Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: If OC and CC were legal in all 50 states......

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    If OC and CC were legal in all 50 states......

    How much revenue would all of the NRA 'Certified Instructors' lose? I see notices for 'Utah' permit classes in every state and some states require there own classes as well. Assuming that all 50 states were Constitutional Carry and permits were not needed for 'reciprocity' how big of a dent into the economics would this be? I know that there are 'instructors' on here that perhaps can shed some light on this question.

    (BTW, I have my WA CPL which is "shall issue" with no class needed. I also have and OR CHL which requires a 'class' but I was able to use the free online www.mdgunsafety.com 'class', therefore I have paid the NRA zero. Nor am I a member of the NRA.)
    Live Free or Die!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    I think most of the instructors teach classes besides the basic class needed to obtain a CHP/CWP/CCW/PTC/LTCF (think I got them all.) I think there would still be a need for qualified instructors to teach things like personal protection in and out of the home, etc.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 07-24-2011 at 01:40 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    This is kind of a hot topic in the WI forum right now, since we have carpetbaggers streaming in from out of state to give questionable courses which may or may not satisfy the requirements of the new law.

    I think that even if the US reverted to Constitutional Carry there would still be people taking training because they realize it's the right thing to do & they want to be safer & better.

    Go ask in the AZ forum about what happened w/ training there when they went Constitutional. The way I've heard them talk, training exploded to where instructors almost couldn't keep up, but it was people learning stuff that mattered to them, not the minimum state-required BS.

    And while the NRA is the largest & oldest training organization in the US, save perhaps the military (which isn't available to everyone), there are usually other options listed when states decide to require training.
    One favorite is "hunter's safety", which usually has nothing to do with handguns, & I've never heard of it having any aspect of carrying for personal protection.

    One thing that annoys me about our new law is that non-WI residents can carry on their permits, even if they didn't require training (as with PA), but WI residents will be required to show proof of training...
    And I can use my PA permit (which requires no training) as proof of training in order to get my WI permit.
    Go figure that one out!
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Stepehens City, VA
    Posts
    152
    exactly why you will not see much preemptive action from the NRA or Republicans. If they were successful with getting the FEDs and States to honor the second Amendment the NRA would be out of business and Republicans would loose one of its wedge positions.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    35
    Indiana started offering a lifetime lisc a few years ago. Before it was like $50 for a 5 yr lisc. The lifetimes are around $125. Most have now gone to the lifetime. Rumor was that it was going to be discontinued due to the State loosing money.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Why target just the NRA instructors or instructors at all? Remember, those instructors have an impact on firearm sales, ammo sales, the NRA as a whole, local businesses, and the like.

    Their customer could become the instructor's customer and the instructor's customer could become customers of the instructor.

    You can bet that States will quickly recognize that there are a bunch of untrained people running around with firearms "thinking" they know what they're doing and that they know the law, which truly won't be the case. For every one of us that makes an effort to self-educate, there are dozens that refuse to do so. This is where mandatory training steps in and all it takes is someone involved in a horrific shooting "thinking" they were justified in their actions without any formal training.

    I don't like that approach, but that's how our legislators seem to work across the Nation.

    @hogeaterf6 - could you post up or PM me the info on Indiana that you mentioned? A lifetime permit doesn't seem like a good idea and the State using permits as a revenue generator is an even worse idea.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 07-25-2011 at 12:42 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u
    You can bet that States will quickly recognize that there are a bunch of untrained people running around with firearms "thinking" they know what they're doing and that they know the law, which truly won't be the case. For every one of us that makes an effort to self-educate, there are dozens that refuse to do so. This is where mandatory training steps in and all it takes is someone involved in a horrific shooting "thinking" they were justified in their actions without any formal training.
    Show us the multitude of injuries, accidents, wrongful shootings, etc. (that could have been prevented by training) which have occurred in the dozen cc-permit-with-only-a-background-check states, or the Constitutional Carry states, or the states in which the gov't doesn't interfere w/ OC?

    I was at one of the public speaking opportunities about one of the WI cc bills, and was astounded to hear the NRA rep speak against mandatory training.

    He pointed out that (in states w/ mandatory training) it has not reduced accidents, injuries, wrongful shootings, etc., and imposes a disproportionate burden on poorer people, who are more likely to live in more violent areas, & so need protection more.
    If the State made mandatory training (& the permit itself) free, that'd be less bad.

    In fact (& this is my thinking, not him speaking to the legislators) when the State sets a minimum standard, often that's what people take as "this is all the training I need".


    I'm not against training, not by a long shot.
    Training is good & more training is better.
    I recently became an NRA certified pistol instructor.
    But I firmly believe that gov't-mandated just-about-anything is bad. (I see the benefit from certain public health policies like water treatment & immunization, & agree that maintaining social order such as uniform traffic laws is good.)

