• 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.

Would you support new WA Concealed Carry Laws?

Marty Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
135
Location
, ,
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?
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

kito109654

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
533
Location
Sedro, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

knight_308

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
173
Location
Renton, ,
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.
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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?
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

SpyderTattoo

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,015
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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. :)
 

grishnav

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
736
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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. :lol:
 

OrangeIsTrouble

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
1,398
Location
Tukwila, WA, ,
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.
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 

Hendo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
114
Location
, ,
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.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
 

sempercarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
378
Location
America
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.
 

.45ACPaddy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
999
Location
Lakewood, WA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

MrGray

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
54
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top