• 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?

sudden valley gunner

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

Hendo

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

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
:banghead:

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

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Hendo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
114
Location
, ,
imported post

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

Until the time of The Postman -- we pay.
 

sudden valley gunner

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

Yes accept other state permits.

I keep hearing fight the fights we can win.......this suggest giving up rights because we won't win those fights. I say keep fighting even in the face of daunting odds.
 

kito109654

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

Hendo wrote:
...fight the fights we can win.
Interesting attitude/mentality. So if the army is used to disarm american citizens and they go door to door taking weapons you'll just lay yours down because it's a fight you can't win?
 

sudden valley gunner

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

kito109654 wrote:
Hendo wrote:
...fight the fights we can win.
Interesting attitude/mentality. So if the army is used to disarm american citizens and they go door to door taking weapons you'll just lay yours down because it's a fight you can't win?
+1 although I believe they will use civilian police force or the gaurd...remember Katrina
 

David.Car

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

sudden valley gunner wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
Hendo wrote:
...fight the fights we can win.
Interesting attitude/mentality. So if the army is used to disarm american citizens and they go door to door taking weapons you'll just lay yours down because it's a fight you can't win?
+1 although I believe they will use civilian police force or the gaurd...remember Katrina
If they send something like a Obamaton civilian force to collect guns they are going to leave with a huge number of bodies and not many guns...
 

sudden valley gunner

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

David.Car wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
kito109654 wrote:
Hendo wrote:
...fight the fights we can win.
Interesting attitude/mentality. So if the army is used to disarm american citizens and they go door to door taking weapons you'll just lay yours down because it's a fight you can't win?
+1 although I believe they will use civilian police force or the gaurd...remember Katrina
If they send something like a Obamaton civilian force to collect guns they are going to leave with a huge number of bodies and not many guns...
We would hope, although I am not a fan of Obama , even if the next president is "conservative" but still from these same crop of politicians. He will not get rid of the civilian force just like Obama didn't get rid of the thing he so vocally denounced..."homeland security".
 

Hendo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
114
Location
, ,
imported post

Hey Kito,

With all due respect - Sorry - not interested in being baited - Rather avoid hypothetical make believes that lead probably nowhere - as I note in the ones that bit.

How 'bout we stick to the thread?
 

Hendo

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
114
Location
, ,
imported post

So - my response to thecommentthat we shouldn't even be paying for a permit - in a gun loversideal world -make a list. I am not willing to fight the system that charges for CPL's. Sorry - that boat left many a year ago.

I am willing to engage in a conversation re: training for CPL holders and/or interesting alternatives (ie a 2 tier system).

Myhumble opinion.
 

Jim675

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

I am not against training. But no law should be promulgated without a clear benefit. CC laws have now existed for many years under many different requirement schemes. If no one can show that "trained" states have a better safety record than their "untrained" counterparts like Washington then what is the point of the law?

Is it strictly to foster acceptance by other states? Is it to generate revenue? Is it to support a local industry?

While those reasons may have some value as elective options for the training recipient, surely the only justifiable reason for mandatory training is to increase public safety.

Otherwise I think we should also have a requirement to have me personally test fire all newly purchased handguns for safety's sake and for a nominal administrative fee. Once I certify these are not aggressive or otherwise dangerous guns then these "certified safe" handguns might be more acceptable to the Chicago/D.C./San Fransisco types.
 

.45ACPaddy

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

Just as long as they don't shoot bullets:celebrate

In terms of a training class, I'd like to see it provided but be completely optional. No requirement to take the class, but have it provided as a free public service. Nothing too fancy, just teaching the basic rules of firearms safety and how to use a handgun.

For those of us who grew up around firearms, we wouldn't need it. For someone who's new and/or doesn't know anyone else with firearms knowledge, they could turn to that as a resource for information.

Simply an option, not a requirement.



Of course, realistically, if we established something like the above, it's one step closer to having a required class, which I completely disagree with. In an ideal world it would work, but this world is far from ideal.
 

kparker

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

MrGray,

I've already proposed a 2-tier system, but a better one:

Tier 1: 18 (or 21) and older, no permit required. If you're legal to own a handgun, you're legal to carry it, concealed or openly.

Tier 2: [same as yours].


Please note that my tier 1 (with the higher age limit) is already the case for open carry outside of vehicles, so it's not exactly unprecented here in the state.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
imported post

"....shall not be infringed."

no age limit....

no training requirement...
.

...do you think Thomas Jefferson had to undergo 'training' to 'bear arms' or Patrick Henry....
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
imported post

amlevin wrote:
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.
Ditto on what you said Amlevin but I would increase the hours to 8 and have a live fire to boot.
 

Solar

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
87
Location
, , USA
imported post

No fee

No training

Concealed or Open

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

Under 18 is responsibility of parent. I wish I could arm my 13 year old daughter since she is a good shot and has respect for weapons. She can't even legally carry mace or a tazer. WTF is up with that? Make the most vulnerable even more so?
 

sudden valley gunner

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

Solar wrote:
No fee

No training

Concealed or Open

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

Under 18 is responsibility of parent. I wish I could arm my 13 year old daughter since she is a good shot and has respect for weapons. She can't even legally carry mace or a tazer. WTF is up with that? Make the most vulnerable even more so?
I know.....sucks....we don't need more laws we need to get rid of the ones we have.
 
Top