Back when I was living in Ohio, there was no legal concealed carry for civilians. There was open carry and affirmative defense. AD meant a cop and a judge had a legal out for dismissing a case. Case in point: I had a roommate who had a job refilling ATMs. He had to carry large sums of cash. He had to go through the hoops to get bonded and carried a S&W 410 holstered on his belt. He carried it that way when he was driving. And he had a work uniform.
In Wisconsin one can carry concealed on/in ones own property or business location without a CCL.
You can also openly carry almost anywhere including (contrary to popular belief but confirmed by the AG’s office) in your vehicle. And there are laws in place to prevent police from harassing open carriers.
One can walk down the street openly carrying a firearm without any need of a license. But if they cover it up all of a sudden they need a license or it’s a Class A misdemeanor (9 months, 10K fine). That’s absurd. What changes when the weapon is covered? Nothing.
The license is only $8 a year so the state isn’t making much on it. And it’s a “shall issue” state.
I worked with my legislators to get civilian CCW in this state but a lot of the good stuff like constitutional carry didn’t get through.
The governor said he wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t include training. But the required training is ridiculous. They’ll accept hunter safety courses. My friend sent in his firearm training from when he was in the Army and they accepted it. He served during the Korean Conflict!:rolleyes:
No training is required to carry concealed in/on ones own property or to open carry in public, so why on Earth should training be required to carry concealed in public?
The entire thing is a farce and requiring a license to exercise a constitutionally protected right (both U.S. & State Constitutions protect it) is a spit in the face to the populace!:mad:
The antis eroded our rights with incrementalism, I suppose we should use the same tactic to get them back. We just got switchblades and permitless knife carry legalized. After some time when people realize it’s no big deal perhaps we can build on that to get constitutional carry of firearms as well.
Why do you think those examples are inadequate?
What drastic changes do you think have come to gun safety since the Korean War?
Hunter safety does not teach defensive handgun shooting, self defense laws, or even focus on handgun use.
The same could be said for my friends army training which he received **more than 60 years ago. **
keep in mind I oppose the training standard to begin with, especially when the training accepted is completely irrelevant to carrying a handgun for defense uses, when ancient training is acceptable, and when the training is not necessary for other carry scenarios.
Did you read my entire post? The license standard in my state is ridiculous and should be eliminated!
Yes, I read your entire post, that’s why I’m asking questions about it.
Define “gun safety”. Is it the basics of “don’t point at anything you don’t want to put a hole through” or is it something more detailed. Because if it’s the former, then hunter safety courses and “ancient training” should suffice and the people who wrote your current laws might have thought along those lines. Presumably, you think it should be the latter but I was seeking clarification of your thoughts rather than simply making assumptions.
I disagree with your view of a driver’s licensing law. The last time the state tested me for competence in driving a car was when I was 16 years old. And during that test, I blew through the only stop sign on the entire course.
Drivers licenses are not about ensuring that only safe drivers are on the road. My grandmother had a valid drivers license until the day she died, but never drove because the last time that she did in 1972, she hit a parked car. Drivers licenses are only there because we want a national or citizens identification card which would never be allowed in the United States if we actually called them that.
“What’s the point of a driver’s license or a law license? If people want to drive and practice law, they will do it anyway. If they are criminals, they won’t be deterred by a license requirement. In fact it seems to create an advantage to a criminal because it ensures that fewer of their victims can drive or practice law”
Did you have some point you wished to make with this?
