Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry?

[Kirk Freeman]

You say that you are confident that you would pass any test so you don't oppose being tested. What if some politician decides that you have to pass an ink blot test to get your permit. There are two questions: 1) Who did you vote for in the last election and 2) what does this ink blot look like. Are you certain that you are going to pass that test? This is why tests are infringements.

I am reminded of the tests for voting in the South. An elderly Black man walks into the County Clerk to register to vote and the clerks says that there is a reading test.

The elderly man says, "fine, I'm a high school graduate and read just fine."

The clerk then hands him a page of text in Chinese ideograms and asks him what it says.

The elderly man says, "It says that no Blacks will be voting in this county."

The problem with "testing" is that is subject to corruption (e.g. vehicle inspections) and is a barrier to entry to a civil right (e.g., just like your book buying test or comparative religion test that you had to take).

Now you walk down the street and an idiot playing with his new "toy" has a ND

Is this happening in Arizona, Vermont or Alaska? Please give citations.

You do realize that it is happening with the "highly trained" police, right?

have found that the one's who get so fired up about it and feel threatened by the very notion of training, is because they think and/or know that they would NOT be able to pass such tests

I do not know who you have been discussing this with, but here at INGO there are individuals who have well north of four figures of class time, which they paid for themselves, who do not believe in mandatory training for constitutional rights.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

WHOOHOO this is heeeaated! Everyone has there own sense of how things should be, I'm glad that there are more people that are teetering as opposed to being completely on one side of the fence or the other. I'm a trained veteran, and I went to do some pistol training yesterday and had some flaws pointed out. That's after two tours and countless hours firing weapons and training. I can't believe that some people are okay with inexperience and lack of training just for the sake of being able to carry. I worry about the freedoms we enjoy getting taken away, but I worry about needless avoidable injuries due to lack of training just as much. I AM NOT gun control, I feel that if I want a machine gun, sawed off shotgun, or hell even a rocket launcher, I should be able to just go and buy one, from wherever, whenever, and not have to pay a tax (bribe) to the ATF. But again, I am trained with such things, and would and have glady paid hard earned money for more training so that I don't hurt myself or others. And it feels GOOD to know that you are confident in your abilities just my

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

 

[Zimm1001]

What a slippery slope. Like I have said before we are all comfortable with our own abilities, ethics and safety practices. However, let's be honest. When we see someone else we do not know carrying we all wonder about their abilities, ethics and safety practices. Let's face it we have all been around a moron at the range who just doesn't know what they are doing but swear they do. So in that regard having a training class required would atleast give us some peace of mind that the person carrying has atleast had a class.

Now on the flipside. Who determines what the criteria are for passing the test. Who determines whether you passed or not. Does this open a door for more regulation. Etc. Etc.
What a slippery slope. History tells us that so many of our rights, liberties and freedoms have been taken away by starting out as something that seemed reasonable at the time but turned into something a whole lot different once we turned more power over to the gov't. Slippery slope indeed.

 

[CarmelHP]

WHOOHOO this is heeeaated!

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

Nothing is wrong with training, per se, what's wrong is requiring it to exercise a right, and particularly when the list of horribles you rant about have not happened in those places where permitless carry has been the law for years or decades.

And you ARE for gun control, just as much as the Bradys. You just like your flavor a little different, but you want the same checks, intrusions, and overall bureaucratic nonsense and arbitrariness as they do.

 

[Eddie]

WHOOHOO this is heeeaated! Everyone has there own sense of how things should be, I'm glad that there are more people that are teetering as opposed to being completely on one side of the fence or the other. I'm a trained veteran, and I went to do some pistol training yesterday and had some flaws pointed out. That's after two tours and countless hours firing weapons and training. I can't believe that some people are okay with inexperience and lack of training just for the sake of being able to carry. I worry about the freedoms we enjoy getting taken away, but I worry about needless avoidable injuries due to lack of training just as much. I AM NOT gun control, I feel that if I want a machine gun, sawed off shotgun, or hell even a rocket launcher, I should be able to just go and buy one, from wherever, whenever, and not have to pay a tax (bribe) to the ATF. But again, I am trained with such things, and would and have glady paid hard earned money for more training so that I don't hurt myself or others. And it feels GOOD to know that you are confident in your abilities just my

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

In and of itself there is nothing wrong with training. I think that free training should be offered to all gun owners. I do have a problem with mandatory testing and required training.

As human beings we are born with the right to arm ourselves if we so choose. Requiring someone to take a test or pass a course is an infringment on that right. Our founding fathers recognized the danger that might come from people like you and so they were careful to write down in our bill of rights that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well meaning infringement that we accept today opens the door a crack wider for abuse in the future.