    If someone doesn't get training to drive a car (and in most places, once you're an adult you don't have to take driver's ed to get a license), doesn't learn the rules of the road, & does something illegal (including harming someone else), s/he will face the reasonably foreseeable consequences of being involved w/ the "justice system".

    Same applies to firearms.
    Same applies to speaking/writing.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    I think most of the instructors teach classes besides the basic class needed to obtain a CHP/CWP/CCW/PTC/LTCF (think I got them all.) I think there would still be a need for qualified instructors to teach things like personal protection in and out of the home, etc.
    You missed CFP and CFL (concealed firearms permit/license).

    As for how much of a dent it would make, it would be HUGE. My dad is currently overseas and was teaching the UT license on a military base. I would say he was probably making 500-2000 a month from the class and he was only charging $50 per person (most instructors in UT were charging ~65-95 per head; this excludes the state charge for processing the paperwork) and it was just a part-time job. That would be $7,500-30,000 a year in state revenue (since the state charges $62.50 per person) from a single instructor. Now imagine multiplying that by all permits per year, and you can see how that would be a huge loss of income, not just for the state but also for the instructors. And then tack on the fact that the instructors are going to spend that money and the state will make even more taxes on that (not to mention the instructors should be paying taxes on what they make) and that the extra income could push instructors into a higher tax bracket, and the loss grows even more.

    Also these numbers are just for CCW permits and don't include anything else. Now I'm sure people will still voluntarily take all sorts of training classes, but the numbers would be far smaller than what they are now. And I would expect some of those extra classes that people take they find out from their initial class, so by not taking that initial class they wouldn't find out about the extra classes and thus not take them. So you would end up with a cascade effect that would cause a loss that is far larger than it initially appears.

    Still, a right shouldn't require a permit, and all of the money that people have gained from turning a right into a privledge has been illegally gained imo.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    You missed CFP and CFL (concealed firearms permit/license).
    Dang it...well I tried...
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    @hogeaterf6 - could you post up or PM me the info on Indiana that you mentioned? A lifetime permit doesn't seem like a good idea and the State using permits as a revenue generator is an even worse idea.
    Not sure what info you need but its only for State residents only. You need no training to get a lisc. BG check, finger prints, and money.

    Lifetime lisc is a good idea. Folks are very happy about it. No need to worry if you are about to expeire. 1 money, which is not much at all, and your good forever. Esp the ones that turn 18.
    The State and the counties use that money. Each get a part. Like i said, it was rumor. Sherrif dept lady said that most get a lt and very few get the 5 yr ones. Heard from a few folks at the court house also.

    http://www.in.gov/isp/2829.htm

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I think what gogodawgs was speaking about was if the 2A was taken on face value. That is, any persons right to carry, defend themselves, was just that...A RIGHT! No license necessary, anywhere in the US...you do not license a RIGHT. You do not have a license, and take training to live and breath because it is a RIGHT.

    NOW, the question is, do you think that would impact the NRA instructors?

    My guess would be no, it would probably increase their class load. Many people take classes to learn something, not because they have to. If there were no legal infringment on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, I would think a lot of people who do not want to go through the "hassle" would voluntarily arm themselves and would voluntarily take classes.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I think what gogodawgs was speaking about was if the 2A was taken on face value. That is, any persons right to carry, defend themselves, was just that...A RIGHT! No license necessary, anywhere in the US...you do not license a RIGHT. You do not have a license, and take training to live and breath because it is a RIGHT.

    NOW, the question is, do you think that would impact the NRA instructors?

    My guess would be no, it would probably increase their class load. Many people take classes to learn something, not because they have to. If there were no legal infringment on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, I would think a lot of people who do not want to go through the "hassle" would voluntarily arm themselves and would voluntarily take classes.
    Except i would say it impact them. Many of those instructors also teach cc classes and plenty of people would quit taking the classes if it wasnt mandatory. And then theres the lost business from people who take additional classes only after being exposed to them in the cc class. Now i dont think business would completely dry up, but that it would take a decent hit.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TheLittleMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Except i would say it impact them. Many of those instructors also teach cc classes and plenty of people would quit taking the classes if it wasnt mandatory. And then theres the lost business from people who take additional classes only after being exposed to them in the cc class. Now i dont think business would completely dry up, but that it would take a decent hit.
    There will always be a new way to advertise and make money. They would just quit pushing the CCW class and advertise a handgun basics class. I honestly believe they're revenue would grow and people would have more money for real training as opposed to just sitting in the bare minimum classroom course to get a piece of paper.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    This is kind of a hot topic in the WI forum right now, since we have carpetbaggers streaming in from out of state to give questionable courses which may or may not satisfy the requirements of the new law.

    I think that even if the US reverted to Constitutional Carry there would still be people taking training because they realize it's the right thing to do & they want to be safer & better.

