As a veteran, in Fl you don’t need to even test. Just go to tax office (check first, as only certain ones have office for CCP), take your DD Form 214, ID and they will fingerprint you, take picture and sit you down at a computor and fill out application. They have fast process for veterans. A month or so and they mail you permit. Same for out of state veterans! My wife had to go take class and shoot one bull it-I took it also (didn’t need too). She took her class certificate in to same tax office in Tampa and applied and was sent her permit. Very easy as you can get photo, prints, and fill out app in less than 30 minutes. You can also call for reservation, but both times I was there, there was no wait.
Thanks Jimmy! I was aware that I could skip the class, I took the class as a refresher on Florida law vs other states.
You’re right, @Garry110, carrying a gun 100% does come with a lot of responsibility. However, it is a right and not a privilege. I want people to train - a lot! But a government regulated class doesn’t mean someone is trained to carry a gun.
The doctor example is an apples to oranges comparison. No one has the right to cut into me. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
Exactly. Well said.
My post was not “Legally Armed” it was “Responsibly Armed”. Referencing an article in a USCCA. The written test in ND is open book, and it is designed to cover when you can pull the trigger in self defense. Are you not an instructor to help people shoot safety and be Responsible?
On a purely hypothetical note, had motor vehicles existed in the 1700’s, would the Founders have considered including verbiage about them?
I agree that a person who is carrying a concealed weapon should absolutely seek training for the use of that weapon, but I also believe that firearms are a right, and we should not have to jump through hoops to get the government’s permission to obtain one, or use it to protect ourselves.
It’s certainly a conversation worth having.
I don’t like to use hypothetical thinking when it comes to matters of the Constitution. To do so allows justification for those that want to justify their own “interpretation” of the greatest document ever written, specifically for their own agenda. Obviously, this has become reality.
The framers demanded a limited government, but they also new that law and order would bring “limited government” to reality. Study the writings of Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. Then look up John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu, enlightenment writers who we very influential to those that wrote the Federalist Papers and ultimately the Constitution. Our framers were scholars, who needed and wanted peer reviewed writings to support the Constitution.
To understand the Constitution fully is to understand the framers who took part in writing it. You will quickly realize why and how ‘law and order for all’ supports limited government.
Therefore, having used supported facts above, no…our framers would have never included motor vehicles as a Constitutional right. Put simply, driving vehicles has nothing to do with self defense, nor does it have anything to do with:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I don’t interpret (legislation burdens the Judicial Branch with this task), rationalize, justify, or use hypothetical analysis on the Constitution. I defend it.
It’s actually scary isn’t it. I to live in and have my ccw in Florida. 2 out of the 11 people in my class had to borrow a gun for the shooting portion and 3 failed because they had no idea how to handle a firearm. They need stronger classes and much more emphasis on the shooting portion to prove you can handle a firearm proficiently before just handing these ccw class certificates out.
Really should not matter any way. The way the Second Amendment reads , a permit, or license is not necessary at all.
Here, here…
And welcome to the community @Michael277!
When I took the N.C.ccw class back late 90’s.The class was three 3hr,sessions of class work,and forty rounds .with a human size target at 7 yards.Paperwork was harder
I think a test is in order to see if you learned anything and paid attention to what you was learning.
My class was 8 hours. We spent 4 hours in the classroom for instruction. My class was an experienced group of shooters & hunters who decided to get their CCP (except 1 guy). The last 4 hours were spent on the range. After heading back inside to take the written exam, the instructor opened his truck up & allowed us to shoot several of his rifles. We even put up some targets & had 1-on-1 shooting competitions. We took a picture as his latest class to graduate, exchanged contact info, & left. He gave us USCCA material & that’s why I’m a member today. I left home at sun-up & got home at sundown.
My wife says “I guess you guys had fun huh?”
@Michael277 Welcome to the community! Our forefathers expected self-reliance and self-responsibility in the citizenry. Now everyone clamors for the nanny-state. Government can fix everything with enough money thrown at it. Times have changed.
After reading many of these responses I see how easy it is to slide down the slippery slope even for reasonable people. If we are traditionalists, based on the constitution, what was a responsibly armed person after the framers ratified the Constitution? People that could afford a weapon got a weapon and were expected to use it responsibly. They didn’t have to go to the local authorities and get permission to get a weapon. We the people allowed our government to develop the restrictions we see in so many states.
To me constitutional carry should be the law of the land. CCW, LTC or what ever it is called in the state you come from should be honored all across the country just like a drivers license. And responsibly armed would be taking responsibility for what happens if you use or misuse your weapon.
Yes we should train ourselves to be responsible but that isn’t my neighbors duty to develop standards it is mine. And my amount of training could be used to mitigate both legal or civil actions taken against me for using my right to carry. Therefore I should be responsible to get the training I need just like I would for any tool I might use that may or may not injure someone.
To give an example, when I got out of the military my home state used to “require” a hunter safety course before you could get a hunting license, unless you were a military veteran. I would suppose being trained on a 1911, a M-14, a M-16 and M-79 grenade launcher, a M-72 law, a M-60 machine gun, a M-2 50 cal machine gun and a 155mm cannon qualified as training on weapons? Should I need more training to get a CCW?
Just another side or opinion.
Exactly. Nobody should be required to get training to carry. And you are correct, we allowed and gave power to the government we see today. Too much reliance on legislation over the years. We’ve trusted the government way too much.
I have NEVER trusted the government. They proved to me at a young age they were not to be trusted
THIS!! One must remember that any license or permit means you had to get permission from government. American Citizens should never have to buy their Constitutionally protected, God given rights back from the government. This is the essence of tyranny.
That’s awesome @DLVick38! Who was your instructor? (I’d love to make sure he’s on the Community and sees your comment!