How would you design a CCW qual?

[Gawernator]

I guess I'll pass

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I think instead of making quals harder we need to get more people practicing on and off the range. (Dry Fire/Lasers)
In the bay area its already over $2000 for the ccw process not including purchasing the firearm and related equipment. Add in range time and practice ammo and you've priced out most people that don't have a hookup/ friends in the 2A community.
I've given hundreds of dollars of equipment like holsters, belts, and magazine pouches to friends over the years, and loaned out my laser trainers as well. Some of us don't have a $100k + salary and plenty of time off to practice. Especially if you're in a service career.

I mean that's the point of more rigorous quals: to push people to train more.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

The standards for Police and CCW need to be rigorous enough to where it weeds out the people who will do more harm than good carrying a gun.

Yeah. My experience leads me to agree with this. Granted, I have more resources (and time) than most to dedicate to training, never did I imagine I'd be able to shoot better that most LEO's I've trained with in just a few months after starting. The specialized units are definitely better than local PD but they seem to have more resources and budget for training. They all seem to want to be able to train more and the regulars end up coming out of pocket at some point. Rather ty how we treat our public servants and still expect so much of them.

Honestly i wish there was video of the incident itself.

There is some video but it's obscured by a barrier. The whole situation is weird as hell and full of terrible decisions.

The guy with the rifle showed up, went to a corner, pulled out his rifle and started assembling it - which isn't illegal in Utah but... 2 guys drew on him but only one started shooting.

The guys that I train with (former LEO's), we discuss a lot of these scenarios and they set them up during classes. I was thinking, "in a mass shooting a bunch of folks might" and he completed my sentence with "just go straight to the draw and end up shooting each other thinking the "good guys" are the actual shooter".

In one of the trainings where I think 1/3 of the class was local PD he setup scenario where they were monitoring a protest and the crowd started banging on their cruiser. They were surprisingly chill...until 2 over-zealous CCW guys (role-playing) ran over to "help" with their guns drawn - I think they were in sul. Nonetheless, they didn't make it.

It was a great experience for us civilians to see how we might think we're being helpful when we're just causing more potential danger. Also, we also really got to see how just following commands is extremely important. Don't do anything more than you're told.

 

[Gawernator]

My opinion on CCW and Police quals are near the same.

If you carry a gun for the purpose of defending yourself or others you need to be proficient enough to not become a liability to those you aren't engaged in saving. Time and again you see and hear of LEOs that shoot once a year to pass quals then never shoot again, this is a lot of the time the same case with people I meet that have their CCWs.

The standards for Police and CCW need to be rigorous enough to where it weeds out the people who will do more harm than good carrying a gun. Yeah there will be those Constitutionalists that say "we're already limited and being infringed upon, blah blah blah". When it comes to shooting a gun defensively, I'd rather someone know how to do it properly or not at all, rather than 60 year old Kathy who shoots a 10 round 12" spread on a IPSC target with a Glock 19 in 20 seconds.

Currently, if someone is serious about carrying a firearm (legally) they will go through the process of being "adequate enough". "Adequate enough" is what we have all seen from body cam videos of Police Officers getting into shootings and mag dumping a pile of dirt 8 inches to the side of the target.

50% rule and actively being shot at are differing factors for those that carry a gun but, shooting a single 50rnd box of 9mm ammo to become "qualified" to do so is a joke. Especially to those exempt from the handgun roster that shoot worse than private citizens, but that is another issue. CCW is no different.

TLDR: Makes the standards harder lol

Yet to operate a deadly vehicle (far more likely to kill others than your constituionally God granted CCW) essentially no training is required and an unbelievably easy test..... make it make sense. The only legal argument I could see is going to the open carry permit-less and a tougher CCW license for concealed.

 

[Gawernator]

Yeah. My experience leads me to agree with this. Granted, I have more resources (and time) than most to dedicated to training, never did I imagine I'd be able to shoot better that most LEO's I've trained with in just a few months after starting. The specialized units are definitely better but they seem to have more resources and access to training.

LAPD can shoot 150 rounds and not hit anyone, shooting better than a random cop isn't saying much. lol

 

[NorCalBusa]

Unlike a drivers license which is a privilege, it is a right. No nothing- everybody without a violent criminal history should have the right.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Unlike a drivers license which is a privilege, it is a right. No nothing- everybody without a violent criminal history should have the right.

It's a distinction without a difference. The conservative opinion in Bruen stated that 1. rights are not unlimited and 2. licensing schemes including practical tests, psych evals etc. were constitutional. Meanwhile the 14th amendment guarantees the right to liberty and freedom of travel so while driving a car specifically is not called out as a right, your freedom to do so must go through due process to be taken away. They essentially have the same practical legal and constitutional protection at this point in time. I don't know what it would look like in the future if a city banned cars for instance so there may be a difference down the road.