    Go ask in the AZ forum about what happened w/ training there when they went Constitutional. The way I've heard them talk, training exploded to where instructors almost couldn't keep up, but it was people learning stuff that mattered to them, not the minimum state-required BS.

    And while the NRA is the largest & oldest training organization in the US, save perhaps the military (which isn't available to everyone), there are usually other options listed when states decide to require training.
    One favorite is "hunter's safety", which usually has nothing to do with handguns, & I've never heard of it having any aspect of carrying for personal protection.

    One thing that annoys me about our new law is that non-WI residents can carry on their permits, even if they didn't require training (as with PA), but WI residents will be required to show proof of training...
    And I can use my PA permit (which requires no training) as proof of training in order to get my WI permit.
    Go figure that one out!
    I think CCW applicants have fallen sharply here along with training. The only report I could find though was on total number of permit holders. Since it's interesting I'll post the link even though it doesn't answer the question.

    http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concea...ns/Statistics/

  15. #15
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    This is why I'm divided on the issue of constitutional carry. I do think that it's ridiculous that I had to pay the state $115 to fingerprint me and take a picture, but at the same time, I know that if we didn't have a required permit that most people would save their money and do their own training and research...which may or may not be safe or effective.

    Also, the safety course that I took (which I think cost $50, my grandfather paid it for me), was given by the local hunting and fishing association, which is non-profit. The intructors don't get paid, all of the money goes toward ammunition for the qualifying portion, and the rest goes towards the club's expenses (range maintenance, insurance, supplies, etc).

    So yes, the intructors would get less money, some hunting clubs would probably have funds dry up, and IMO, there'd be too many people carrying handguns without proper training.

    It's all about treading that fine line between trying to keep hanguns out of the hands of those for which it is illegal (felons, mentals, etc), and not making handgun carry into a priveledge instead of a right. I'm not sure I can say which I feel is better, but I think paying $165 and waiting 2 months for a permit to come in the mail is a bit restrictive, but anyone untrained carrying a handgun (which all can agree is way more difficult than a rifle), is less than ideal.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    There's a lot going around about untrained people carrying and that's why mandatory classes are necessary. A single safety or basic class needed to get a permit does not mean you are trained to use a firearm. Training requires practice and lots of it. Folks that want real training will put out the money for the classes that focus on defensive handgun shooting or they will go to the range often and work on training themselves.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  17. #17
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    I think there would still be a need for the NRA. Here in Ohio up until the mid to late 70s you would sometimes see people OC. Seemed that many people who drived a pick-up had a shotgun rack with a shotgun in it. Sometimes you would see a holstered handgun hanging on them. Then they started the Home Rule BS, Inducing panic and such. If they did it then it can happen again. An oranization like the NRA needs to be up and running just in case.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    While it is the nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NRA was started with the primary job of training marksmanship after the dismal accuracy seen in the average civil war soldier. Marksmanship to the laymen is a skill that will always be there. The current political wing of the NRA, the ILA, would happily disappear if it were no longer needed. I think enough of us would make sure it would, even though you can be sure they will suffer a bit from the first rule of a bureaucracy (protect the bureaucracy.) There will always be a need for the NRA, and in reality, there will always be a need for the ILA, though it would be nice to see it be able to concentrate its efforts on the last holdouts of idiocy that will always exist.

    As a firearms training company owner, I, for one, will happily lose revenue for increased firearms freedoms. While CCW training is most of what people currently want to pay for, it is THAT training that really shows them what benefits there are to training and many want more after that. I think while we will still lose some revenue overall, we can make some of it back by getting the word out with some good advertising about how effective training can really be.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Show us the multitude of injuries, accidents, wrongful shootings, etc. (that could have been prevented by training) which have occurred in the dozen cc-permit-with-only-a-background-check states, or the Constitutional Carry states, or the states in which the gov't doesn't interfere w/ OC?

    The state of MD has no training requirement, and has one of the highest incidents of permitted violators in the nation.

    Of course, EVERY one of those violators (assault, murder, attempted murder mostly) have been off-duty LEOs, NOT "regular citizens"....

    Just sayin'...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 08-01-2011 at 05:51 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  20. #20
    Regular Member bigun220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Soso, MS
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    You missed CFP and CFL (concealed firearms permit/license).

    As for how much of a dent it would make, it would be HUGE. My dad is currently overseas and was teaching the UT license on a military base. I would say he was probably making 500-2000 a month from the class and he was only charging $50 per person (most instructors in UT were charging ~65-95 per head; this excludes the state charge for processing the paperwork) and it was just a part-time job. That would be $7,500-30,000 a year in state revenue (since the state charges $62.50 per person) from a single instructor. Now imagine multiplying that by all permits per year, and you can see how that would be a huge loss of income, not just for the state but also for the instructors. And then tack on the fact that the instructors are going to spend that money and the state will make even more taxes on that (not to mention the instructors should be paying taxes on what they make) and that the extra income could push instructors into a higher tax bracket, and the loss grows even more.

