Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: HB 1326: Concealed handgun permits; firearms safety courses.

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Angry HB 1326: Concealed handgun permits; firearms safety courses.

    Just took a look at the "Weapons" subcategory for new bills introduced so far, only two, including this one, which removes the online training option and narrows the focus required on some of the other options as well, including what kinds of courses the judge may accept at their discretion.

    HB 1326: Concealed handgun permits; firearms safety courses.

    Full Text (with changes highlighted)

    Concealed handgun permit; firearms safety course. Eliminates certain firearms safety courses the completion of which currently satisfies the requirement that all resident and nonresident applicants for a concealed handgun permit demonstrate competence with a handgun. The bill also requires that certain firearms safety courses that satisfy this requirement focus primarily on the use and handling of a concealed handgun.

    I'm nearly certain VCDL will strongly oppose this bill.

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 12-12-2012 at 05:30 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Very interesting indeed.

    Some of it I like, some not so much.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    I've decided that this year I'm going to concentrate on things that concern OV members. I don't have a dog in this fight.
    That aside, it will be interesting to see what position VCDL takes on this.

    While this bill would be good for instructors, it does move us one step back from Constitutional carry.

    Some people will understand the following, most won't:

    Basuto proverb
    If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    While this bill would be good for instructors, it does move us one step back from Constitutional carry.
    My thoughts exactly.

    While we all know, understand and greatly appreciate the value of training, to require it before "granting" what should be a right is not good.

    TFred

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I've decided that this year I'm going to concentrate on things that concern OV members. I don't have a dog in this fight.
    That aside, it will be interesting to see what position VCDL takes on this.

    While this bill would be good for instructors, it does move us one step back from Constitutional carry.

    Some people will understand the following, most won't:

    Basuto proverb
    If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them
    "When you are as old as the Old Man, you know a lot of things that you forgot you ever knew, because they've been a part of you so long".

    Must remember who we are and what we wish to be.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943
    What I don't like about it is the requirement that SOME training (#2 and #6, specifically) requires concentrating on handling a CONCEALED handgun, while other training (military, LEO, etc) does not.

    If they are going to require training, I think proof of safe handling/operation should be enough. Ideally, one will continue their education and get additional training, but I don't think the state should mandate that in order to get the CHP.
    Last edited by Riana; 12-13-2012 at 01:06 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Heart of Appalachia
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post

    While we all know, understand and greatly appreciate the value of training, to require it before "granting" what should be a right is not good.
    This is a tough one. I've always felt there's no reason for any prerequisite if the Commonwealth doesn't put some teeth into the course requirements and insist on live fire. And I mean more than just being able to minimally hit a target at close, self-defense range with no time constraints. I mean demonstrating the ability to handle a firearm safely, load it/unload it, strip and clean it. Further, require applicants to show an ability to actually draw that concealed handgun (safely in a timed scenario), hit an assailant-size silhouette in the center-of-mass and return the firearm to the holster without any physical gymnastics.

    OTOH, the opposing side of me agrees with TFred and Peter Nap...why support a prereq which infringes upon a citizen's constitutional right? Especially since there have been very, very few ADs/NDs attributed to CHP holders who acted incorrectly. And who knows if a more robust qualification program would have reduced any of those.

    Well, I guess it's because we now live in a society where 'normal' firearms knowledge can't be assumed like it was back in the Framers' day. I'd rather error toward safety than constitutional correctness. My conviction has been reinforced after meeting a few gun show attendees who've boasted about having CHPs but admit they've never actually been to a range to draw the thing and hit something with it. And I want to have some measure of assurance that 'something' won't be an innocent bystander or even themselves. A tough course won't prohibit all accidents but at least it'll weed out the incompetents and deter those who merely want a concealed handgun for bragging rights.

    Now I have to confront that pesky problem of how do I propose we let law abiding citizens take some responsibility for their own safety (against those who don't concern themselves with any laws, firearms or otherwise) if I'd require them to complete a rigorous CHP course before being allowed to legally carry concealed.

    Ever hear of OPEN CARRY?

