Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Would you support new WA Concealed Carry Laws?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    The thread about being 21 YOto get a CCL had me thinking. Would the folks here support adjusting our concealed carry permit laws to be more in line with other states, (requiring some training to get the permit) along with allowing 18 and over to legally carry concealed weapons? Wecould fashion said laws after Utah and perhaps Florida, opening the door to much more reciprocity?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    Marty Hayes wrote:
    The thread about being 21 YOto get a CCL had me thinking. Would the folks here support adjusting our concealed carry permit laws to be more in line with other states, (requiring some training to get the permit) along with allowing 18 and over to legally carry concealed weapons? Wecould fashion said laws after Utah and perhaps Florida, opening the door to much more reciprocity?
    Lowering the age to 18 is not going to help you with state to state recipriocity.

    The fact is that Utah is accepted in so many places because it has a very high requirement to receive, and it accepts every other states CPL.

    The best way to get better recipriocity is to be stricter then any other state... But that is not something I believe in.

    Frankly I think the requirements are already to high as they are.

    Edit: There are enough people attempting to take away gun rights that helping them out by making it even harder to carry just seems dumb to me.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    I would love for the CPL minimum age to be changed to 18, because that would be a move towards being more constitutional.

    I would not support it at the cost of applicants being required to attend some sort of "training." It's bad enough that concealed carry is a regulated privelege and not a right. Reciprocity is not worth burying our rights any deeper.

    If we're to take a lesson from any other states it should be Alaska.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Is there a citation available that demonstrates states with a training requirement have a better safety record for legal carriers? (Fewer NDs, fewer unlawful shootings. etc.)

    Short of such evidence, I would support a change to eliminate the entire permitting process.

  5. #5
    Regular Member knight_308's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Renton, ,
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    I agree. We should have unlicensed carry for all adults, with a permit available for purposes of carrying in states we have reciprocity with. I also believe the ban on guns in bars should be dropped with a possible adoption of a "no guns with a .12 BAC" statute to replace it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327

    Post imported post

    I'd sure hate to see any weakening of our concealed-carry laws (though the cynical might note I appear to be a few years past my 21st birthday so I'm not personally being hindered by our current setup.)

    A definite NO to a training requirement: I suspect you won't find any studies showing a statistically-significant inverse correlation between training requirements and accident rates. Because those rates are already so low, you'd be just playing in the statistical noise.

    But that's NO to adding a training requirement to what we already have. Ideally we'd be moving in the direction of Alaska (no permit required for carry here, but available if people need one for reciprocity.) I'd certainly support a training requirement for a CPL in that case.


    More realistically, if we're talking about changes that are realistic in the near term, how about getting rid of the CPL requirement for simply having a loaded handgun in a vehicle?


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Yes to lowering the age. All the way to zero.

    No on training.

    Yes on eliminating the CHL for every purpose except optional availability to get exempted from federal school GFZs.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018

    Post imported post

    Just an observation, but a little bit of a peeve for me... Can we all please start using the proper terminology? Its a CPL (Concealed Pistol License ) in Washington State, which I'm assuming you posters on this thread are.It's not a CCL, CHL, CHPor CCP. By now you should all know what it's called.
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    SpyderTattoo wrote:
    Just an observation, but a little bit of a peeve for me... Can we all please start using the proper terminology? Its a CPL (Concealed Pistol License ) in Washington State, which I'm assuming you posters on this thread are.It's not a CCL, CHL, CHPor CCP. By now you should all know what it's called.
    Just for you, I'm going to call it a poopy pants permit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    Having a sidearm is for protection, exactly what makes a life that is 21 and over so much more special than mine? Is it a maturity issue? At the age of 15 1/2 we are able to get our instruction permit for driving. Can you believe that? At the age of 15 1/2 we are given a permit, to cruise around in a ton or two of metal junk. At the age of 16, we are eligible to receive our drivers license. If I am terribly not mistaken, the rate of incidents with vehicles are much higher than firearms, no matter the age. The media just wants to focus on term "Teens" which is what viewers are trained to listen for. It's what they want to hear. No to required training, Yes to lowering the age, I got loved ones to protect, myself definitely included and my ASP can't fly everywhere at the same time.


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    i'd have to say no Marty's question. in my opinion, the proper direction to take would be to get closer to or emulate AK/VT carry rights across the nation. frankly i think having to pay $55 and get fingerprinted is already too much infringement as it is.

    Bobby

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I do feel we need to approach our legislature about making it a shall accpet state as far as other state cpl's go though.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    I respect 2a rights and say Yes on the training.


    There - someone said it!


