• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How do you feel about more instruction prior to getting permit?

Ironbar

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
385
Location
Tigard, Oregon, USA
imported post

When I took my CCW class, I was actually very surprised at the fact that a three hour class was all it took to get it.

I don't know how popular it would be, but what do you think about requiringMORE than just sitting through a class and then having a short quiz after in order to get your carry permit?

Maybe I'm not thinking right, but it seems that having at least a LITTLE more stringent requirements to obtain the permit might just weed out a few of the less qualified candidates. Sort of a vetting process.

What do you think?
 

Cremator75

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
392
Location
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
imported post

That is 3 more hours than what is required in WA. I personally don't think there should be required classes or training like in Alaska. Leave it to the person to do their own studies and training. I understand your argument, but I want less government in my life.

Just my 2¢
 

Autonym

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
115
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

*Waves to We-The-People*

You know I put that paragraph in my welcome post just for you, right? :)

I was a bit surprised about the 3-hours of classroom instruction being all that was required as well. My class was mostly a 3 hour bitching session. Some of the information wasn't entirely correct, either.

I'm looking forward to an IPSC class I'll be taking at the Tri-County Gun Club here in a bit. Once you pass the class, it allows access to their "Action Range". This sort of training - actual hands-on with shooting and talking about gun handling is more like what I expected to have needed to get my CHL.

I mean, if we're carrying to protect ourselves, we need to have the appropriate training for tactical sense as well as what laws protect us. I know some of us have already received that sort of training.

*Waves to We-The-People Again*

But for some of us who've been 'out' for a long time, or for our wives and children who may have never received such government-funded training, I think getting an IPSC certification - even if you aren't considering competition - is a great idea.

If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.
 

FREEDOM_FOREVER

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Oregon, ,
imported post

We-the-People wrote:
I'll take it a step further. There should be no permit required.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Now how complicated is that?????

+1

"weed out a few of the less qualified candidates"???

Please enlighten usas towhy you think some of the "less qualified candidates" should be weeded.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all constitutionally protected rights apply to everyone? Whats next a state license to pray card,(sorry sir you arenot licensed to pray in public, hands behind your back)or a license to freely speak my mind ect...
 

Autonym

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
115
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

Stepping back here for a bit.

And I understand that my analogy isn't precise - there's no Right to Keep and Bear Cars - but...

We require people to take a class, pass a written test, and in cases of new drivers, require them to pass a real-world skills proficiency test before we permit them to use an automobile in public.

Cars are arguably just as dangerous as firearms/handguns (if not more so, despite the training, but that's another discussion).

It's been said many times on these boards, and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed - carrying a loaded firearm is Serious Business[sup]tm[/sup] and you need to know what you are doing.

You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?

So it seems reasonable to me that some sort of training should be done before allowing a person to bear arms in public. This isn't infringement in my opinion, it's common sense. You take the training and get the card, then get the gun.

I'm actually surprised that you can buy a handgun in Oregon without proof of any training at all. Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?

I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?
 

FREEDOM_FOREVER

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Oregon, ,
imported post

I agree that carrying a firearm is serious business and one should be prepared to safely do so.

I amNOT against firearm training, hunter safety, personal defence courses, orclasses onhow to write a poem. I just don't thinkany classes/training/licensesforced upon me by the government should be mandatory to exercise myprotected rights.

"Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?"

Don't worry you'll get there:lol:
 

Alaskan Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
48
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
imported post

I am against mandated training in order to carry any way you want. I believe that every person uses a weapon should know how to properly handle it. I also believe that every person who uses a chain saw should know how to handle it. It is up to each person who decides to own a firearm to get the proper training, just as it is up to each person to know how to use any tool they own.

We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government
 

FREEDOM_FOREVER

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Oregon, ,
imported post

Alaskan Shooter wrote:
I am against mandated training in order to carry any way you want. I believe that every person uses a weapon should know how to properly handle it. I also believe that every person who uses a chain saw should know how to handle it. It is up to each person who decides to own a firearm to get the proper training, just as it is up to each person to know how to use any tool they own.

We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government

+1

You hit the nail on the head!
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

I agree with the previous posts; there shouldn't be required permits. In a perfect world, people would be wise enough to realize when they need more training before taking on the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
 

Autonym

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
115
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

Yeah, I knew there would be some disagreements on this.

And in a perfect world, yes, everyone would use firearms responsibly, get the appropriate level of training they needed, etc.

In that same perfect world, we'd be using our handguns for target practice and hunting and not self-defense.

In today's "not my fault" society where nearly everyone is a victim of something or other and never responsible for their own actions, you need something to induce these people to get proper training.

But the bottom line is this - currently, this is how it's done.

Don't like the laws? Work to get them changed. Call/write your representative. Suggest new legislation. Convince enough people that these rules are unreasonable and a violation of your 2nd Amendment Rights, and you might get the law changed.

In this current political climate, I don't think you'd get much traction - yet. But with more work (and OC'ing), we can eventually make a difference.

Would I support a no-training-required, no-permit-required concealed carry amendment in Oregon? To be honest, I'm not sure...
 