    Faster, safer and a deterrent.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911 Enthusiast View Post
    This is a tough one. I've always felt there's no reason for any prerequisite if the Commonwealth doesn't put some teeth into the course requirements and insist on live fire. And I mean more than just being able to minimally hit a target at close, self-defense range with no time constraints. I mean demonstrating the ability to handle a firearm safely, load it/unload it, strip and clean it. Further, require applicants to show an ability to actually draw that concealed handgun (safely in a timed scenario), hit an assailant-size silhouette in the center-of-mass and return the firearm to the holster without any physical gymnastics.

    OTOH, the opposing side of me agrees with TFred and Peter Nap...why support a prereq which infringes upon a citizen's constitutional right? Especially since there have been very, very few ADs/NDs attributed to CHP holders who acted incorrectly. And who knows if a more robust qualification program would have reduced any of those.

    Well, I guess it's because we now live in a society where 'normal' firearms knowledge can't be assumed like it was back in the Framers' day. I'd rather error toward safety than constitutional correctness. My conviction has been reinforced after meeting a few gun show attendees who've boasted about having CHPs but admit they've never actually been to a range to draw the thing and hit something with it. And I want to have some measure of assurance that 'something' won't be an innocent bystander or even themselves. A tough course won't prohibit all accidents but at least it'll weed out the incompetents and deter those who merely want a concealed handgun for bragging rights.

    Now I have to confront that pesky problem of how do I propose we let law abiding citizens take some responsibility for their own safety (against those who don't concern themselves with any laws, firearms or otherwise) if I'd require them to complete a rigorous CHP course before being allowed to legally carry concealed.

    Ever hear of OPEN CARRY?

    Faster, safer and a deterrent.
    I cannot abide by any level of training being required to exercise the natural right of self-defense.

    Training is good. More training is better. Wash, rinse and repeat is best, but not as a prerequisite.

    No amount of training will guarantee performance under pressure; nevertheless, it is commonly accepted that LAC shoot more accurately and will cause less collateral damage that LEOs.

    Anyone looking for assurances to be free of concerns should understand that there are none; however, you do not help the few by penalizing the many.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Have not bothered to read the bill. I'm against it.

    The state should perhaps be allowed to limit certain classes from possessing/carrying a concealed a handgun. I'm still chewing on that.

    But forcing a training requirement has consequences that I am not hearing being discussed. Among them are:

    - trainer liability when a graduate goes and actually shoots somebody
    - CHP holder liability if the shot is anything but a one-shot stop

    Think about it folks. Then think about why folks who are required to qualify with a firearm as a part of their occupation generally try to not achieve the highest possible score but merely a passing grade. (For those needing a hint - if you score "expert" on the range then when on trial after a shooting, no matter how rightous, the Commonwealth Attorney or the civil suit land shark is going to focus on your being an "expert" shooter and possibly try to hoist that canard about a wounding/disabling shot as opposed to a center of mass* shot that stopped the threat.)

    stay safe.

    * Center of mass is a wide area, as opposed to a precise head shot or intending to hit the heart. If your COM shot happens to hit there you can bet the Commonwealth Attorney or the land shark in a civil suit will insist that was where you were intending to hit because, after all, you are an "expert" marksman as demonstrated by your qualification score.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Prince William County
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I cannot abide by any level of training being required to exercise the natural right of self-defense.
    I understood 1911's thought provoking post as meaning CC wasn't a God Given right in his mind.

    But it appears to me he has no problem with OC without any added qualifications.

    I don't think you two are all that far apart, Grapeshot, with the exception of CC. And I'll have to admit, I've seen some CC concoctions on a few individuals which I've doubted could be brought to bear safely within the next five minutes.

    So should CC permit holders be held to a higher standard?

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    1) Getting rid of the hunter safety course option makes sense - there's almost nothing in it that prepares one for personal defense with a handgun. The people who teach the course think it's nuts that a person can get a concealed carry permit on that basis.

    2) On the one hand, it bothers me that the NRA courses get a special dispensation to the exclusion of others which may be better. On the other, I think there should be a way to register or certify courses and instructors other than by DCJS or the NRA. I think that any competent person capable of teaching a course, whose course meets the requirements of instruction in firearms safety and proficiency ought to be able to get his course approved. I think the failure to make some provision to that effect violates a number of legal principles, such as the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

    3) Several of the proposed changes clearly reflect the NRA's agenda; I've talked to the folks in their education and training department and they really, really don't like the fact that the way the statute is worded now permits a certified instructor to come up with and teach his own course (and not have his students buy all the training materials from the NRA and get recruited to join). (Reference deleted paragraphs three and seven.)

