My CCW course in Florida concentrated on the legal aspects of carrying (when not to) and shooting (when not to), plus the concept of conflict avoidance, along with a single shot fired from a .22 pistol at a stationary target some distance away (it was a few years ago…). I don’t consider it but a legal requirement to request a state license, not a preparation to carry. I’ve done the latter on my own.
4 Likes
I am saying education of doing things legally, not shooting through a door when you are scared because you are not expecting anyone. I am a true supporter of the second amendment, it would be nice that the person sitting at the next table knows what they are doing with that gun, not just carrying it to look bad.
4 Likes
It seems hard, then, to agree with Mr. Sapp’s suggestion that a CCW should have stronger requirements attached to it by the government. A CCW is of dubious constitutional permissibility in any event, since it is immediately an infringement and a user tax on a person’s declared right to bear arms. It seems enough to state that firearms owners, and carriers most of all, should want to be well trained and otherwise responsible. That can’t be rightly blurred into the notion that the government should therefore add requirements that force this to happen, of course always in keeping with whatever the government’s agenda might also be. I’ve heard similar arguments that parents are, overall, too irresponsible, and that the government should issue permits for having children. It all feeds the same end, that a wise government should more restrictively control all the stupid, misguided, irresponsible citizens, because, en fin, the people are incapable to govern themselves and make decisions for themselves. Citizen decisions are often not the best. Government decisions for all the people are almost never the best. Better to stay with the former, despite the flaws.
2 Likes
If I was issuing permits and had to decide if I should accept a DD214 as an alternative to the training in the 0-16 hour class a state requires, hands down the DD214 wins. I understand there are differences, but the main focus is generally on safety and law. It is safe to say the military spends much more time on training than any CCL class will ever cover. As far as laws go, I think it is fair to say the vast majority of those taking the classes glaze over as the law section is covered. And they only cover the law of the state for that class and most people travel somewhere. I’m a lawyer and it’s hard for me to keep up with other states I visit.
And then, even if you read the law, do you understand it? Even police don’t understand half the laws they are sworn to enforce.
5 Likes
While I’m not a lawyer, but I do my best to study law BUT , most lawyers in their state of practice.
Regardless, thank you, sir, for doing such a wonderful job here trying to litigate and better educate people especially myself.
Blessings,
4 Likes
Exactly. And understand the other response… a right doesn’t give you any know-how. But it’s also you’re right to be stupid and carry without knowledge or protection if you so choose.
5 Likes
Very true. sir!
Welcome back!
3 Likes
Michigan CPLs absolutely count as an infringement. We are way up there in highest costs of living and we have the 4th highest cost to become a licensed concealed carrier.
Classes range from $100-$175, the cost of a new CPL is $115. $15 of that is finger printing. Renewing is $115 and they don’t do your finger prints again. This doesn’t take in to account the ammunition, firearms and travel expenses. Most instructors in Michigan are now offering rental handguns because so many people are trying to get their license to carry before getting a handgun so that they can legally carry a taser or spend time hunting down what firearm they want.
On average it’s close to $500 to get your CPL here. Please tell me how that’s not deliberately attempting to keep low income people from getting their CPL.
That being said, I’ve been noticing a trend among LEOs to become certified CPL instructors, and they are charging bare minimum, as in they are charging only what it costs them in materials, and some are offering their personal handguns as training tools to those who can’t afford their own up front free of charge.
When LEOs are doing this to help more people get legally armed you KNOW there’s a problem with the way it’s run. The 3 states that charge more are may issue states too, not shall issue. Legislators are using cost as a barrier to entry to keep people in poverty from legally carrying.
6 Likes
JamesR that was an excellent response and exactly what I wanted to say. I am not a vet, thank you for your service, but your reference to 1A was what I thought about. Everyone has an opinion that is their reality. Civil discourse is how our great country was founded. Let it continue to form us as we evolve to be ever greater in freedom.
4 Likes
^^^ bingo!
Not just the LEOs - I do that also. So does my coach.
yep, I agree.
4 Likes
Carefull there Sidecarr, I’m thinkin there may be derailment ahead for your opinion. Many Pro-gunners among us Retired Military do not stand for UNLIMITED rights, for anyone!
1 Like
Nothing to be careful about . I served my country to preserve our rights. My oath to defend the Constitution didn’t have a expiration date. Right now I’m at Ft Jackson for my sons graduation from basic training . Our founders fought and died for those rights, just because someone’s ex military and betrays their oath by getting the government to control our rights , doesnt mean their right.
4 Likes
@Reece do you mean unlimited 2nd Amendment rights or unlimited rights overall? (just attempting to understand your statement).
If just 2nd Amendment: what restrictions are you comfortable being placed on them?
If overall I guess I would agree that we have laws (and should) that restrict an individual from infringing on the rights of others along with life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.
3 Likes
Reece maybe you need a civics class to learn what a right is .
3 Likes
Also you need to learn about April 15, 1775.
3 Likes
Wisconsin was like $40 and had to take a picture of my hunter safety card from when I was a kid and send that along. All was done online through their website.
3 Likes
Imagine if we applied all of that (licenses, courses etc) to voting…or before we were able to post online or any other public forum…would they still make sense then?..
5 Likes
JamesR exactly
3 Likes
So why do we accept infringements ? I’m all for constitutional carry. If someone carries without training let them. After all, the “gang bangers” aren’t getting a whole lot of training yet they are carrying. In fact, some of these idiots are carrying in places we law abiding citizens can’t carry.
I better get off my soap box before I offend someone.
Happy Thanks Giving!
5 Likes
No offense taken, @Frederick3.
We don’t have a license for the First, but if we use it wrong we can get in legal trouble. The same should apply to the Second.
Don’t get me wrong, I 100% believe in training and think everyone should get trained and know the laws… otherwise we could cause serious damage when we’re trying to protect ourselves and no one wants to do that.
8 Likes