Autonym

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
115
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

Alaskan Shooter wrote:
We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government
I know Alaska isn't all snow, tundra, and moose, but to be honest, there aren't a whole lot of people up there - a touch under 700,000 according to Wikipedia, and just under half of those (~300,000) living in the Anchorage metro area.

Just the Portland, Oregon city limits contain approximately 575,000 people, not counting the considerable outlying metro area. We probably have closer to two million people living within a 30 miles radius of Portland.

Alaskans, living in a more... frontier-like state than many others in the lower 48 have a much more healthy respect for firearms - they are a necessary tool for living up there. My wife lived up there for many years and has told many stories about the bears and other hazardous wildlife found out in the wild and the absolute necessity for always carrying a powerful, loaded firearm.

Your typical Metro Portlander has most likely never seen a firearm in real life unless it was attached to the hip of the cop that has stopped him for driving too slow, or for failure to yield to a bicyclist. Seriously.

I know a few of them, and they are absolutely gobsmacked about this recent "craze" of wearing guns openly, especially TO A RALLY WHERE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE!!!1!!ONE!!

I'm doing my part, Open Carrying when I can (and where I can). There will need to be a major shift in political winds before anything major is done here. Many of the more rural Oregonians wouldn't mind these changes, but sadly we're heavily outnumbered by the urban anti-gun pacifists.

Sadly, these aren't the 'pass your firearm skills on to your children' type of people. And unfortunately, they are exceptionally "votey" - and love to vote on things that make them feel safer (whether they actually provide protection or not).

I'm currently working on Sherwood, where they have a ordinance related to firearms and fireworks in parks that's confusing - the title says one thing while the text says another, and frankly the ordinance should just have the firearms part removed. I have a petition in with the city council that once I make some headway on, I'll do a post about.

Overall, I'd say we have pretty good laws in Oregon as it stands right now - infinitely better than California. I suppose they could be better, but I'm concerned that too much of the wrong kind of attention could shift our laws closer to California than Alaska.
 

Cremator75

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
392
Location
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
imported post

Autonym wrote:
If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.
It's free for us now since you're allowed to bring a guest, right? :lol:
 

Autonym

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
115
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

Hehe... I can bring FIVE (5) guests at once.

/me looks for five new best friends... :D

Seriously, though - I'm looking forward to trying the Action Range once I get my certification. Sadly, only members with certification (or guests with IPSC credentials) can shoot on it. So... join up already!
 

Cremator75

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
392
Location
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
imported post

I would, but I don't have the extra $. I knew a guy that was a member there and went with him all the time until he moved away a couple years ago.
 

Alaskan Shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
48
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
imported post

I agree it is a whole different life style in Alaska, but people up here are not really that much different from those in the lower 48. Remember that only Alaska natives are true Alaskans, the rest of us came from somewhere down there (me included). We had to adjust to the unexpected lifestyle of being an Alaskan.

I believe it is not the gun that people fear it is the unexpected. I live in a small area with a population of about 70,000. We get thousands of tourists hear every year, and they seem to expect to see people with guns and knives. I don’t understand why those same people are paying good money to visit a place that, by their way of thinking, must be dangerous because of all the weapons.

My 16-year-old son (he OC’s also) and I have had the opportunity to talk to many people from the lower 48 and they approach us with no fear of either our guns or us. Kids ask parents and the parents tell their kids not to worry, people here carry guns. Adults ask for directions and don’t think twice about the gun in plain view.

Getting back to training, I agree that training is needed before taking on the responsibility of carrying a gun. I just don’t agree that a government should mandate that training. We the people have already given the government way too much authority, and they continue to prove that they cannot handle it responsibly.
 

Heartless_Conservative

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
269
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

Is there even a 3 hr requirement? From I recall of the statute, it only specifies that the class must contain a handgun safety component, and that it must be hosted by an approved entity (NRA, police dept., a couple others i can't immediately remember).
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Alaskan Shooter wrote:
SNIP We the people have already given the government way too much authority, and they continue to prove that they cannot handle it responsibly.

What an idea for a slogan.

Just like 'drink responsibly', govern responsibly.

I'm not too good at these things. I'm sure someone else can improve on it. (hint, hint.)
 

Autonym

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
115
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

I don't think there's a time requirement.

My CHL class was only 2 hours long and as mentioned earlier, was comprised of telling us about all the things we should do to protect ourselves as we inconvenience the police:

1. Roll down your window only a quarter of an inch - just enough to slip your DOKUMENTUM out the window to the Man. Otherwise, he'll yank you out of your car through the open window.

2. Refuse to cooperate in any way, even if the officer is being polite and is doing their job correctly.

I've met a few of you here that I'm sure would've been right at home with him. Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

My real complaint about the class was the lack of useful information on how to carry concealed or in what circumstances deadly force would be authorized. I've learned a lot since then of course - much of it from this very forum from you fine folks.

For all the hubbub about this issue - really, it's a joke. There is no syllabus, no formalized course of instruction, no test to take or pass.

You pay one guy $35 for the class and the county another $65 for the license. If you're not a criminal, you get the permit in a month or two.

Is it a racket? I'd say yes. Is it the way the law works in this state? For now, yes.

I'd say either make the class more substantial and standardized, or drop the requirement altogether. Of course, you guys know which way I'm leaning... :D
 
Top