    4) It's also bothered me that the language is "safety OR training"; so a one-hour course that only deals with the three basic rules would theoretically be good enough, without any requirement that the student had ever even seen a handgun. I think it should say, "safety AND training". Even that wouldn't require live-fire exercises.

    5) The way the statute is worded, if I offer a course "for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement", even if the course is open to the public generally, but consists only of a one-hour lecture on the need to point the muzzle in a safe direction, that's good enough.

    6) The catch all provision that allows an issuing court to approve a particular certificate puts too big a burden on the system. An applicant has to complete a course, not knowing whether it's going to be approved or not, and face the possibility that the same course might be approved for some applicants and not others.

    What I'm thinking, in the absence of some kind of correction, is to file suit against the Commonwealth for declaratory judgment as to every instructor and the courses he wants to teach, to the effect that they meet the requirements such that an applicant who presents evidence of completion of such courses satisfies the requirements, whether that instructor is certified by the NRA or DCJS, and whether his course is an NRA course or one offered for law enforcement. A final order in such a case would be binding on every court in the Commonwealth.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1 View Post
    I understood 1911's thought provoking post as meaning CC wasn't a God Given right in his mind.

    But it appears to me he has no problem with OC without any added qualifications.

    I don't think you two are all that far apart, Grapeshot, with the exception of CC. And I'll have to admit, I've seen some CC concoctions on a few individuals which I've doubted could be brought to bear safely within the next five minutes.

    So should CC permit holders be held to a higher standard?
    As always, the calm voice of reason Bob.

    I think Grapeshot, myself and nearly everyone else agree that people who carry a gun should learn to do it safely and efficiently. I have to go back to basics every now and then. The last time, I took Proshooters class and I said at the time, it corrected a few bad habits I had developed.

    The difference is it was voluntary, not mandated.

    Back when the world was young, I was a Ski Instructor. During off times the instructors and patrol people would go to the top of the mountain and 'HOT DOG" as it was called then. There was no government mandate for training and it was dangerous, but we all supposedly knew what we were doing.

    Rarely, someone who couldn't ski well, would give it a try and go home looking like Frosty The Snowman. In one case, the fellow hit a snow hydrant, broke his neck and was paralyzed for life.

    He could have hurt someone else and did hurt himself, but is that enough reason to justify the State coming in and requiring everyone who does flips from rock outcroppings, to go through a class in it.

    IMO, no it isn't. Where do we draw the line with personal freedom. Should one be required to take a "Public Speaking" class prior to being allowed to exercise his right to free speech? I took one and still can't speak worth a damn.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1 View Post
    So should CC permit holders be held to a higher standard?
    This is the ultimate question, ESPECIALLY if we really do want Virginia to be a Constitutional Carry state.

    Open carry has zero government-imposed requirements. If we want to eliminate the "governmental permission" for concealed carry, this bill is going in the exact opposite direction.

    Is our desire to be a Constitutional Carry state just a talking point? Or are we serious?

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 12-13-2012 at 10:04 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    snip-

    While this bill would be good for instructors, it does move us one step back from Constitutional carry.

    Some people will understand the following, most won't:

    Basuto proverb
    If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them

    1+



    Look at what Michigan is doing/trying to do for CHP holders.

    http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...w_changes.html

    Concealed carry permit holders who get additional, enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend more time at the gun range would be allowed to carry concealed in so-called “gun free” zones such as schools and churches. The pistol-free zones would remain in effect for others. “Open carry” in those zones would be prohibited.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  15. #15
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I cannot abide by any level of training being required to exercise the natural right of self-defense.

    Training is good. More training is better. Wash, rinse and repeat is best, but not as a prerequisite.

    No amount of training will guarantee performance under pressure; nevertheless, it is commonly accepted that LAC shoot more accurately and will cause less collateral damage that LEOs.