That said the cost for getting licenced to carry is extreme and should be lowered especially considering most of it goes to the sheriff and not training for the individual which would actually have a practical utility

 

[10RoundLimit]

Seriously, I am shocked by the level of marksmanship I see in the CCW classes I have taken or at the static range. In one county, one person could not hit the paper, and their best shot was the paper clip holding the paper. I am not making this up. Another was range qual by the vendor, and they worked hard with her prior to the qual. Even then, not even close. My feelings are that if you are going to carry a firearm for self-defense, you need to be a competent shooter at varying distances and be able to shoot rapidly while shooting decent center mass shots. Therefore, you need to pass a rigorous competency test. I think going out to 25 yards is unnecessary because, realistically, how likely are you to have to defend yourself at that distance? Training is your best friend when it comes to self-defense, whether it is advanced training classes or dry-firing practice to build your competence up to and after the range qual.

 

[Bobalover209]

It's a distinction without a difference. The conservative opinion in Bruen stated that 1. rights are not unlimited and 2. licensing schemes including practical tests, psych evals etc. were constitutional. Meanwhile the 14th amendment guarantees the right to liberty and freedom of travel so while driving a car specifically is not called out as a right, your freedom to do so must go through due process to be taken away. They essentially have the same practical legal and constitutional protection at this point in time. I don't know what it would look like in the future if a city banned cars for instance so there may be a difference down the road.

That said the cost for getting licenced to carry is extreme and should be lowered especially considering most of it goes to the sheriff and not training for the individual which would actually have a practical utility

I think this is the reasoning a lot of sovereign citizens use when they get caught driving an unregistered vehicle or without a valid driver's license. They always claim that they are "traveling" or something a long those lines and that the car is their private domicile.

The way I interpret the exact wording aligns more with @NorCalBusa. You are free to travel by whatever means that is legal to do so without any special licensing (ie biking, walking, etc.) but to drive on public roads does require a license to do so. So while driving is the most common form of transportation, it is still a privilege given to us granted you can pass the test, and can be taken away from you.

Similarly (but fundamentally different) the 2A is a right and should theoretically have to go through the bare minimum steps/process to legally exercise with the lowest barrier to entry (even subsidized/facilitated by the government if needed). I agree with others here that negative outcomes by responsible law abiding citizens is more of an outlier compared to the positive outcomes by the same population.

Even if there were no requirements and open/concealed carry was legal without permits/license as long as you are legal to own, that does not dismiss accountability. Each citizen has the responsibility to ensure they are acting responsibly and lawfully. If they are not and end up causing harm because of it, then they should/need to be held accountable for their actions. As the popular saying goes, "there is a lawyer attached to every bullet."

Ideally we should take it upon ourselves to be as proficient, comfortable, and capable with our firearms as we can be, so we have the best chance of surviving a violent encounter or saving another without causing unnecessary harm to those around us.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I think this is the reasoning a lot of sovereign citizens use when they get caught driving an unregistered vehicle or without a valid driver's license. They always claim that they are "traveling" or something a long those lines and that the car is their private domicile.

The way I interpret the exact wording aligns more with @NorCalBusa. You are free to travel by whatever means that is legal to do so without any special licensing (ie biking, walking, etc.) but to drive on public roads does require a license to do so. So while driving is the most common form of transportation, it is still a privilege given to us granted you can pass the test, and can be taken away from you.

Similarly (but fundamentally different) the 2A is a right and should theoretically have to go through the bare minimum steps/process to legally exercise with the lowest barrier to entry (even subsidized/facilitated by the government if needed). I agree with others here that negative outcomes by responsible law abiding citizens is more of an outlier compared to the positive outcomes by the same population.

Even if there were no requirements and open/concealed carry was legal without permits/license as long as you are legal to own, that does not dismiss accountability. Each citizen has the responsibility to ensure they are acting responsibly and lawfully. If they are not and end up causing harm because of it, then they should/need to be held accountable for their actions. As the popular saying goes, "there is a lawyer attached to every bullet."

Ideally we should take it upon ourselves to be as proficient, comfortable, and capable with our firearms as we can be, so we have the best chance of surviving a violent encounter or saving another without causing unnecessary harm to those around us.

That's the thing though, you are making the mistake of using a colloquial definition of a "right" in assuming that it's unlimited. Going back to Heller which is what Bruen largely quotes in this context, Scalia says:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

At the end of the day a "right" is merely a legal construction like any other law or regulation. It's just guidance from the state on what their enforcement authority should be. In this case states are constitutionally allowed by these rulings to put very heavy conditions on even just owning a gun let alone carrying one in public. And ultimately in practice it's the same as driving or many other things.

On a personal level I agree with you that the process should be less onerous and even facilitated by government subsidized training, and people should be training a hell of a lot more in general and anything we can do to help that will literally make society safer.

 

[rjww1945]

I think it would be ideal to have no qual, just prove you are a law-abiding citizen without criminal background.

