Wi constitutional carry

[Filthy Harry, SASS #24924]

Sounds like in the next few months, Wisconsin is going to try for concealed carry again. Maybe it's because my only shooting experience is in SASS,where safety is emphasized, so I'm a little iffy about some of the people I see, just walking in and buying a gun. I work sight-in days at my rifle club, and some of these people are scary. I'd like to hear from the laid-back members of the Saloon.

Do you think Constitutuinal carry with no regulation is as safe as requiring some type of safety training in a classroom setting. As I understand, some of the trainers are promoting classes.

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

Do you think Constitutuinal carry with no regulation is as safe as requiring some type of safety training in a classroom setting. As I understand, some of the trainers are promoting classes.

 

In a word, no. I have three permits, WA, OR, and FL. Only WA did not require a class, so their permit is not recognized by very many states. IMO, it is not an infringement of rights to make sure a person knows the basics of gun handling.

[Subdeacon Joe]

In a word, no. I have three permits, WA, OR, and FL. Only WA did not require a class, so their permit is not recognized by very many states. IMO, it is not an infringement of rights to make sure a person knows the basics of gun handling.

 

Okie, emotionally I agree with you. But as we see with things like the Brady Bill and the new attempts to ban 'assault clips' emotion makes for bad law. No other enumerated right requires any kind of training, permit, or license. And there have been several court rulings that you cant require a test or license for a constitutionally protected right.

 

I've seen some proposals for requirements of "basics of gun handling" that Camp Perry champions couldn't pass. Again, emotionally I could agree that going through the NRA Basic Pistol or FIRST Steps program would be reasonable, I cringe at the government being allowed to put any test on the exercise of an enumerated civil right. Cringe because we know that when whatever goal the politicians set wasn't met, the requirements for training would get tougher and we would soon be at the point where it would be almost impossible for most people to pass.

[Blue Steel Duke]

I'm more worried and opposed to States like California, Illinois and New York that automatically ASSume that I'm incapable of safely handing a firearm in public or even my own home!

 

BSD

[Subdeacon Joe]

I'm more worried and opposed to States like California, Illinois and New York that automatically ASSume that I'm incapable of safely handing a firearm in public or even my own home!

 

BSD

 

In CA, before a dealer can release a handgun after the mandatory 10 day (not 9 day, 23 hour 59 minute) wait, the buyer must pass a 'safe handling demonstration" to show that they know how to safely take the lock off, load, and unload the firearm. And of course, you have to show your Handgun Safety Certificate*, issued after passing a 30 question multiple choice test (can get 7 wrong and still pass), when you make the purchase.

 

*this must be renewed every 5 years and replaces the Basic Firearm Safety Cert which was good for life. Too many people were passing the BFSC test and the state wasn't getting the revenue.

 

ADDED - putting up with the BS like this is why I am opposed to any tests or licenses to own and carry. It all amounts to a poll test an poll tax.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Washington State's Constitution has perhaps the best enumerated right to bear arms of all of the states; it is unambiguous:

 

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

 

Arizona adopted this same provision in its 1912 constitution.

 

Thus in my opinion Washington's "shall issue" law (passed in 1959)for concealed pistol licenses follows its Constitution, and no "certificate of training" is or can be required to purchase or carry handguns. This is unquestionably a clearly enumerated right here.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

I'm with Okie on this. I recently completed the day-long course that's required for Kansas CC. Part of the class dealt with basic firearm safety and included firing 25 rounds on the range.

 

More importantly, the bulk of the class dealt with Kansas laws, the circumstances that permit WHEN firing your weapon is appropriate, and the consequences of your actions. To me, knowing when to fire your weapon is just as, if not more important than knowing how. Too many people have the idea that it works like a Hollywood action movie. Some in our class thought that way and this course did a good job of dispelling some of those myths.

 

If our police officers have to be trained on appropriate use of deadly force, I don't have a problem with a minimum amount of training for the public. Carrying a weapon is a right, but it comes with responsibilities.

 

My 2 cents.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Well, I have an opinion. I am not going to share much of it because it is just that, my opinion.

I have had occasion to read and discuss the issue of safety with several individuals in the gun

community. Frankly, I would say that some have no business with firearms of any kind, not even

a bb gun. Others could benifit from a class on gun handling and safety, but I doubt that they will

ever take one. Others, I have no problem with.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Okie's and Deadwood's points are good ones, as firearms training is awfully important. I know that our hunter safety courses, required for under-18 licenses, are of great value. But then, hunting is not an enumerated right in our constitution.

 

What would be interesting would be statistics and studies, if any, on the question. Washington, for instance (despite its liberal politics) has always been a "shall issue" CCW state (for over 50 years, anyway). There is no "certification" requirement. Yet I strongly doubt that the lack of such a requirement has led to any bad consequences, and certainly not to any pattern of same.

 

There are probably two reasons: the great majority of those who go to the trouble of getting a concealed pistol license in fact use and have experience with handguns at the range. Most importantly, I suspect, is that the vast, totally overwhelming majority, never have occasion during their lifetimes to actually use a carried weapon off of the range.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

Okie's and Deadwood's points are good ones, as firearms training is awfully important. I know that our hunter safety courses, required for under-18 licenses, are of great value. But then, hunting is not an enumerated right in our constitution.

 

What would be interesting would be statistics and studies, if any, on the question. Washington, for instance (despite its liberal politics) has always been a "shall issue" CCW state (for over 50 years, anyway). There is no "certification" requirement. Yet I strongly doubt that the lack of such a requirement has led to any bad consequences, and certainly not to any pattern of same.

 

There are probably two reasons: the great majority of those who go to the trouble of getting a concealed pistol license in fact use and have experience with handguns at the range. Most importantly, I suspect, is that the vast, totally overwhelming majority, never have occasion during their lifetimes to actually use a carried weapon off of the range.

I don't know about other states, but in Kansas, the course and permit are two different steps. That is, taking the course doesn't automatically grant a permit. You still have to apply to the state. I'm going to take WAG (wild a** guess) and say there's a fair percentage of people who complete the training but don't apply for the permit. I think when some realize what's involved in CCW, they decide it's too much bother. I'm pretty sure some left our class disillusioned that it wasn't as easy as they thought. I also think some will get the permit, carry for awhile and then lose interest because it becomes too much bother for them.

[Noz]

This is a tough one! I agree that I don't want the Govt into my business more than it is BUT I know some folks that should not be allowed to carry a pocket knife much less a handgun.

 

I am one of the folks that took the class but never applied for a permit.

 

I was satisfied with the loaded gun in the car or truck and of course, at home.

[St. Louis Suomi SASS #31905]

Howdy:

 

Gosh! I didn't have to pass a test to vote. Which do you think is more dangerous; someone who has no idea of what he/she is voting for or someone who can't identify the trigger from a chamber on a handgun. Seems to me we are seeing the worse damage right now and it isn't a handgun.

 

I have no problem requiring a person to attend a class, however. In my class we had two that would have trouble handling a fork and I would have sent them packing. Completion of the course was a requirement for application of the permit. Seems to me, a million years ago when I was in the Army, they had firearm safety every year, still had accidental discharges. So much for classes.

 

You cannot teach common sense to those who have more in common with a donut than a rational human.

 

JMHO

 

STL Suomi

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

OR makes it tough to get a CCW. You have to be from OR or a contiguous state; you have to take one of their approved firearm safety courses; you have to convince a county sheriff of a need to have an OR permit.

 

Instead of cloaking myself in the Second Amendment, I played the game:

 

-I'm from a contiguous state. Check one.

 

-I took their safety course, which was a real eye opener for me. There were roughly 20 people in the class, and Wildcat and I were the only ones with any significant firearm use history. A few of the folks had never shot a firearm. I'm glad they had to take the course. Check two.

 

-I showed up at the sheriff's office armed with copies of all of the OR firearms laws, with pertinent sections highlighted to show where I could potentially be in violation of said sections if driving down for a cowboy match. As it turned out, one of the sheriff's deputies shoots cowboy matches, so all we had to do was be fingerprinted and photographed, and out the door we went with our permits. Check three.

 

Yes, it was more hassle to go this route for me, especially since I have about 45 years of gun handling experience. But after seeing folks who wanted a permit, who had no firearms experience, I feel this is a safer route to follow than 'shall issue' states like WA with no requirements.

[Finagler 6853 Life]

This is some great discussion with very valid points made by all. I'm impressed.

 

While I do not want more government intrusion, they already have more than is needed, I think there is a real need for firearms training. You can learn from others or learn by experience. I have learned a lot of things both ways and experience is a ruthless and sometimes painful teacher. The trianing doesn't have to be by a government agency but at least part of the license process. We don't give a license to drive without training, we don't permit people to operate a lot of equipment in manufacturing without training, we should really train people in best practices of gun handling and situation handling before they go traipsing off with a loaded firearm. We should be concerned about the public safety as well as the individual carrying as it will reflect poorly on the rest of us if they muck it up somehow.

 

I've been waiting for years for the people's republik of Madison to give the rest of the state the right to carry. Those people are so screwed up it is hard to describe. I'll get a license but where I live there isn't much need for one. The little burg of 7,000 people doesn't have any violence to speak of but it would be reassuring to be carrying while traveling which I do a far amount of. Having the training requirement so that the permit is recognized by other states would be a big plus.

 

I'm with Harry and looking forward to the governor signing this when it happens in what ever form it comes in.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Okie's point is perfectly rational, and laying aside all the constitutional arguments it's a good system in Oregon (except the part about having to persuade the constable to issue when you've already passed the test).

 

But it still would be interesting to know whether or not after 50 years of "shall issue" with no training requirement, Washington has a higher incidence of accidents which might be attributable to lack of training.

 

I am sure there is no data, but there is also apparently no anecdotal information that would show this to be the case.

[Dorado]

I don't know how it is in other states. But here in Texas you have to complete a minimum 10hour course, a range test that uses at least 50 rounds, and then you must file at the sheriff's office including finger printing and pass a strict background test. After which in about 6-8 months you'll receive your license. That is, in my opinion, a nice middle ground between no carry and getting a license just for the asking.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I don't know how it is in other states. But here in Texas you have to complete a minimum 10hour course, a range test that uses at least 50 rounds, and then you must file at the sheriff's office including finger printing and pass a strict background test. After which in about 6-8 months you'll receive your license. That is, in my opinion, a nice middle ground between no carry and getting a license just for the asking.

 

In Washington, you have to do the fingerprinting and the complete criminal background check for a CPL. Then it's "just for the asking". And it's a lot faster than 6-8 months. As I recall, it was three or four weeks.

 

At last check, there were about 275,000 CPL's active in Washington, out of a population of 6.6 million. So they're not really beating down the doors just asking.....

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

Okie's point is perfectly rational, and laying aside all the constitutional arguments it's a good system in Oregon (except the part about having to persuade the constable to issue when you've already passed the test).

 

But it still would be interesting to know whether or not after 50 years of "shall issue" with no training requirement, Washington has a higher incidence of accidents which might be attributable to lack of training.

 

I am sure there is no data, but there is also apparently no anecdotal information that would show this to be the case.

 

I tried every permutation I could think of, but I cannot find any data either. You are probably right, statistically there may be no significant difference. Given that, a bit of training cannot hurt.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I tried every permutation I could think of, but I cannot find any data either. You are probably right, statistically there may be no significant difference. Given that, a bit of training cannot hurt.

 

I'll offer this for consideration - we don't hear it trumpeted by the anti-civil rights crowd so there is likely no difference. We would hear it if there were.

 

That said, yes, training is a good thing. I'm just hesitant in saying that the State should require it.

[old roy]

I tried every permutation I could think of, but I cannot find any data either. You are probably right, statistically there may be no significant difference. Given that, a bit of training cannot hurt.

 

 

Okie, maybe the NRA would have access to the info of compare the states with CCL programs in a must take traing vs no training. How many states issue with NO training? Can't be very many... so, the statistics of 'bad CCL holders' state to state shouldn't be a big problem.

 

I agree with all that a day in the classroom and a day at the range makes me feel better about some of those people. Wisconsins worry must be about 'who writes the regs'! Chicago had a list of ridiculous requirements ready for 'The People' even before the city lost its court case to allow pistol purchases! If the Wisconsin regs come out about the same as most states it will be fine. We can hope for them

 

Lived in San diego for 20 years. An old Cowboy gave the test for the Utah (?) CCL right at the range after a CAS! Gave you CCL rights in 20 some states...NOT CA were we lived...ha, ha am in Northen MI now and think I will get a CCL this summer. A day at the range, a day in a classroom, background check, register, wait. NO NEED required like CA or some other states.

 

Good luck to all

 

 

 

Shoot Safe, Old Roy