    Anyone looking for assurances to be free of concerns should understand that there are none; however, you do not help the few by penalizing the many.
    1+
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911 Enthusiast View Post
    snip-

    Well, I guess it's because we now live in a society where 'normal' firearms knowledge can't be assumed like it was back in the Framers' day. I'd rather error toward safety than constitutional correctness. My conviction has been reinforced after meeting a few gun show attendees who've boasted about having CHPs but admit they've never actually been to a range to draw the thing and hit something with it. And I want to have some measure of assurance that 'something' won't be an innocent bystander or even themselves. A tough course won't prohibit all accidents but at least it'll weed out the incompetents and deter those who merely want a concealed handgun for bragging rights.



    So much for all that training.
    http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...ing-for-police

    One large agency’s officers scored a gunfight hit rate of just 11 percent during a 10-year period I analyzed. That’s a staggering statistic, but another number was even more shocking. Though the sample was admittedly small, the bad guys in those incidents also scored an 11 percent hit rate.
    Their Academy Commander summed it up perfectly: “My officers get a hundred hours of firearms training in the academy and quarterly qualifications thereafter, but are hitting at the same rate as felons with no formal training? We should save all the ammunition, because our training program seems to be worthless!”
    Last edited by Marco; 12-13-2012 at 11:04 AM.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: HB 1326: Concealed handgun permits; firearms safety courses.

    I see nothing wrong with the hunter safety course as part of "training". Yes the guns are different, but it at least was drilled to me that there are 2 major things about guns. First, find were the safety was, and keep your finger off the trigger.

    Just my .02. I'm split on this for various reason's. Most already posted.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  17. #17
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    As a firearms instructor.....

    I love the idea of required training. Man, that is job security. As a free and responcible citizen, I am opposed to the heavy handed intrusion of government into my right to self defense. Can "grandma" drop a bad guy with the gun she never has had training with and carries "just in case"? Why, yes she can! We see stories every year where this is true. Pistols are the original "point and click" interface. Do I want to see a requirement of training? NO! Do I think it is a good idea to get training? Hell YES! But for me, freedom is the trump. Rights come before "good ideas". Responcible citizens will want training. The right to carry should have no restraint based on some one's good idea. Constitutional Carry comes with some uneasy feelings but freedom is just that, FREEDOM!
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    1) Getting rid of the hunter safety course option makes sense - there's almost nothing in it that prepares one for personal defense with a handgun. The people who teach the course think it's nuts that a person can get a concealed carry permit on that basis.
    I disagree. I think it is important to keep it, for several reasons.

    1) The training requirement isn't there to teach you the law regarding the use of lethal force. As stated in the law itself 18.2-308(G), it is there to prove that "the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun", not that the applicant has demonstrated competence with the law.

    2) The rules of gun safety don't change just because you are carrying a handgun instead of a long gun. The firearm safety portion of the hunter safety class teaches you how to handle a firearm of any type safely.

    3) Hunter safety courses are free, and eliminating the free training option serves to inflate the cost of a government permission slip beyond the $50 limit set by law. There are many people who have grown up around guns and learned how to handle them safely and competently without needing to pay for a formal class.

    Similarly, removing the option to prove your competence through participation in competition shooting completely changes the focus of that section of law. A person who has shot in competition has demonstrated competence in handling a firearm.

    It might be a good idea for a person who carries (open or concealed) to get training in the law regarding lethal force, but that doesn't mean that it should be required by law. I've known enough firearms instructors who gave bad information on the law as it is.
    Alma 43:47 - "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...."
    Self defense isn't just a good idea, it's a commandment.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911 Enthusiast View Post
    <snip>
    Well, I guess it's because we now live in a society where 'normal' firearms knowledge can't be assumed like it was back in the Framers' day. I'd rather error toward safety than constitutional correctness. My conviction has been reinforced after meeting a few gun show attendees who've boasted about having CHPs but admit they've never actually been to a range to draw the thing and hit something with it. And I want to have some measure of assurance that 'something' won't be an innocent bystander or even themselves. A tough course won't prohibit all accidents but at least it'll weed out the incompetents and deter those who merely want a concealed handgun for bragging rights.
    <snip>

    That statement scares the hell out of me. Notwithstanding the Ben Franklin quote, what kind of guarantee do you want in the Constitution that guarantees you will be "safe" in going about your life?

