# Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act-Good Idea or Not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368 "2017-04-27T15:16:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/161 "2017-04-28T15:45:46Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > In the very threads where I said I wouldn’t shoot someone for stealing my TV, when I brought up police and soldiers pointing their weapons without shooting, I was told they have training and I don’t. > > I fully agree with you that a person could scare off a criminal simply by pointing a gun at them without shooting them. However, I was told this was wrong, and even illegal in some places. I guess it’s up to you if you want to heed their advice or not. I’m comfortable with my firearm-related skills and I’d have no qualms about pointing a gun at an intruder in my own home, and shooting them if I perceive them to be a threat. Of course, I live in a “free state”, and so I’ve got little to fear from the authorities in such a situation. If you’re in New England, Illinois, or the Left Coast, your situation is quite a bit different from mine, and they might try to bust your balls for pointing a gun at someone trying to steal your TV. I’d encourage you to familiarize yourself with your jurisdiction’s relevant laws and precedents and with any firearm you plan to use for self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/162 "2017-04-28T15:47:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think federal power has limits too. I just think that nationwide reciprocity is well within those limits that the courts have recognized. > > I wouldn’t mind - in fact would probably even prefer - a much narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause. We could discard the National Firearms Act, the Hughes Amendment, the GFSZA, etc (essentially throw out the entirety of the federal gun-control scheme, along with significant environmental regulations), and if that were the current jurisprudence, I don’t think it’d be appropriate to mandate that all states recognize each other’s CCW permits, but that’s not where we are today. In a country where the NFA, GFSZA, and Hughes Amendment are valid, so too should the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 be valid. I don’t think you’ve written anything to counter my assertion that your opinion of legislation is based on whether it is pro- or anti-gun. An effective ban on machine guns, as part of the Federal laws that you mention, is pretty damn obviously related to interstate commerce. But as you have conveyed your opinions, you just disagree with it on the basis that it is “anti-gun,” and gloss over the fact that it is on very solid constitutional ground. Then you apply a “tit for tat” logic that pro-gun legislation ought to be constitutional too, on the basis that “anti-gun” legislation is constitutional. It’s pretty clear to me that you aren’t arguing the legal merits of legislation; you’re arguing whether you like the legislation or not. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/163 "2017-04-28T15:50:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I guess it’s up to you if you want to heed their advice or not. I’m comfortable with my firearm-related skills and I’d have no qualms about pointing a gun at an intruder in my own home, and shooting them if I perceive them to be a threat. Of course, I live in a “free state”, and so I’ve got little to fear from the authorities in such a situation. If you’re in New England, Illinois, or the Left Coast, your situation is quite a bit different from mine, and they might try to bust your balls for pointing a gun at someone trying to steal your TV. > > I’d encourage you to familiarize yourself with your jurisdiction’s relevant laws and precedents and with any firearm you plan to use for self defense. Fair enough. Thanks! Edited: Sorry, one more question if you don’t mind. In your state, can you pull a gun on a guy who looks suspicious while you are out walking around with your concealed weapon? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/164 "2017-04-28T15:54:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > An effective ban on machine guns, as part of the Federal laws that you mention, is pretty damn obviously related to interstate commerce. Could you explain this part to me, because it’s not as obvious as you seem to think it is. If I want to build a machine gun in my garage, and keep it in my garage, and never sell it to _anyone_, let alone across state lines (the “interstate” part), the Feds and you seem to believe that my garage-dwelling machine gun is “related to interstate commerce”, and therefore a criminal act. It’s not going to be part of interstate commerce, or commerce at all. Where’s the “pretty damn obviously related” link? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/165 "2017-04-28T15:55:18Z")
The arguments that can be made to support this law’s validity under the limited congressional powers could be based on a combination of interstate travel, full faith and credit, commerce clause, and even 2nd amendment. Theoretically it could be tied to federal funds in a non-coercive way such that the 9ish states that are no-carry states would want to comply. I think the strongest avenue would be tying it to federal funds, but I think interstate travel and commerce could work just as well. Of course, that would only need to occur should the law pass, and it be challenged. If that were the case, the arguments would need to be flipped and opponents would need to support why all of the above could not apply. I’d rather be arguing from the position of the status quo - another reason I hope it passes. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/166 "2017-04-28T16:02:02Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Fair enough. Thanks! > > Edited: > > Sorry, one more question if you don’t mind. In your state, can you pull a gun on a guy who looks suspicious while you are out walking around with your concealed weapon? For “looking suspicious”, in a public place, no. Here’s what [my state’s “brandishing” law](https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter10/76-10-S506.html?v=C76-10-S506_2014040320140513) looks like: > [@](#): > > … a person who … draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. > > … > > This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another’s use of unlawful force: > (a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or > (b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon. Also > [@](#): > > Threatening manner" does not include: > (i) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or > (ii) informing another of the actor’s possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other It’s messy legalese, but basically, if I “reasonably” believe / perceive that someone is going to use unlawful force, than I can draw. Just “looking suspicious” would not be enough. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/167 "2017-04-28T16:05:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s messy legalese, but basically, if I “reasonably” believe / perceive that someone is going to use unlawful force, than I can draw. Just “looking suspicious” would not be enough. Cool, thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/168 "2017-04-28T16:10:44Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Applying a common sense rule, proficient marksmanship would definitely yield better real world results. If you can’t have a tight group in the black when at the range, how much better will you be when facing a life critical situation? But yes I’d like to see data on this, if such data exists. So what you’re saying is that you have no evidence that marksmanship requirements actually have a positive effect in the real world, but you think they might? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Can you tell me what you are going to do with a gun in a hostile situation if you are a poor shot? > > What is the point of carrying a gun, if you can’t hit what you are aiming at? Can you tell me whether marksmanship requirements for concealed carry licenses have an actual effect on whether people carrying are good shots? Because it sounds like you’re assuming something that there is no evidence for, then asking questions that assume an extreme version of the thing you have evidence for. > [@Orwell](#): > > It’s hard to argue that training - marksmanship, tactical exercises, state and federal laws, legal ramifications, what to say and do if you are actually involved in a shooting, how to interact with police, etc. - isn’t a good idea. And I certainly think it IS a good idea if handled honestly, conveniently and at a reasonable cost. The fact that a type of training is a good idea in a general sense doesn’t magically mean that requiring a specific and limited subset of that training in a specific circumstance produces positive results. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for evidence that a training requirement produces good results before writing a training requirement into a law. Especially when training requirements have historically been abused, and when they are extremely non-progressive, posing an extreme burden on poor people and negligible one to middle- and upper- class people. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/169 "2017-04-28T16:23:07Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > The fact that a type of training is a good idea in a general sense doesn’t magically mean that requiring a specific and limited subset of that training in a specific circumstance produces positive results. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for evidence that a training requirement produces good results before writing a training requirement into a law. Especially when training requirements have historically been abused, and when they are extremely non-progressive, posing an extreme burden on poor people and negligible one to middle- and upper- class people. I don’t disagree at all, which (I believe) was the gist of my comments. Government requirements (of all sorts) tend to get imposed with no real examination of validity, effectiveness or cost-benefit. And this particular requirement would very likely become purposefully burdensome in some jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/170 "2017-04-28T16:23:40Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > So what you’re saying is that you have no evidence that marksmanship requirements actually have a positive effect in the real world, but you think they might? Well, what do you think? That’s like asking if passing a driving proficiency test and possessing a driver’s license correlates to driving better. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/171 "2017-04-28T16:24:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Could you explain this part to me, because it’s not as obvious as you seem to think it is. If I want to build a machine gun in my garage, and keep it in my garage, and never sell it to _anyone_, let alone across state lines (the “interstate” part), the Feds and you seem to believe that my garage-dwelling machine gun is “related to interstate commerce”, and therefore a criminal act. It’s not going to be part of interstate commerce, or commerce at all. Where’s the “pretty damn obviously related” link? First, you need to pick the horse that you’re riding on. You’ve argued in this thread for both an expansive commerce clause power when it comes to allowing the Federal government to determine permitting issues that have nothing, as far as I can tell, to do with commerce. Then you argue a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause that implies that you ought to be able to manufacture machine guns under certain circumstances. So which is it? Or, as I’ve said repeatedly, is it in fact true that you start with the conclusion that whatever rules are pro-gun are good, and then you back yourself into the convenient justification of whatever supports that argument, no matter what you’ve argued before? Second, there’s an ample body of precedents relating to how the commerce clause relates to activities that some think ought not be regulated by commonsense laws. The application of these laws on trains, meatpacking, agriculture, and many other things. Similar cases are described [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) and [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) Suffice it to say that the law is being fairly applied across all sorts of activities, and guns don’t get a magical pass from being treated the same as wheat and pot. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/172 "2017-04-28T16:26:26Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > Well, what do you think? That’s like asking if passing a driving proficiency test and possessing a driver’s license correlates to driving better. What do you think? More: Besides that, \*\*Pantastic, \*\*what is the point you are trying to make? Are you saying to say that showing proficient marksmanship has no effect on real world use of a gun in a defensive situation? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/173 "2017-04-28T16:26:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not a poor shot 😉 but, you might find it informative that the vast majority of defensive gun uses don’t even involve firing a shot. Merely presenting a firearm in a lot of cases is good enough to ward off a threat / deter an attack. > > ETA: so, no cite? Nope, no cite, but I don’t think I need a cite to say that a bad shot is not going to hit their target as often as a good shot. If you really want, I might go to the range in the next couple of weeks, and I’ll post some pictures of targets after we are done. I’ll indicate who was a good shot in our group, and who is a bad shot in our group (I am probably well below average, but by no means the worst) and we can determine if there is a correlation between how good a shot someone is, and how centered their shots are. > [@Common\_Tater](#): > > Simple, letting a potential bad guy know that one is armed. Maybe opening a coat uncovering a holstered revolver. Many times this is enough to persuade someone to break off a confrontation. Criminals want to get their prey as easy as possible, preferably unarmed. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Basically, pull it out of whatever location one is carrying it in and either hold it “at the ready” or point it at the threat. Something like [this](http://americancopmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/READY-2.jpg) or [this](http://americancopmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/READY-1.jpg). > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think you’ve been misinformed. There are lots of cases where it would be appropriate to “access” a firearm (have it in-hand, probably at the low-ready position) even if you’re not going to shoot. Police officers routinely do this. Soldiers routinely do this. If I were at home and I heard a window break in my basement and someone walking up my stairs, I’m going to pull out a gun, but the decision to fire or not will be largely determined by the subsequent actions of whoever broke into my house. It does seem as though in all of these cases, of “properly presenting a firearm” should require some level of training. Is this covered in CCW classes, or is this just something that people figure out on their own? And I, like Manson, have always heard to never carry a gun that you aren’t prepared to use, never pull a gun if you aren’t willing to fire it, and never shoot anything you aren’t willing to kill/destroy. I would append “able” as well to that. If you are just carrying around a gun that you are not proficient with, then you are at best not doing any good, and at middling, just donating a gun to any criminal who asks, and at worst, causing injuries or death of bystanders as you try to be the good guy with the gun. I have little problem with the current state of gun control. There is not a high bar to entry, in most states, but it is just high enough to keep the complete morons and assholes from walking around armed all the time. I am sure that you and all those in this thread are responsible gun owners, but it is not responsible gun owners who are my concern, it is the gun owners that are irresponsible that concern me, and those are not being weeded out at all by this type of legislation. Seriously, though, I am sure you know someone in your life that to whom you would be terrified to hand a loaded gun. If you think that this person could legally get and carry a gun in public with this sort of legislation, then even you can see why that’s a problem. If this bill were set up with minimum requirements to get a CCW that is recognized by all the states, that would go a long way towards easing the concerns of not just myself, and the public, but gun owners who are afraid of backlash when idiots start making all gun owners look bad because there are no proactive restrictions on their behavior. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/174 "2017-04-28T16:38:49Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > First, you need to pick the horse that you’re riding on. You’ve argued in this thread for both an expansive commerce clause power when it comes to allowing the Federal government to determine permitting issues that have nothing, as far as I can tell, to do with commerce. Then you argue a very narrow interpretation of the commerce clause that implies that you ought to be able to manufacture machine guns under certain circumstances. So which is it? Or, as I’ve said repeatedly, is it in fact true that you start with the conclusion that whatever rules are pro-gun are good, and then you back yourself into the convenient justification of whatever supports that argument, no matter what you’ve argued before? > > Second, there’s an ample body of precedents relating to how the commerce clause relates to activities that some think ought not be regulated by commonsense laws. The application of these laws on trains, meatpacking, agriculture, and many other things. Similar cases are described [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) and [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) Suffice it to say that the law is being fairly applied across all sorts of activities, and guns don’t get a magical pass from being treated the same as wheat and pot. I take this to mean that you can’t really articulate the “pretty damn obvious” connection to interstate commerce of my hypothetical (_completely_ fictional - I haven’t actually manufactured a machine gun) home-made machine gun. To answer your broader question: I don’t think I’ve argued _for_ the broad interpretation of interstate commerce that exists today. If I were king for a day, I’d drastically narrow the scope of the interstate commerce clause. I’d let Filburn grow his wheat, Raich grow his marijuana, me make my garage machine gun, Utah determine how far we should keep guns from school, and California determine what standards should apply to CCW permit holders within their borders. What I _have_ done is acknowledge that that broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is the law of the land today. Filburn can’t grow his wheat. Raich can’t grow his marijuana. I can’t make a machine gun in my garage. Utah can’t determine the appropriate size of gun-free school zones. And so telling California they can’t ignore lawful and valid CCW permits from other states when non-residents visit seems well-within the current legal precedents. Those precedents wouldn’t be my preferred interpretation, but they are the reality, and I’m prepared to work within that reality to accomplish my goals (in this case, a more expansive right of the people to keep and bear arms). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/175 "2017-04-28T16:57:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I take this to mean that you can’t really articulate the “pretty damn obvious” connection to interstate commerce … I can’t help you if you don’t read the cites. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/176 "2017-04-28T17:22:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Nope, no cite, but I don’t think I need a cite to say that a bad shot is not going to hit their target as often as a good shot. > > If you really want, I might go to the range in the next couple of weeks, and I’ll post some pictures of targets after we are done. I’ll indicate who was a good shot in our group, and who is a bad shot in our group (I am probably well below average, but by no means the worst) and we can determine if there is a correlation between how good a shot someone is, and how centered their shots are. My point in asking for a cite wasn’t to try to claim that a bad shot is not going to hit their target as often as a good shot (which is obviously true, by definition), but to highlight that there’s no evidence that minimal marksmanship requirements in CCW permit applications have any practical, measurable, effect in actual shooting CCW encounters in the real world. They’re rare enough, and CCW permit holders are usually proficient enough, that it doesn’t seem to be a recurring problem. And the downside is that places like Chicago will use training requirements to make sure many people can’t get permits, for example by requiring range time while simultaneously banning gun ranges. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > It does seem as though in all of these cases, of “properly presenting a firearm” should require some level of training. Is this covered in CCW classes, or is this just something that people figure out on their own? I’ve sat through a variety of CCW classes here in Utah, and many of them use blue (fake) guns to get participants familiar with the mechanics of drawing, presenting, proper grip, aiming, etc without having to take the whole class to the range. The actual [legal requirements for the class](https://site.utah.gov/dps-criminal/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/09/MTC09192016.pdf) are to cover “the safe loading, unloading, storage, and carrying of the types of firearms to be concealed and current laws defining lawful self-defense, use of force by private citizens, including deadly force, transportation, and concealment.” (If you click on the link here, you can see the whole outline) > [@k9bfriender](#): > > And I, like Manson, have always heard to never carry a gun that you aren’t prepared to use, never pull a gun if you aren’t willing to fire it, and never shoot anything you aren’t willing to kill/destroy. I would append “able” as well to that. If you are just carrying around a gun that you are not proficient with, then you are at best not doing any good, and at middling, just donating a gun to any criminal who asks, and at worst, causing injuries or death of bystanders as you try to be the good guy with the gun. I’d agree with this advice, but I don’t think that a one-size-fits-all government-mandated shooting requirement for CCW permits is the solution. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Seriously, though, I am sure you know someone in your life that to whom you would be terrified to hand a loaded gun. If you think that this person could legally get and carry a gun in public with this sort of legislation, then even you can see why that’s a problem. I know lots of people like that. I also know people I’d be terrified to get in a vehicle with, even though they’ve passed the relevant government-mandated driving tests and have a valid license. I agree the competence in general is something we need more of, but I don’t think that government-mandated training does a good job of getting us more of it. Thankfully, most of the self-selecting group of people who choose to obtain CCW permits and travel across state lines with them are the sort of people that recognize the value of competence, and take steps to obtain such competence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/177 "2017-04-28T17:53:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Thankfully, most of the self-selecting group of people who choose to obtain CCW permits and travel across state lines with them are the sort of people that recognize the value of competence, and take steps to obtain such competence. And the evidence for this is…? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/178 "2017-04-28T18:10:16Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And the evidence for this is…? The comment was mostly based off my personal experience. I’m not particularly interested in trying to dig up evidence to defend it, so I’ll withdraw it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/179 "2017-04-28T18:21:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But some states require several hours of training and background checks before you get a CCW, and some states just require you to be able to sign your name. > > If they combined this bill with some level of minimal requirement to be eligible for reciprocity, that’d be fine, but just making a bill that allows for a race to the bottom in terms of qualifications of CCWs does not seem wise, IMHO. You still have to be able to carry a gun under federal law. So no prohibited persons. Or are you asking for a more constraining federal standard? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368/180 "2017-04-28T18:36:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My point in asking for a cite wasn’t to try to claim that a bad shot is not going to hit their target as often as a good shot (which is obviously true, by definition), but to highlight that there’s no evidence that minimal marksmanship requirements in CCW permit applications have any practical, measurable, effect in actual shooting CCW encounters in the real world. They’re rare enough, and CCW permit holders are usually proficient enough, that it doesn’t seem to be a recurring problem. And the downside is that places like Chicago will use training requirements to make sure many people can’t get permits, for example by requiring range time while simultaneously banning gun ranges. Two things in your statement. One, you said that such encounters are rare. This is true, but with a greater arming of society, I think that they will become more common. Two, you said that CCW holders are proficient, and this may be true, but we are talking about making CCW easier to get and more widespread, so I think the quality of a CCW holder will go down. > [@](#): > > I’ve sat through a variety of CCW classes here in Utah, and many of them use blue (fake) guns to get participants familiar with the mechanics of drawing, presenting, proper grip, aiming, etc without having to take the whole class to the range. The actual [legal requirements for the class](https://site.utah.gov/dps-criminal/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/09/MTC09192016.pdf) are to cover “the safe loading, unloading, storage, and carrying of the types of firearms to be concealed and current laws defining lawful self-defense, use of force by private citizens, including deadly force, transportation, and concealment.” (If you click on the link here, you can see the whole outline) I didn’t read the whole thing, but the contents. It appears as though Utah has a reasonably high requirement to get a CCW. High enough that many states, including Ohio, seem to recognize it. But, it does recognize the point that I feel I am trying to make with > [@](#): > > A. THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF FIREARM RELATED ACCIDENTS: > > 1. Ignorance > 2. Carelessness Where a CCW from Utah or other states that have a decent requirement for getting it try to reduce those factors. Opening up CCW to the lowest state’s requirements may cuase those tow primary causes to be more common. > [@](#): > > I’d agree with this advice, but I don’t think that a one-size-fits-all government-mandated shooting requirement for CCW permits is the solution. I disagree, though I don’t call it a one-size-fits-all, but a basic minimum. You have given me some reason to doubt that high marksmanship should be required, but I cannot help but feel that we’d be better off if people could at least hit the target. > [@](#): > > I know lots of people like that. I also know people I’d be terrified to get in a vehicle with, even though they’ve passed the relevant government-mandated driving tests and have a valid license. I agree the competence in general is something we need more of, but I don’t think that government-mandated training does a good job of getting us more of it. Thankfully, most of the self-selecting group of people who choose to obtain CCW permits and travel across state lines with them are the sort of people that recognize the value of competence, and take steps to obtain such competence. And this is my issue with expanding gun availability. I think most of the low hanging fruit has been taken with the CCW’ers. That most of the people who will use guns responsibly already are using them responsibly. Once getting a gun and a CCW is more trivial, then people will get guns just because it’s the thing to do. People like to follow trends, and if their friends have guns, they need to have a gun; if their friends are carrying their guns in public, they will need to carry their guns in public. By making guns and CCW’s more available, the quality of the gun carrier will be going down. As there are already incidents of accidental or intentional use of legally carried firearms in ways that endanger public safety, I cannot see how lowering the bar will not increase those incidents proportionally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-good-idea-or-not/785368.md?page=10)