As to your concern about negligent discharges; we already have penalties built into our system of laws to handle those instances. If a person is unsafe with their firearm and harms someone then they are subject to civil and criminal penalties. Too many of our laws have arisen from the desire to take away freedoms from everybody because of the poor conduct of a single individual. Punish those who do wrong instead of taking away freedoms from those don't abuse them.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

What about just having to show you completed nra basic pistol 1 or hell even pop guns training when you go to get a LTCH? That way it's unbiased because it's a private range/training program, not state run. I would hate to take a state police exam, one of my friends in Cali had to do that and he said it sucked hard. If you read my first post, I said I feel it should be required for carrying outside your property, which is a good idea I think. I don't care what some wreckless moron does with his guns on his land, but I would like to know that when I se someone out and about carrying that they at least know the basics. I love the fact that we don't have to register our names, how many weapons we own, what caliber.....etc. If that was the case I would move because if/when SHTF and martial law would come into play, they're comin to my house off the bat because I have quite an aresenal amassed.

 

[ATM]

What about just having to show you completed nra basic pistol 1 or hell even pop guns training when you go to get a LTCH?

Adding another burden to get the LTCH is completely contrary to those of us who believe the license itself is enough of an undue burden.

Training is great. Restrictions aren't. Liberty and accountability are enough.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

What does Arizona have to do with anything? This the gun law from Arizona. I looked at the FBI's crime stats for AZ, and it's lower in 09 than it was in 08 for violent crimes. I just pulled this off of nra.ila or Arizona:

Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon

The Department of Public Safety shall issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a resident of the state at least 21 years old, a U.S. citizen, who satisfactorily completes an approved firearms safety program, submits fingerprints and a fee determined by the Department of Public Safety, and who does not fall into a class of person prohibited to possess a firearm, such as a convicted felon, adjudicated mental incompetent, or illegal alien.

The qualification checks shall be completed within 60 days of receipt of the application and the permit will be issued within 15 working days after completing the checks. The permit is valid for not more than four years and is renewable every four years.

 

[Jack Ryan]

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

All the usual "government interfering" diatribe.

There is one single law I would support.

It's basicly a law ensuring safety and freedom for all competent gun owners and responnsible owners. Nothing at all to do with training but I think it would have a positive impact on morons.

The law would state, "Any time some one does something stupid with a gun, any responsible gun owner with in reach who sees the action may hit the moron full in the face with a baseball bat with out repercussion from any public or government agency or person employed by said agency." No courts, cops on the payroll, appeals, administrators or law makers. Bat to the face? I see you did something stupid, stupid should hurt the stupid one most. Did you learn any thing from that? Immediatly you could pick out the slow learners. They would either wear helmets or quit carrying guns.

I bet that law would solve just about every single concern mentioned in this thread quite promptly. Stupid people would be a lot more careful when they are in close proximity of others. People who think they know it all would have to evaluate what they are about say, "This guy is going to be peeded to the max should I hit him with this bat. Does it really matter that much or am I just being an anal retentive smart butt? I wonder if he has a bat of his own he can reach?"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

Nothing wrong with training. Many on INGO are gun school junkies, we go to class after class after class, racking up far more hours than anyone in the public sector, law enforcement or military.

The con is that mandatory training:

1. Unconstitutionally shifts the burden to the citizen to show that he is "worthy" of a right. I don't need First Amendment training and I don't need training for exercising my RKBA.

2. It acts as a prior restraint. Government cannot create a chilling effect for the exercise of civil rights.

3. It creates a barrier to entry for those who may not have the financial resources to pay for such a class.

4. It allows politicians to dictate the conditions for a right to be exercised. E.g. the state could raise the training class fee, make impossible standards, or only offer the class every other Winter Olympics on one range with limited places.

5. It is subject to corruption. This is happening in other states with training requirements. Someone's cousin becomes the "director" of trainng, trainers are bribed to say someone is "trained", only political contributors become trainers, inter alia.

 

[Eddie]

All the usual "government interfering" diatribe.

There is one single law I would support.

It's basicly a law ensuring safety and freedom for all competent gun owners and responnsible owners. Nothing at all to do with training but I think it would have a positive impact on morons.

The law would state, "Any time some one does something stupid with a gun, any responsible gun owner with in reach who sees the action may hit the moron full in the face with a baseball bat with out repercussion from any public or government agency or person employed by said agency." No courts, cops on the payroll, appeals, administrators or law makers. Bat to the face? I see you did something stupid, stupid should hurt the stupid one most. Did you learn any thing from that? Immediatly you could pick out the slow learners. They would either wear helmets or quit carrying guns.

I bet that law would solve just about every single concern mentioned in this thread quite promptly. Stupid people would be a lot more careful when they are in close proximity of others. People who think they know it all would have to evaluate what they are about say, "This guy is going to be peeded to the max should I hit him with this bat. Does it really matter that much or am I just being an anal retentive smart butt? I wonder if he has a bat of his own he can reach?"