    I'd MUCH rather err on the side of individual liberty, recognizing that someone else's liberty (to be an idiot, even) may require preparation and planning on my part.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    That statement scares the hell out of me. Notwithstanding the Ben Franklin quote, what kind of guarantee do you want in the Constitution that guarantees you will be "safe" in going about your life?

    I'd MUCH rather err on the side of individual liberty, recognizing that someone else's liberty (to be an idiot, even) may require preparation and planning on my part.
    +++1

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    Incrementally deconstructing Virginia's training requirements, and otherwise reducing the bar to obtaining a VA permit as a back door path to "Constitutional Carry", has the unintended consequence of reducing the number of states that will accept a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit for reciprocity purposes. Delaware just dropped Virginia reciprocity, allegedly due to Virginia's inadequate training requirement to obtain a permit.

    If we want constitutional carry, and I certainly do, it would be better to simply allow carry in Virginia without a permit, but keep the permit process for those who want to obtain one for reciprocity with other states. Then make the Virginia permit a decent permit with realistic training requirements, perhaps even a photo, to maximize reciprocity with other states.

    I'm not in favor of any proposal that will lock instructors into following only an NRA training program, or that will encourage court challenges of an individual instructor's training certificate, or that will give localities an excuse to reject applications unless they approve each individual instructors training program.

    Like many, I have a problem with all of these hoops that one must jump through in order to get a permit to exercise what should be a fundamental right. You don't need to get a background check, fingerprints and permit to post something on the Internet, or call a radio talk show or write a letter to the editor. You shouldn't need one to protect yourself, either, but these permits are the practical reality at this point in time.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    Incrementally deconstructing Virginia's training requirements, and otherwise reducing the bar to obtaining a VA permit as a back door path to "Constitutional Carry", has the unintended consequence of reducing the number of states that will accept a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit for reciprocity purposes. Delaware just dropped Virginia reciprocity, allegedly due to Virginia's inadequate training requirement to obtain a permit.

    If we want constitutional carry, and I certainly do, it would be better to simply allow carry in Virginia without a permit, but keep the permit process for those who want to obtain one for reciprocity with other states. Then make the Virginia permit a decent permit with realistic training requirements, perhaps even a photo, to maximize reciprocity with other states.
    Just have an endorsement system on the CHPS. No Perks, Special Perks and full blown bent over for Bubba, outta state Perks.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by markand View Post
    .

    but these permits are the practical reality at this point in time.
    You do realize you're on an open carry board and that there are no hoops to jump through and that OC is the REAL practical reality.....don't you instructor?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    $
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911 Enthusiast View Post
    Well, I guess it's because we now live in a society where 'normal' firearms knowledge can't be assumed like it was back in the Framers' day. I'd rather error toward safety than constitutional correctness. My conviction has been reinforced after meeting a few gun show attendees who've boasted about having CHPs but admit they've never actually been to a range to draw the thing and hit something with it. And I want to have some measure of assurance that 'something' won't be an innocent bystander or even themselves. A tough course won't prohibit all accidents but at least it'll weed out the incompetents and deter those who merely want a concealed handgun for bragging rights.

    Faster, safer and a deterrent.
    Liberty (or constitutional correctness) and safety aren't at odds, they never are. There's nothing more dangerous than not having liberty. A government that claims the power to determine who can carry guns is far more dangerous than some folks carrying concealed without adequate training. It isn't right, or consistent with liberty, to demand that someone else do something (get firearms safety training, or even get a CHP at all) by threat of force (passing a law that requires them to do it, or face punishment) before they do something that, by itself, causes no injury to another person (carry a concealed pistol).

  25. #25
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    You do realize you're on an open carry board and that there are no hoops to jump through and that OC is the REAL practical reality.....don't you instructor?
    Somebody better put on a flameproof suit.

    This proposed change is classic C2I2 pocket lining. (C2I2 = Concealed Carry Instruction Industry - NRA is the C2I2 Godfather)

    It has a chance of passing because P4P is OK for some gunowners.

    This year should be Constitutional Carry or BUST! Won't happen here because too many worry about expanding P4P instead of fighting for our rights.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •