How do you feel about more instruction prior to getting permit?

[PavePusher]

imported post

Autonym wrote:

Stepping back here for a bit.

And I understand that my analogy isn't precise - there's no Right to Keep and Bear Cars - but...

We require people to take a class, pass a written test, and in cases of new drivers, require them to pass a real-world skills proficiency test before we permit them to use an automobile in public.

Cars are arguably just as dangerous as firearms/handguns (if not more so, despite the training, but that's another discussion).

It's been said many times on these boards, and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed - carrying a loaded firearm is Serious Business[suP]tm[/suP] and you need to know what you are doing.

You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?

So it seems reasonable to me that some sort of training should be done before allowing a person to bear arms in public. This isn't infringement in my opinion, it's common sense. You take the training and get the card, then get the gun.

I'm actually surprised that you can buy a handgun in Oregon without proof of any training at all. Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?

I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?

It is also arguable that cars are at least two orders of magintude more complex to operate than a firearm. I'm entirely on-board with some form of training for drivers licences for access to public roads.

Guns are simple and straight-forward. A few simple safety rules, perhaps a few laws on usage (yes, I KNOW that's not how it is yet...) and that should cover it.

Cars have many times more controls, much more mass/energy, more complex physical interaction with their environment, and require a plethora of rules to ensure safe operation in densely packed, highspeed conditions. Someone (Michael Z. Williamson?) once proposed that any governmental vehical restrictions be removed except two: A. You must have insurance, B. The insurance company sets training standards/certifications for acceptance of coverage. They would then have to balance rigorousness of trainingwith profit margins... The free market at work.

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

Autonym wrote:

*Waves to We-The-People*

Waving back LOL


Autonym wrote:

If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.

OUCH - For those of us in the Medford area, the Medford gun club is only $50.00 a year.

Also, for those that also fire 308, 30-06, and .22 (maybe some other calibers) the "Civillian Marksmanship Program" (CMP) is a government chartered organization that you can get some decent bulk deals on ammo through. Like 75.00/192 rounds of 30-06 NATO (foreign manufacture) surpluse ammo (+$20 shipping). Membership in many gun clubs makes you an "affiliate member" and elligible to purchase.

Back to the subject of training.

There should be absolutely ZERO training required to exercise a Constitutional right. No special training is required to exercise our 1st amendment rights. As for those who would say "but words can't kill" I would remind you of the millions of people killed over the years because one politician or another penned an order saying to do so.

When it comes to the "training" required to obtain a CHL, none should be REQUIRED by the government and we most definitely shouldn't be subjected to the so called "training" that we do receive from those that are "blessed with the title of instructor". My class here in Oregon was full of miss truths and outright lies with the major emphasis on "don't shoot anyone" and zero emphasis on training anyone how to do it right, just lot's of DON'T's.

My class in California was a bit more detailed, 16 hours including two courses of fire (1 each day). Again though, lot's of DON'T's and very few "how to's" along with miss truths and lies. On the bright side, MOST of the time when the instructor offered an opinion he would say "just my opinion".

As for the range time to "qualify" to carry in California...... you have to hit the black (big black) 39 times out of 50 shots and it's a pass fail. The majority are fired at 10 yards or less. My .22 Jennings with a 1 1/2" barrel had no problem. The lady who had never held a pistol in her life and couldn't hit the paper the first day was able to "qualify" on the second day.

This is NOT TRAINING. Is is simply government mandated propaganda. Neither class had more than a cursory mention of muzzle discipline, safe carry methods, disengagement, etc. In both classes, I bit my tongue on several issues simply to get that stupid piece of paper that "qualified" me for my license.

I think it might be a good idea among the OC and CC movement to arrange to ""audit" training classes. The goal not to be the adversary of the instructor but rather to correct any incorrect statements on law, perhaps provide "real life" stories of some of the concerns encounterd daily while carrying, etc.

For instance, from what I've read, many instructors here in Oregon, including my own, tell those in the class that getting your CHL means you lose your right to open carry. That's just flat out wrong and too simple of a legal mater for it to be confused. So are those instructors lying, ignorant, or?

Another issue is with those instructors who say "sometimes you just need to say I've got a gun or just show them your gun" (when carrying concealled). WRONG WRONG WRONG. If you are carrying concealled surprise is your greatest advantage but if it's important enough to escalate to a firearm, it better be important enough to draw and fire. Should your assailant(s) turn tail and run or submit immediately then great. I'd much rather explain to the police what happened and that I defended myself without firing a shot that to have to do all that paperwork and probably go to jail for shooting someone to protect myself. But flashing your concealled piece or drawing to scare them away is BAD TRAINING.

Now, should people VOLUNTARILLY go out an get training? It depends on the individual. Being a retired Marine and having carried quite often because of my duties, I don't think I NEEDa more training but GOOD TRAINING is always a good thing. Others, particularly those who don't know muich about firearms definitely should make themselves as informed and competent as possible.

But...... it is not the function of government to dictate training, licensing, etc. The second amendment is quite clear. The words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are about as broad of a statement you can make against any form of government intrusion.

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

Autonym wrote:

You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?

Happens every day in gun stores across the state as well as in private sales with no documentation whatsoever. Don't worry, you'll "decompress" from the Taxifornia/Kalifornia brainwashing over time. For those of us who are political refugees from there it's nicer here but there is still too much intrusion.



Autonym wrote:

I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?

Government mandated - YES, I oppose that. Voluntary courses offered as a public service by private organizations - No problem at all. Good training is always good.

Alaskan Shooter wrote:

We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government

+1,000,000,000 - as the Constitution intended.