The corrolary to Jack's Rule as stated above would be: "If a guy with a bent nose, bloody lips and two black eyes asks you to go shooting with him, politely decline."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What does Arizona have to do with anything? This the gun law from Arizona.

Arizona is relevant in that one does not need a license or permit or training to carry a pistol in Arizona openly or concealed.

Arizona still issues licenses for concealed carry for purposes of comity.

If the concerns you raise are valid, people with "toys" having negligent discharges everywhere, then Arizona, with no license or training requirement necessary should be a hotbed of NDs with "toys", no?

 

[ATM]

What does Arizona have to do with anything?

Update from April:

Arizona Gun Law: Concealed Weapons Allowed Without Permit Under New Law

 

[Vic_Mackey]

And in Alaska, while you do not need a permit to CC, you need one to leave the state and it says you must have two frontal photos taken for the permit! Oh, and you MUST inform the owner that you are carrying a weapon when you enter a residence or place of business. And you MUST inform LEO when they stop you for ANY reason, and the you MUST let them secure your weapon for the duration of that contact. I don't know about you guys but I am happy with not having to tell anybody sh*t about me having a gun anywhere at anytime.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

The corrolary to Jack's Rule as stated above would be: "If a guy with a bent nose, bloody lips and two black eyes asks you to go shooting with him, politely decline."

lol and then walk swiftly back to your vehicle to retrieve your bat!

 

[ATM]

...I am happy with not having to tell anybody sh*t about me having a gun anywhere at anytime.

But you are fine with having to tell them you passed your required training course to get your license which is required to carry?

 

[rambone]

WHOOHOO this is heeeaated! Everyone has there own sense of how things should be, I'm glad that there are more people that are teetering as opposed to being completely on one side of the fence or the other.

With any luck, you will be convinced that gun control is wrong too. I am pretty passionate about preserving our rights and liberties. Take off your dark robe and join the Light Side!!

I'm a trained veteran, and I went to do some pistol training yesterday and had some flaws pointed out. That's after two tours and countless hours firing weapons and training. I can't believe that some people are okay with inexperience and lack of training just for the sake of being able to carry.

Okay with inexperience.... okay with inexperience....

Does that mean you are okay with being controlled? Okay with taking rights away from some people who can't afford it? Okay with giving the government a list of gun owners... for future use? Okay with paying a tax to use one of your God-given rights? Okay with alienating our unalienable rights? Okay with infringing our shall not be infringed 2nd Amendment?

Your oath is to defend our Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That needs to be all of our mission, but instead, some of us go on a quest to create a utopia where supposedly accidents are preventable with high enough levels of taxation and government control. Think about that. What is your mission?

I worry about the freedoms we enjoy getting taken away, but I worry about needless avoidable injuries due to lack of training just as much. I AM NOT gun control, I feel that if I want a machine gun, sawed off shotgun, or hell even a rocket launcher, I should be able to just go and buy one, from wherever, whenever, and not have to pay a tax (bribe) to the ATF. But again, I am trained with such things, and would and have glady paid hard earned money for more training so that I don't hurt myself or others. And it feels GOOD to know that you are confident in your abilities just my

I am sure you served honorably, and I thank you, but one thing the military does is drill the idea into people's heads that you have superiors that give you permission to do things. The idea that you have to be "allowed" to do things after you jump through enough hoops. And I'm sure it works just fine for the military.

But as a free society, we should not have to answer to our "superiors" about everything we do. We should not have to beg them for permission and do a little dance for them in order to be given our so-called "rights." We should not have to pay them to do what is guaranteed in the constitution.

So - training feels good. Not when it is forced. Then it feels like a big pile of bu**s*** Gun-Control... Training should be sought only by your own free will.

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

Using the word "diatribe" makes me believe that you don't see our side whatsoever. Practically the entire counter-argument is because of the government interference.

- We fought a war to not have a king decide who gets to be armed.
- Our constitution guarantees the right shall not be infringed.
- We should not have to pay a tax to use our rights.
- We should not have to prove anything to anyone so we may use our rights.
- Gun Control always creeps up with one more added restriction.
- Government having a list of gun owners is a good way to help with future confiscation (done repeatedly throughout history).
- Accidents happen even amongst trained individuals.
- Now we have entire agencies and officers dedicated to violating the 2nd Amendment. Yay.
- An untrained gun owner is better off than a defenseless sheep.
- Not everyone can afford training or B.S. permits. They still deserve rights and protection.
- States without permits and without training are not having the epidemic of negligence that liberals are warning us about.
- The Government can revoke permits of people who criticize it.
- "Training" could easily be made to be too hard for most people to pass... to restrict gun owners.
- "Training" could be only offered once a year... to restrict gun owners.
- "Training" could be made to be quite expensive... to restrict gun owners.
- "Training" could consist of 20 weekend courses... to restrict gun owners.
- Gun Control is for people who are afraid of accidents by good people... Rather than fearing bad guys and big government and tyranny.
- The people you should be most scared of will not follow the rules anyways.
- Gun Control is unconstitutional. Period.

