Would you support something like this?

[Fitz]

Would you support an additional "tier" of CCW permits in your state, that had additional training requirements (such as more live fire, maybe some drills firing behind cover or firing at a perp with "bystander" targets nearby, etc) and some additional instruction on use of force?

The idea being that this higher tier came with it the ability to carry in previously prohibited areas. (Schools, universities, church, whatever areas prohibited by your state.)

I think i would. Does that make me a bad man?

[Tallpine]

No and no.

[AZRedhawk44]

Only if it granted parity with Secret Service, State Department officials, local Police and so on.  Courthouses, in the presence of POTUS, et cetera.

[Fitz]

I feel like our battle is fought in baby steps.

I forgot to add courthouses to my list. I don't think the potus thing would ever happen, given how tough it was to get a clearance do to that while i was in the Old Guard.

[zahc]

Yes, I would support that.

Because that is philosophically the same thing as a normal CCW permit. If I was opposed to the idea, I would be opposed to the idea of CCW permits outright (which I am, but I compromise on practical grounds).

A bit further down the spectrum, would be a situation of Vermont carry except for schools, courthouses, etc, with CCW permits removing those restrictions.

[cambeul41]

It is a reasonable question, but I believe the answer is "No."

The proposed law recently vetoed by governor Snyder of Michigan would have done just that.

If it had passed, I would have gone along with it. But I think the extra training that would have been required was was excessive and even unnecessary.

[cambeul41]

zahc  --

Do you mean "support" or "go along with"?

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, I would support that.

Because that is philosophically the same thing as a normal CCW permit. If I was opposed to the idea, I would be opposed to the idea of CCW permits outright (which I am, but I compromise on practical grounds).

A bit further down the spectrum, would be a situation of Vermont carry except for schools, courthouses, etc, with CCW permits removing those restrictions.

Spot on.

[SteveS]

Yes, I would support that.

Because that is philosophically the same thing as a normal CCW permit. If I was opposed to the idea, I would be opposed to the idea of CCW permits outright (which I am, but I compromise on practical grounds).

A bit further down the spectrum, would be a situation of Vermont carry except for schools, courthouses, etc, with CCW permits removing those restrictions.

Ditto. I will say that prior to the last rejection, Michigan had been loosening up their restrictions.

[AJ Dual]

Spot on.

This.

I wouldn't support it, but I would take advantage of it.

Some here are privately wishing for a second tier permit in WI, so those who want it, could get more reciprocity in other states.

[Tallpine]

I'm not saying that training is bad, but I don't see that the 2A says "the right of people who have been specially trained to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Basically, if our overlords are not taking special precautions to ensure our safety (a "secure facility" of which hardly any exist) then every human has a right to carry arms for protection anytime and everywhere.

I don't think that these special priviledges for special folk do anything to advance the cause of liberty, and actually may hinder it.

The beauty of legal CCW everywhere is not that the criminals and lone nuts will get taken down in gunfights by suberbly trained super-citizens, but that the possibility of an armed response from the average person will drastically reduce or eliminate the need for such gunfights.

[Fitz]

I'm not saying that training is bad, but I don't see that the 2A says "the right of people who have been specially trained to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Basically, if our overlords are not taking special precautions to ensure our safety (a "secure facility" of which hardly any exist) then every human has a right to carry arms for protection anytime and everywhere.

I don't think that these special priviledges for special folk do anything to advance the cause of liberty, and actually may hinder it.

The beauty of legal CCW everywhere is not that the criminals and lone nuts will get taken down in gunfights by suberbly trained super-citizens, but that the possibility of an armed response from the average person will drastically reduce or eliminate the need for such gunfights.

The additional training part would simply serve to make more palatable the removal of restrictions on CCW.

Your last line, my question is: wouldn't the "opening up" of previously CCW restricted areas further that 'beauty of CCW'?

[charby]

No, because in Iowa you pretty much only restricted by federal law were you can carry. Schools and Government buildings, everywhere else no problem unless its private property with a little no firearms sign and you can only get arrested for trespassing if you are not asked to leave.

[Fitz]

No, because in Iowa you pretty much only restricted by federal law were you can carry. Schools and Government buildings, everywhere else no problem unless its private property with a little no firearms sign and you can only get arrested for trespassing if you are not asked to leave.

I'm referring to states where restrictions are in place. Less restrictions on locations is better IMHO.

The 2A purist says "We should be able to carry anywhere!"

The reality is that we can't.

[just Warren]

If I owned a private city and people wanted to carry they could as long as they had insurance and could convince my insurance and security people of their competence.

With a tiered system I could see it as a method to encourage skilled gun-handlers to go through the effort. That is that the more sensitive the area the higher the individual's rating needs to be if he wants to carry there and there would be certain social benefits to the person for this.  There might well be a half-dozen tiers, each progressively harder to attain, and moving up to the next one brings additional rewards. Sort of like unlocking achievements in video games. 

This would weed out the un-serious and the incompetent and create a pool of X-Ring Men (and women) who I could absolutely trust to take care of threats without exposing me and or the company to massive lawsuits.


But in  a situation where so much is publicly owned and therefore the USC should apply I'm not in favor of such a plan. Turn it all (or most) of it into private property and we can talk.

[Jamisjockey]

Creeping incrementalism works both ways.  I'd support it as long as the goal was to continue making strides the other direction against gun control, and for unfettered constitutional carry.

[Ben]

I'm always conflicted on debates like this. On the one hand, were we in a Tabula Rasa world, I would always want to know that someone has proven some competency before carrying a firearm in public (or in their home for that matter I guess). Sort of like the great examples in the recent OR mall situation and during the Giffords incident. More than just knowing which way to point the barrel. At the very least an introductory defensive handgun course.