My wife has very limited firearms TRAINING. She signed up for a training course at a Kalifornia gun shop that had a great looking syllabus and a lot of range time. How did that work out? We'd show up and they'd hand her a target, a pistol, and a box of ammo then say "go shoot this". If she didn't ask, they didn't teach her how a particular gun worked and I refused to show her because she was paying for this "training" so she'd ask. There was no training involved at all, just a lot of unsupervised range time with increasingly powerful rounds.

She cancelled that and I snuck in her training on the range.... spouses weren't allowed to teach for some strange reason even though they didn't. If you'veever watched NCIS and seen Gibbs smack Denozo on the head, you can visualize my reinforcement method for negative actions. She did great on everything but keeping her trigger finger off the trigger until ready so each time she violated that rule I'd give her a light smack on the earcup of her hearing protection.

To this day, her finger looks like a steel rod pointing down the weapon until she's ready to fire and she chuckles every time I mention it.

So when I handed her a brand spanking new Smith and Wesson MandP 15 on Sunday, the muzzle was downrange, the finger was rock solid and straight. Even with inside the house breakdown and nomenclature training and a few drills on operation, on the range she was nervous and unable to properly operate the weapon. BUT and this is THE MAIN POINT.... she was 100% safe the entire time because she KNEW WITHOUT THINKING to keep that finger off the trigger and the muzzle downrange.

It's not as bad as that sounds. Her problems were with trying to charge the weapon when it already was, letting the charging handle forward slowly instead of releasing it to sharply chamber a round, and hitting the magazine release several times with that rock solid, off the trigger, finger. Actually, I learned to avoid that same issue because of her mistakes. I'd never had it happen but also never realized just how close to that release my finger was. That would be a problem in an SD situation.

By the way, for anyone with an AR, look up "bump fire" on you tube and give it a try. WOW THAT WAS FUN. 31 rounds in less than5 seconds!!!!!!! Spendy, but FUN.

 

[pdxwarrior]

imported post

Autonym wrote:

If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.

Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but I think you got this backwards.

The one-time registration fee is $175 and the yearly membership is $120. Renewals are in June/July, so depending on when you become a member you can make the initial hit less than $295.00. Just remember, dues are still due in July. The new member page explains it in more detail.

Also, as someone mentioned - yes, it is expensive. However, they do have a pretty nice set up and a strong focus on safety. It is pretty centrally located which makes it convenient as well. The club is growing and they are doing constant work to improve existing facilities as well as expand.

I've been a member for a bit over two years now. Haven't used it as much as one would like (work and life gets in the way of shooting) but I would recommend the club for anyone in the area.

Downfalls, no .50 caliber and I'm pretty sure no full-auto. However, it's a LOT closer than Albany.

 

[Autonym]

imported post

No toes hurt here.

My bad - I could've easily got them mixed up. All I know is, it's a bit spendy to join, but bearable after that.

And I do agree - it's a very nice facility, and very safe. Much safer than shooting on some back-40 where you're not 100% certain what's down range.

 

[rscottie]

imported post

Ironbar wrote:

When I took my CCW class, I was actually very surprised at the fact that a three hour class was all it took to get it.

I don't know how popular it would be, but what do you think about requiringMORE than just sitting through a class and then having a short quiz after in order to get your carry permit?

Maybe I'm not thinking right, but it seems that having at least a LITTLE more stringent requirements to obtain the permit might just weed out a few of the less qualified candidates. Sort of a vetting process.

What do you think?

I think that you are thinking too much.

I mean, what exactly do you considered "qualified" to exercise ones rights?

I mean, is the little ol' lady that can barely hit the target at 25 yards ok to have a permit? Geesh, she ain't that great a shot. But, when the BG enters her home and sheshoots him at 6 feet in her foyer, does she really need to hit the target at 25 yards?

When you ask the government to impose restrictions, they will do what you ask. And those restrictions will generally be way more than what is necessary and also a total infringement upon our basic rights.

The right to defend yourselfshould not require government permission.

 

[GoldCoaster]

imported post

Put me on the list of those that think the government needs to keep it's nose out of my RIGHTS. The class I took for my permit here in CT was the basic NRA, safety safety safety which I can't argue with, not much about the when and when not to use a firearm and the range portion of the class was a joke. Had I not had experience with handguns before I would not have walked out of there with the experience to safely shoot a gun. That being said it is up to the individual to realize they could use a little more experience and training and go out ON THEIR OWN and secure such training as it takes to make them comfortable at arms. I have since taken a follow-on shooting course as well as defensive tactics (2 classes) and a laws class which although not entirely necessary could potentially save you a huge amount of legal hassle down the road.

The point is, we as responsible adults need to know our skills and limitations and if those limitations make you wonder if you are able to safely handle a firearm in a stressful situation then you can go out and take some more classes and get some real training until you are comfortable.

The follow-on class was instructive in the training officers noticed some little things I was doing that once I worked towards eliminating them I had a tighter group with better accuracy. The tactics classes were FUN! There was a hell of a lot to learn but the range drills (we had the range all to ourselves) was instructive and we were forced to deal with malfunctions (random dummy loads) and magazine empty (only load 4-5 rounds per magazine) so that recovery from misfires and lockback became fast and instinctive and did not require us to take our eyes off the threat whilst bringing the firearm back to working order.

After those classes I am a lot more comfortable with what my firearm can do, what I can do, and what I can do with my firearm safely. That comfort and confidence is something you have to learn and practice to get but should not be mandatory as a hurdle to jump through to get a "permit" to exercise a RIGHT.