol abilities. I am a NRA member. I was also in the Army.
> 
> ...


----------



## tgrogan (Sep 4, 2007)

Without stepping into the 2nd Amendment fray, I live in Idaho. If want to be concerned about untrained gun carriers, check this out:

In Idaho, if you are 21 yrs or older, you can open carry with nothing but a holster. Yep, I said it...you heard it...no training, no classes, no nothing.

Now, there are laws against possession if you fit into any of the categories that keep you from purchasing a handgun or acquiring a CCW License.

I have turned in all the paperwork for my CCW license but I didn't have to take a class because I was in the military, so my DD-214 was all that was required for the safety requirement. The CCW class does not require any range time.

I managed to qualify, barely, some years ago, through the military with a 9mm. When I first shot my XD I sucked horribly, but I wasn't carrying at the time. Once I made the decision to carry I took it seriously. I went to the range and fired through 100 rnds. Certainly not accurate, but all the holes were in the black so I knew I probably wouldn't hit any bystanders.

Throughout the week I did alot of dry-fire exercises with snap-caps and I also learned of a training technique called 'shoot the pencil'. At the end of the week, I went back and 80% of my shots were within the 9-ring, the rest weren't far away.

All I can say is that I hope those people we see at the range, who can't hit the side of a barn, aren't carrying in public. Even with the high numbers of CCW holders, I think and hope that most people are home-defense gun owners.

I can certainly see both sides of the required training issue, and I guess I would say that I am not necessarily in favor of it, for the reasons mentioned, but I certainly hope that anyone who carries, takes the responsibility that comes with bearing arms.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

TOF said:


> Mike, you somehow twist every 2nd amendment comment to imply we all, except you, want to overthrow our Government and fight our son's and daughters.


Maybe I am failing to explain myself properly, then. While I do think there is a segment of the gun owning population that is just itching for an excuse to use their "homeland security rifles," I think they are a very small but vocal minority. I am talking about the "Molon Labe" and more hardcore Appleseed and Boston T. Party crowds, mainly.

I recognize that the Second Amendment is the Constitution's "doomsday provision," and fully support its existence. I realize that government is force and coercion, and that it must occasionally be restrained by the people. What I object to is the constant complaining on the forums (not this one so much, but a lot of the more "tactical" or libertarian-oriented ones) about how horrible America is and how we need to "feed the hogs" or "go to guns." It reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of spoiled children who have no idea how good they have it.

I think lots of gun owners believe that AR15s, M1As, and AKs are what they need to fight a tyrannical government. But if they used such weapons in open conflict against any modern military force - foreign or domestic, and in the spirit of the Second Amendment - they would be slaughtered like so much cattle. If gun owners have the true purpose of the 2A somewhere in the back of their mind, they really need to start rethinking how they would go about exercising that doomsday provision. A group of guys armed with semiauto rifles (never mind pistols!) will stand _absolutely no chance_ of winning an open battle with soldiers clad in armor and using crew-served weapons and close air support and/or artillery.

The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms so that a militia may be raised to defend liberty against tyranny, whether imposed from within or without. I do not see how concealed pistols fit into that picture. Concealed pistols are totally ineffectual weapons of war, and are really only useful against street criminals. I do not see a mention of street crime anywhere in the Constitution.


----------



## scooter (May 9, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> I am talking about the "Molon Labe" and more hardcore Appleseed and Boston T. Party crowds, mainly.


I would strongly suggest you actually READ the sig. line on any one of JS' posts because you just insulted him (and me, probably aimed at me) concerning the Molon Labe phrase..........your arrogance knows no bounds does it?


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Well guys, it seems to be a little "heated" in here... :buttkick:

I'm going to pull the ole' "time out" on this thread for a while, everyone take a breather and bake a pie or something.

I'd have to say that I agree with what everyone is saying, from all sides. But, I think everyone is losing focus on the subject of the post. Which was...



> So I guess the first question is: Of those here that were required to take a class was it helpful.
> 
> Next question: Was there a practical shooting requirement in order to pass the class. If so was it stringent enough or too lax. So for now, I believe I'd support an amendment to my state's CCL law to add a requirement for a training course and to change it to a shall issue state. The intended effect would be expanded reciprocity and a shall issue status state wide. In addition CCL holders would be more capable of defending themselves with greater confidence. And lastly I believe it would help the law abiding remain law abiding by clarifying where when and how they may carry legally.


As for the 2nd amendment... everyone has their own interpretation. And, in the coming weeks the supreme court will be hearing the DC gun ban case. So, within the next few weeks or months we will all have the final answer to the question. I'd advise all of us to close ranks and stop bickering about it. There's an old saying...

"Divide and Conquer"

and for the record and required reading...



> *Amendment II*
> 
> * 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.*


seems pretty clear to me. :smt023


----------

