Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: No training for CCW ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    What other states beside PA do not require any training to get a concealed carry license ?

  2. #2
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    AZ has two identical bills going thru the Legislature and Senate right now. They will allow concealed carry without a permit, and therefore without training, with some exceptions/caveats. A CWP will be needed to carry in an establishment that sells on-premises alcohol; at pubic events (fairs, street fairs, etc) that serve alcohol; and to keep a loaded firearm in your vehicle on school property.

    In the original version of the bills, CWP's would not have training requirements. The amended versions require some form of approved training, whether it be a hunter safety course, CCW class (any class from any where--including an out of state CCW), NRA handgun class, military training, LEO training, etc. It will be up to the Dept. of Public Safety (highway patrol) to work out the exact guidelines.

    The bills are expected to pass (since they are out of committe now and both have nearly two dozen co-sponsers).





  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    It will be up to the Dept. of Public Safety (highway patrol) to work out the exact guidelines.
    Look to SC's experience. The State will drive a prison van through a loophole like that. You must tie them down with no wriggle room or you'll be sorry.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403

    Post imported post

    A Hunters Ed card is enough proof of training in Wyoming.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    AZkopper wrote:
    It will be up to the Dept. of Public Safety (highway patrol) to work out the exact guidelines.
    Look to SC's experience. The State will drive a prison van through a loophole like that. You must tie them down with no wriggle room or you'll be sorry.
    CWP's require 8 hours of class with range time. They're good for 5 years. What is being proposed is Constitutional carry w/o a CWP... altho a CWP would be required to engage in certain activities... and of course to carry in places such as Texas. So, in essence... AZ would not require a permit to CC in AZ, just as ther is none for OC. This is the way it used to be prior to '94 when nobody much cared how you carried what. It will alow women in particular to carry in their purses w/o the permit. Many women are procrastinators when it comes to the CWP class requirement. (They never have 'time'.)

    When I first carried a pistol here... (1966) it wasn't even an issue. You were heeled or not. Just a matter of choice. There was no CWP.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    northstar65 wrote:
    What other states beside PA do not require any training to get a concealed carry license ?
    AL, GA, IN, MS, NH, SD, and WA.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    AZkopper wrote:
    It will be up to the Dept. of Public Safety (highway patrol) to work out the exact guidelines.
    Look to SC's experience. The State will drive a prison van through a loophole like that. You must tie them down with no wriggle room or you'll be sorry.
    Nah, DPS already manages the training requirements and authorized trainers here. As Sonora said, it is currantly 8 hours for 5 years, with no retraining for renewals. This is down from 8 hours training with 2 hour renewals just a few years ago (if memory serves), which was a down grade from 16 hours for 4 years, with 4 hour training renewals.

    AZ is going the route of 'less is more'. The idea that a whole range of training types are valid, not just the current AZ authorized 8 hour course.

    And also, as Sonora reiterated, we will not need a permit to conceal carry. We will just have "armed" or "not armed" (although they are retaining the 21 year old limit on CC, a violation of which is a Petty Offense [a small fine]).



  8. #8
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The anti's 'n some politico's... as well as the MSM are flat stuck on 'training'. 'Seems to be the only 'right' that folks think you must be trained to exercise. In a way... they're right. Nobody should be pickin' up a gun unless they know something about 'em to begin with. At one time in this country, that wasn't an issue. However... it is a right. This is not a privledge.

    As for Arizona... we've been OC here since Christ was a cowboy. 'You want'a be armed? Arm yourself and take the responsibilities and consequences. 'Seems like it's worked out pretty well since 1912. I've never heard of an OC'r shooting themselves or anyone else by accident as compared to the 'trained' CCW holders. Or LTCF holders... or any other permit 'holder'.

    I reckon those who OC are pretty savvy types who don't screw up in any significant numbers. Being armed OC w/o permit and armed CC w/permit makes no real sense. You're no less armed. The gun is still present. RTKBA per the 2A USCand 2/26 AZC does not differentiate in mode of carry.

    SCJ Ginsburg on ‘Bearing Arms’

    The language, purpose and premise of the 2A is so simple... yet so disingenously 'interpreted' by those who think they are so cunning, so above it all. These 'elitists' , who when buttonholed for an answer on the definition of 'bear' will invariably cower behind some imaginary judicial robes and claim that is not the opinion of SCOTUS.

    THIS is the opinion of SCOTUS:

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin...WhZX8ZfbYyQ8w]http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl =en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8Zf bYyQ8w]http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin...sWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w[/url]

    "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

    Of note... and I can't imagine nobody seems to have caught this...

    "SCJ Ginsburg: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’


    There it is ladies 'n gents... the elusive 'bear arms' argument put to bed. Oh... obvious to all but the anti's and the semantics nit-pickers... but there it is.

    Therefore... it seems obvious that the 'bearing' part of 2A was intended to be exercised at the descretion of the bearer. "upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket" Open or concealed made no difference. No difference was intended. If a certain thing is not prohibited, then it is legitimate by default.

    All US laws must be consistant with the Constitution or they have no legitimate effect of law at all. Yet.... we have such 'laws' in abundance along with those who would willingly enforce such legislative contrivances as imposed. Among these are gun 'permits' of any sort. I call it tyranny.





  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Rebel, your link is making this thread unreadable. Some of those long, complex links
    just won't work with this BB software. You might consider generating a free "tinyurl"
    at their web site, http://www.tinyurl.com/

    Then edit and replace, so we can all read the thread!

    Thanks,

    TFred


  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Sonora, I caught it whenthe decisionwas first released. But, until SCOTUS incorporates 2A, the states can still make you get a permit.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Rebel, your link is making this thread unreadable. Some of those long, complex links
    just won't work with this BB software. You might consider generating a free "tinyurl"
    at their web site, http://www.tinyurl.com/

    Then edit and replace, so we can all read the thread!

    Thanks,

    TFred
    I only posted it a a link so I wouldn't be accused of making it up. Alan Gura uses the same Ginsburg text 'verbatim' in 'Palmer vs DC' Case No 09-CV1482-HHK Feb 5 2010

    It's directly from the Heller opinion. IANAL but it seems rather clear that Ginsburg made no differentiation between open or concealed mode ofcarry'n neither does the 2A.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Sonora, I caught it whenthe decisionwas first released. But, until SCOTUS incorporates 2A, the states can still make you get a permit.
    Eh... IANAL... what's that about? If the USC is law of the land, all laws must be IAW USC. We know they are not... many 'laws' are not.

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

    “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

    An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

    Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

    Ahh... but we all know 'they' do... and the sheep remain blissfully ignorant. What's worse... Compliant.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    I hear what you are saying, Sonora. What I was referring to was the fact that until SCOTUS incorporates 2A, the state laws that require permits and even banning guns altogether will be looked upon to be Constitutional.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

Posting Permissions

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