On the other hand, in our non-Tabula Rasa world, I always fear "requirements" because they too easily become a moving target and new baseline for new regulations and new requirements. Possibly requirements that would preclude someone with a handicap (not having the use of one hand for instance for weak hand shooting) if training requirements became too advanced.

Then on the third hand, we already have situations like in Arizona, where anyone can constitutionally carry most places, but if you want to carry in establishments serving alcohol for instance, you need the extra step of the AZ permit, which requires familiarity with firearms.

[griz]

Creeping incrementalism works both ways.  I'd support it as long as the goal was to continue making strides the other direction against gun control, and for unfettered constitutional carry.

Good point.  How about if the training or qualification was identical to what the local police get?  Then the canned talking point about the police being the only ones trained to use a gun would be out the window.

Also in the good direction of the slippery slope, if it was a step towards nationwide CCW I would be in favor.

[AZRedhawk44]

Then on the third hand, we already have situations like in Arizona, where anyone can constitutionally carry most places, but if you want to carry in establishments serving alcohol for instance, you need the extra step of the AZ permit, which requires familiarity with firearms.

Gigglesnort.

You haven't seen our CCW exam, I take it.

Target is 2-3 times as large as a "real" target, and you shoot it from ridiculously close, two handed, at slow pace.  It's been about 5 and a half years since I did it, but IIRC it was like 10 feet and 15 feet, against a target that is literally 3+ feet wide and 4+ feet tall.   I think it was 10 rounds each distance, and you can keep retrying until your poor belabored supervising instructor decides to give up on you as a hopeless case.



I dunno... if it'll tickle the anti's and give them more warm fuzzies about guns in skrewels, then maybe something that is SO DIFFICULT it's like an USPSA/IPSC B-class rating if you can pass it.  Time limits, target discrimination, moving targets, engaging from cover, mag changes, shooter movement.  require 30 hits (not shots... hits!) in 20 seconds, hitting a passive/victim target is auto-disqualification, and an accuracy rate of less than 80% is also auto-disqualification.  Make it something that most beat cops (and swatties) can't pass, then restrict police from carrying on campuses as well unless they can pass it too.

[Ben]

Good point.  How about if the training or qualification was identical to what the local police get? 

But again, what about the physically disabled who couldn't pass police equivalent training requirements? They are people who may need a firearm the most. Refer to Sam Colt.

[Ben]

Gigglesnort.

You haven't seen our CCW exam, I take it.

I have an AZ permit. Very minimal requirement, but a requirement nonetheless versus constitutional carry with no requirements. The point was that what Fitz is suggesting is already done in some places to some degree.

[charby]

But again, what about the physically disabled who couldn't pass police equivalent training requirements? They are people who may need a firearm the most. Refer to Sam Colt.

I was getting to reply with something like that.

[vaskidmark]

Creeping incrementalism works both ways.  I'd support it as long as the goal was to continue making strides the other direction against gun control, and for unfettered constitutional carry.

Which is why I would not suport a plan, and why I think you are a "bad man" (as opposed to a BG) for supporting it.

Call me an optimist if you must, but I have never seen incrementalism creep in favor of gun owners.  I have all the confidence in the world that this will be the start of higher restrictions and greater infringement.

Take, for example, someone like me.  I am "physically challenged" (Oh, hell!  I'm handicapped.) and more live fire, maybe some drills firing behind cover or firing at a perp with "bystander" targets nearby, etc. and some additional instruction on use of force is going to be a greater burden on me than on those of you without physical and mobility limitations.  I actually do train to be able to shoot safely and effectively from behind cover, with "bystander" targets not only nearby but being used as human shields/hostages.  In order to do that I need to find an instructor who understands physical and mobility limitations, is willing to work with a shooter so handicapped, and to have range accessability consistent with my handicaps.  For this I am willing to pay more than other students  but I do not for a minute believe that "The State" will set up ceretification for trainers such as I need at costs that the trainers would be willing to pay.

The point is that I have taken the personal responsibility to secure training that meets my limitations, just as most of the rest of APSers have (I'm guessing) secured training beyond the bare minimum required to meet state permission slip requirements. Even though we have done that, we get no passes regarding criminal or personal liability, no access to insurance coverage for belonging to a "highly trained" class, or anything else.  And just as the background check I was subjected to when I was applying for my CHP says nothing about what has happened in the intervening years, an "enhanced" CHP/CCW/CHL will offere no meaningful assurance that I am not now a prohibited person.

All I see is Fudds saying that they do not mind increasing infringement on everybody else so long as they can be excused from this infringement.  And then when the next infringement comes along (and we all know it will) most of us will be excused from it as long as we pay the increased cost of obtaining a dispensation.  And if a few folks do not make that cut, well, it was, after all, for the chillldrennnnnnnn.

Sure, it would be easier to go along to get along.  But I am not willing to do that, knowing full well what lays ahead.  Come back 10 years from now with proof that I was wrong and I will pay all the back taxes for dispensations.  But until then - no!

stay safe.

[Perd Hapley]

zahc's comments were quite accurate. The measure in the OP would be positive in the same way as CCW. Ideally, every government would recognize the RKBA, regardless of silly permission slips. But CCW is a compromise that moved us in the right direction, so that Constitutional carry is now respected in more states than just Vermont.

When CCW is expanded, even with additional training, carry becomes more acceptable in places previously off-limits. Fears about having guns in churches and schools will be shown to be groundless.

[Tallpine]

Just how good of a damn shot do you need to be to hit the violent nutcase who is trying to bust through your classroom door while your students are cowering in the corner