 

[Vic_Mackey]

Update from April:

Arizona Gun Law: Concealed Weapons Allowed Without Permit Under New Law

I stand corrected, thanks ATM. I read the whole thing and there are people there who think along the same lines as some of us I took this out from the same article you linked:
The Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group that lobbied for passage of the "constitutional carry" bill, said gun owners foregoing permits still should get training. "The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the responsibility that comes with it," the group said.

I couldn't have put it any better myself.

 

[ATM]

...gun owners foregoing permits still should get training. "The heaviest thing about wearing a firearm is the responsibility that comes with it," the group said.

I couldn't have put it any better myself.

Agreed. Notice they did not say still must get or should still be required to get...

Should. Personal responsibility - not requirement of the State. Big difference.

 

[Bill of Rights]

WHOOHOO this is heeeaated! Everyone has there own sense of how things should be, I'm glad that there are more people that are teetering as opposed to being completely on one side of the fence or the other. I'm a trained veteran, and I went to do some pistol training yesterday and had some flaws pointed out. That's after two tours and countless hours firing weapons and training. I can't believe that some people are okay with inexperience and lack of training just for the sake of being able to carry. I worry about the freedoms we enjoy getting taken away, but I worry about needless avoidable injuries due to lack of training just as much. I AM NOT gun control, I feel that if I want a machine gun, sawed off shotgun, or hell even a rocket launcher, I should be able to just go and buy one, from wherever, whenever, and not have to pay a tax (bribe) to the ATF. But again, I am trained with such things, and would and have glady paid hard earned money for more training so that I don't hurt myself or others. And it feels GOOD to know that you are confident in your abilities just my

So here's my question to the guys who see the con's : what is so bad about having training? Besides the usual "government interfering" diatribe, what are the cons?

Wait, wait... You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that there should be a mandatory, government set training level that everyone who carries a firearm MUST take and pass before they're allowed to carry, and that this, being mandatory, should be the law. Presumably, the reason it must be mandatory is because not everyone will do it otherwise. That said, now you're telling us that you volunteered for the military, a group where you knew that among other things, you would get firearms training and yet more than that, you recently volunteered for more pistol training to reveal gaps in what you had before. Which is it? That people will sign up for classes they want to take or that no one will sign up for firearms training (or at least not enough for Vic Mackey's liking) without a law forcing them to do so?
Further, for those who were in your class, they were there because they wanted to be, and probably got quite a bit out of it. The example I use often is a defensive driving class. Ever take one? Ever see the bored-out-of-my-skull, get-me-the-hell-out-of-here, I'm-going-to-remember-only-what-I-have-to-and-then-go-get-plastered-when-I-pass-this-b***h looks on the participants' (can't call them students) faces? I gotta tell you, I've never seen that look on someone taking firearms training... but then, I've never been to training in a state that requires it for their state-issued permission slip, either.

You said your training came from the military, i.e. the government, yet the privately-funded training you chose to attend showed things that were lacking. Would I take this to mean that you think people should have mandatory periodic retraining, too? Think about your answer. If you say no, the end you're striving for is lost. If you say yes, you don't support our having the Lifetime LTCH.

One more point: What of people from other states? Presently, Indiana recognizes any government-issued permission slip to carry for those who do not live in our state. What about those who have not taken OUR class? Are you saying that they should be forcibly disarmed when they come to Indiana? That's what they say in "gun control" "paradises" like CA, CT, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, IA (until January, 2011), and of course IL and WI.

In the first nine of those, no out-of-state permission slip is valid, only their own. In the tenth (IA) that is presently the case, but the law is passed and on the books, just not yet effective to recognize all permits and licenses. In the latter two, no permission slip is issued nor valid, though in the last, unlicensed open carry is protected by their state Constitution.

Should all of that change? Your suggestion that mandatory classes that you took of your own volition leads down that road. You may not want to go that far down that road, but that's where it leads. As IA is demonstrating, the rest of the country is moving the other direction, towards freedom. Feel free to go the other way if that's your choice, just don't expect the rest of us to recognize you being pro-gun rights any more than we do Dick Lugar or Evan Bayh when they claim to support the Second Amendment. I don't say that to mock or insult you, only to show the similarity that you don't seem to recognize.

Let the antis see the fallacies in their views. Ours have them, too, to be sure, but Mr. Jefferson had something to say about that:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

Blessings,
Bill