There could be a discount on the CCW permit fees for demonstrated competency. As an example, reduce the permit fees by X number of dollars if you have a CCW training vendor witness you passing the DeFoor Hat Qual or Bakersfield police department qualification.

 

[MattB]

2A should be my carry permit. The state should have no say in what, how, or when I carry with very limited exceptions like court houses. If I own it legally, I should be able to carry it. Rights should never be treated as privileges.

 

[Bobalover209]

That's the thing though, you are making the mistake of using a colloquial definition of a "right" in assuming that it's unlimited. Going back to Heller which is what Bruen largely quotes in this context, Scalia says:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The Court provided examples of laws it considered “presumptively lawful,” including those which:

• Prohibit firearm possession by dangerous people.
• Forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
• Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

At the end of the day a "right" is merely a legal construction like any other law or regulation. It's just guidance from the state on what their enforcement authority should be. In this case states are constitutionally allowed by these rulings to put very heavy conditions on even just owning a gun let alone carrying one in public. And ultimately in practice it's the same as driving or many other things.

On a personal level I agree with you that the process should be less onerous and even facilitated by government subsidized training, and people should be training a hell of a lot more in general and anything we can do to help that will literally make society safer.

Nowhere did I say that a right is unlimited or unregulated. Even the first amendment has its limitations.

What I said was that the qualifications/requirements to exercise a right (any right) should be minimized as much as possible. The intent should be the maximum ability to legally and responsibly exercise any right with the bare minimum obstacles.

As you mentioned precedent has been set that rights can be taken away, limited, and regulated, and I agree with that given proper circumstances. However I disagree with your sentiment that any right should be heavily regulated, but strictly regulated would make more sense (heavy and strict being used intentionally).

In my ideal world, our rights should be as freely expressed as possible without posing a danger to the public, and that the ability to exercise them should not vary by state. Gun laws in particular should only be regulated at a federal/national level, with no variance in state laws.

 

[1911-CV]

Grandma should be able to pull her 38 from her purse when threatened by an armed carjacker.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Nowhere did I say that a right is unlimited or unregulated. Even the first amendment has its limitations.

What I said was that the qualifications/requirements to exercise a right (any right) should be minimized as much as possible. The intent should be the maximum ability to legally and responsibly exercise any right with the bare minimum obstacles.

As you mentioned precedent has been set that rights can be taken away, limited, and regulated, and I agree with that given proper circumstances. However I disagree with your sentiment that any right should be heavily regulated, but strictly regulated would make more sense (heavy and strict being used intentionally).

In my ideal world, our rights should be as freely expressed as possible without posing a danger to the public, and that the ability to exercise them should not vary by state. Gun laws in particular should only be regulated at a federal/national level, with no variance in state laws.

I basically agree with you actually, I'm not expressing my opinion on what the government should do, just stating what the legal construction of a right is. Too many assume that a "right" means you actually get the thing and you get it for free but it's really just a handbook for state policy.

 

[Bobalover209]

I basically agree with you actually, I'm not expressing my opinion on what the government should do, just stating what the legal construction of a right is. Too many assume that a "right" means you actually get the thing and you get it for free but it's really just a handbook for state policy.

Yes I agree with you that rights and privileges are often misconstrued and misinterpreted. Everything has its limitations, and unfortunately we see an inappropriate use of laws and abuse of the judicial process to unnecessarily infringe on our rights to score political points.

 

[NorCalBusa]

It's a distinction without a difference. The conservative opinion in Bruen stated that 1. rights are not unlimited and 2. licensing schemes including practical tests, psych evals etc. were constitutional. Meanwhile the 14th amendment guarantees the right to liberty and freedom of travel so while driving a car specifically is not called out as a right, your freedom to do so must go through due process to be taken away. They essentially have the same practical legal and constitutional protection at this point in time. I don't know what it would look like in the future if a city banned cars for instance so there may be a difference down the road.

That said the cost for getting licenced to carry is extreme and should be lowered especially considering most of it goes to the sheriff and not training for the individual which would actually have a practical utility

Where did you take your government approved, "How to speak properly in America" class? Was the test difficult? Did some fail?

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Yes I agree with you that rights and privileges are often misconstrued and misinterpreted. Everything has its limitations, and unfortunately we see an inappropriate use of laws and abuse of the judicial process to unnecessarily infringe on our rights to score political points.

Yeah I mean people need to realize the law is fake and made up and is always up to the interpretation of whoever we deem responsible for it.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Where did you take your government approved, "How to speak properly in America" class? Was the test difficult? Did some fail?

I don't honestly understand your point

 

[grandpapeepap]

Unlike a drivers license which is a privilege, it is a right. No nothing- everybody without a violent criminal history should have the right.

Reminder you only need a DL to drive on public roads, nothings to stop you from driving on private property without it or buying and not registering a car you dont plan on taking on public roads