    Also these numbers are just for CCW permits and don't include anything else. Now I'm sure people will still voluntarily take all sorts of training classes, but the numbers would be far smaller than what they are now. And I would expect some of those extra classes that people take they find out from their initial class, so by not taking that initial class they wouldn't find out about the extra classes and thus not take them. So you would end up with a cascade effect that would cause a loss that is far larger than it initially appears.

    Still, a right shouldn't require a permit, and all of the money that people have gained from turning a right into a privledge has been illegally gained imo.
    Yall also forgot FP "Firearms Permit". Mississippi doesn't issue CWP, CHL, etc

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereignAxe View Post
    This is why I'm divided on the issue of constitutional carry. I do think that it's ridiculous that I had to pay the state $115 to fingerprint me and take a picture, but at the same time, I know that if we didn't have a required permit that most people would save their money and do their own training and research...which may or may not be safe or effective.

    Also, the safety course that I took (which I think cost $50, my grandfather paid it for me), was given by the local hunting and fishing association, which is non-profit. The intructors don't get paid, all of the money goes toward ammunition for the qualifying portion, and the rest goes towards the club's expenses (range maintenance, insurance, supplies, etc).

    So yes, the intructors would get less money, some hunting clubs would probably have funds dry up, and IMO, there'd be too many people carrying handguns without proper training.

    It's all about treading that fine line between trying to keep hanguns out of the hands of those for which it is illegal (felons, mentals, etc), and not making handgun carry into a priveledge instead of a right. I'm not sure I can say which I feel is better, but I think paying $165 and waiting 2 months for a permit to come in the mail is a bit restrictive, but anyone untrained carrying a handgun (which all can agree is way more difficult than a rifle), is less than ideal.
    My wife has had all of the "required" training to get a permit but yet she has issues hitting a target at 10 yards. Do I think she is a danger to carry? No I don't. She can reliably hit a target at five yards and realistically most SD shootings will happen even closer. Also remember that most places that allow OC don't require any training and yet they don't have wild and crazy problems. Putting clothing over a weapon doesn't magically make problems crop up.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigun220 View Post
    Yall also forgot FP "Firearms Permit". Mississippi doesn't issue CWP, CHL, etc
    Oh I was just giving him a hard time and just said the two I knew from the states I've been to.

  22. #22
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    My wife has had all of the "required" training to get a permit but yet she has issues hitting a target at 10 yards. Do I think she is a danger to carry? No I don't. She can reliably hit a target at five yards and realistically most SD shootings will happen even closer. Also remember that most places that allow OC don't require any training and yet they don't have wild and crazy problems. Putting clothing over a weapon doesn't magically make problems crop up.
    Sounds like she is anticipating the shot/recoil. Have you tried a smaller caliber or loading a lighter round. More range time will resolve this issue
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    Sounds like she is anticipating the shot/recoil. Have you tried a smaller caliber or loading a lighter round. More range time will resolve this issue
    She is anticipating the shot and I was working with her to get her to stop, but we just haven't had a chance to work on it a lot. She also has tried the 9mm, 380, and .40 and she liked the 380 the best, but was still having issues. Though it's a good thing she likes the .380 as it will be her CC gun once she resubmits her paperwork (long story short is she took the class, didn't submit the paperwork, and now needs to retake the class).

  24. #24
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    You might even try a .22 revolver ... and more dry fire exercises ... Also, what kind of ear protection is she using?

    I have sensitive hearing and use 25db ear muffs rather than the foam ear plugs. When I use the ear plugs, I can still feel the overpressure even though I am not hearing the report and that would distract me enough to spoil my aim. This was back when I was first starting with pistols, rifles didn't bother me at all.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  25. #25
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    She is anticipating the shot and I was working with her to get her to stop, but we just haven't had a chance to work on it a lot. She also has tried the 9mm, 380, and .40 and she liked the 380 the best, but was still having issues. Though it's a good thing she likes the .380 as it will be her CC gun once she resubmits her paperwork (long story short is she took the class, didn't submit the paperwork, and now needs to retake the class).
    I trained my wife in point shooting with a gas airsoft pistol. No recoil, no loud noise, much like dry fire except the bright bb can be seen on it's way to the target. Aiming with the sights is something that is lost during high stress, and why many well trained officers completely miss their mark in a real gunfight. Not to mention that most shootings happen at night. From the airsoft we progressed to wax bullets in her 38 revolver. Unfortunately wax bullets will not work in autos. From wax loads to light loads and she can instinct shoot with acceptable accuracy for self defense.

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
  •