    Also - Yes on the under 21 and over 18.

  14. #14
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Yes on training if more states honor our cpl, and hell yes on 18, I would love to see my son be able to defend himself, and not have to worry so much, walking home at night.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member sempercarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    378

    Post imported post

    I think training is a little much. I would however be comfortable with a weapons handling and knowledge test. Show up to a designated range for your test with your gun, load a magazine, load your gun, fire a few, holster your gun, draw and fire a few. Basically show you are competant enough to carry and be able to answer a few scenerio questions on when to use or not use deadly force. The whole thing should take about 15 minutes. If you can't prove to the inspector that you can hit what you are aiming at and that you wont have an ND in the mallthen you come back when you can.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001

    Post imported post

    If the training is free and useful, I don't see why not, though I think it should be an option rather than a requirement. And I'm all for lowering the age to 18 (along with the drinking age). If someone is old enough to put their life on the line for this country, they ought to be old enough to do everything.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Ahhhh no no no training.....that leaves the door open to regulate your rights more. Which means more denials for reasons the state can determine.

    Besides it don't take long to figure out how to opereate a firearm.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748

    Post imported post

    18 - yes

    Training requirementsor competency test - absolutely not!


    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    Ahhhh no no no training.....that leaves the door open to regulate your rights more. Which means more denials for reasons the state can determine.

    Besides it don't take long to figure out how to opereate a firearm.
    This is what I said already and still stand by.

    The fact we have to volunteer our fingerprints and submit to a background check is too much as it is.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    How about a two tiered approach:

    Tier 1: 18 or older, no training requirement, no test required. Exactly what we have now, but with the minimum age dropped to 18.

    Tier 2: Tier 1 + a training requirement + a shooting competency test, sufficiently draconian to get reciprocity with EVERY state that is possible.

    That way, if you want to carry but don't want training or a test, go right ahead - but you get no reciprocity with other states. And if you take the training and pass the shooting test, you get reciprocity.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    MrGray wrote:
    How about a two tiered approach:

    Tier 1: 18 or older, no training requirement, no test required. Exactly what we have now, but with the minimum age dropped to 18.

    Tier 2: Tier 1 + a training requirement + a shooting competency test, sufficiently draconian to get reciprocity with EVERY state that is possible.

    That way, if you want to carry but don't want training or a test, go right ahead - but you get no reciprocity with other states. And if you take the training and pass the shooting test, you get reciprocity.
    Not ideal, but worth looking at.

    I still think the first step in getting reciprocity with other states is to be a shall accept state first.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Shallaccept state? Do you refer to accepting other state permits?

    And - I like the idea of a two tier system. Probably have to pay more but that could offset the additional cost to getting the Utah permit.

    I also like this because I think that there is too much regulation as well and this is a way to offer the basic permit with "no" regulation and also to offer an "enhanced" permit for thosewho want the reciprocity/travel features offered when more training is taken.

  23. #23
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    How about we go back to not ever paying the state or feds for our right to carry a firearm. And don't stop there... Not regulating ANY form of carry, including CC or OC.


    Why do liberal minded individuals still agree with paying the government (stealing from the people) for rights we are supposed to already be guaranteed.

  24. #24
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Marty-

    I would definitely support Training if it gave the residents of WA a greater number of States accepting our CPL. But here comes the rub.

    Training is viewed by many to be an infringement on their right but I am not among them. I to have an issue with Training when it comes to the curriculum. WHO is going to decide? Who is going to provide this training? What will it cost? Where and When will it be available?

    A training requirement could be viewed by some parts of our lawmaking bodies as an opportunity to limit carry of firearms. Just limit it to a few areas of availability, times of year, make it high cost, and guess what, nobody seeks it and no CPL's are issued.

    Then there is the question of "Vested Interest". There is a training industry already established in the State. Anyone here we know? Is the training requirement going to be crafted to benefit these few or will it be offered through Gun Clubs, Police Departments, or Private Instructors (all with proper certification of course)? What will be the level of training? Simple like "This is how you load it and the bullet comes out here" or full "Tactical Zombie Hunting" like some seem to think is necessary?

    I would support a course that is available no less thantwice per month in every county. It would include basic gun safety, training on the legal use of a firearm in Self Defense, and spends no longer than 4 hours total. Some may say this is too little but it sure is more than required today. Cost should be limited to no more than the current cost of a CPL and the certification should be lifetime.

    Keep it simple and basic. Leave the "Tactical" training for those that either need it for their jobs or those that have huge egos to maintain.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Swat - I agree - - and fight the fights we can win.

    Until the time of The Postman -- we pay.

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
  •