Last time I took the NRA safety class the instructor used my Ruger Security 6 and Sauer 38H as hands on examples [I was sitting next to him, no big deal.] He went through the various points of both revolver and semi-automatic hand gun - naming the parts and explaining what they did, then how to safely load and unload, then the whole don’t point, obey the rangemaster and whatnot that is in every class. Then because the class was so small, he went to each of us to handle whatever we were going to use on the range to make sure we could load and unload safely, identify the parts and so forth, then the last part of the class we had range time. We also discussed the different calibers and types of ammunition and various rather random questions any group of people seem to have. I have done several safety classes for hand gun, starting back in the 80s when I qualified and worked as an armed guard [for that one I actually had classes in tonfa and night stick, and how to safely search and cuff mainly because it was available, we were getting training from the Va Beach police department. We were not actually to subdue and hold criminals, but if they attacked us we could then respond by defending and subduing at need.] I know the Navy for 20 years ran mrAru through annual range qualifications for both hand gun and rifle [machinists mates are considered combatants at need]
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a background check, training class and a reasonable fee for a CCW or even open carry permit, which oddly enough I have done. What I do wish they would add is a required amount of range time, and a periodic recheck of range skills …
The point has been made. Its a copy of the OP’s argument in post #1. It should be obvious that whatever arguments one makes against what I posted works against the argument the OP posted about not needing to have permits for CCW.
Well, we do want to keep guns out of the hands of some people who are not convicted felons, like those judged insane.
Some of you aren’t absorbing what I posted.
In my state you:
*Do not need training to keep a firearm in your home or business
*Do not need training to carry concealed on/in ones own home or place of business
*Do not need training to openly carry in public.
Carry a pistol on your hip openly, walking down the street, you do not need any training. Cover said pistol up with your jacket or sweater and suddenly you do.
Why is that logical?
Please explain what changes when you cover it up that training is needed. Please show me how the dynamic changes by just the simple act of concealing in public. And how is concealing on a public street in front of ones own business more demanding of training than walking into ones business concealing and not needing training?
The answer is it doesn’t change and the standard is absurd.
Show me significant data that says states with constitutional carry or no training mandate for their permit/license have more problems that would be solved by mandated training than states that already have required training.
The problem that permits and such are supposed to solve is the problem of being unable to discourage generally law-abiding people from being armed and finding ways to make it possible to punish them for arming themselves in violation of idiotic regulations.
If they’re illegally carrying, it’s not a pretext search. As gun owners are always telling us, only law abiding citizens would be deterred by a licensing requirement.
Speaking as a non-American, one reason that I would support a licence for concealed carry but none for open carry is that it gives me information I can use to inform my reaction to someone. If a person is open carrying then I am aware of that. I can use what I know about that person and their current behavior to inform how I respond to them. Will their actions cause me to vacate the area, tread lightly, approach them, etc. When they are carrying concealed I lose the ability to make these determinations myself. A concealed carry permit gives me the knowledge that the person carrying has gone through a process to confirm his ability to carry safely (whether the process succeeds in confirming this ability or not is another issue).
As a thought experiment that could be interesting, but in reality if someone is carrying concealed you won’t know, and no one is going to show you their permit unless you are LEO and they are required to.
Your mistake is assuming the purpose of CCW is to deter someone who is determined to use a gun in a criminal capacity, in a premeditated way. I think it’s meant to deter people in general from being armed unnecessarily.
Most people aren’t so bold enough to open carry, because it draws attention that is distracting and often negative. The alternative then in concealed. If people have to jump through hoops to do that legally, that means a big chunk of them will choose to go unarmed.
Why would the government pursue that goal? Because accidents happen. People are stupid. Remember the mother whose kid shot themselves because she had a loaded pistol in her purse? It’s people like that CCW is designed to protect the public from.
I personally wouldn’t be a candidate for concealed carry because I become absent-minded when stressed and I’m clumsy as shit. I also have a bit of an invisibility complex. It is in the public’s interest to make it inconvenient for people like me to carry weapons. Has nothing to do with criminals.
Then people like you, in a spirit of civic virtue, should eschew the carry of weapons. Your personal failings are no reason to encumber others.
And yet those people are often unaware of their own faults.
Much the same as most people consider themselves above average drivers.
Sadly, not everyone who is like me is as honest about their limitations. That alone is a perfectly valid reason to “encumber others”.
See also flying a plane, performing anesthesia, or selling food to the public.