Poll: Should the government make more requirements in order to get a CHL?

[The Quiet Man]

Opinions are opinions. I highly doubt that my opinion would ever go in effect. But, this is what I believe in, and most people will disagree with it.

If you are mentally sound, and can use your weapon properly, you shouldn't worry about my opinion.

On the contrary. I worry that people with "opinions" like yours are walking around claiming to be pro-gun.

 

[trainsktg]

On the contrary. I worry that people with "opinions" like yours are walking around claiming to be pro-gun.

Oooooo. Good one .

Keith (OK, now I'm done .)

 

[pchewn]

From what I've seen of the OP's responses he would fail the psych test.

My opinion is split into several parts:

1) Ideally, there would be no license at all required for concealed carry. It violates both the Oregon Constitution and the US Constitution. (Note that some state's constitution specifically call out concealed carry as NOT being a right. Oregon and US constituion do not).

2) OK, given that ideal is not achievable yet and we DO have to jump through some hoops to get a CHL, I believe the MINIMUM requirement is what I would seek and it would look something like this:
A) Identify yourself to the authority using your driver's license. (NO FINGERPRINTING)
B) Sign statement that you are not a felon or guilty of domestic abuse (NO DRUG QUESTIONS)
C) Authority does background check. You clear item B -- you get the permit, which is a new Driver's license (or ID card) that has a concealed handgun endorsement. (So when you hand it to the cops during a traffic stop or other ID processs, they can see it).
D) NOTHING ELSE (No questions about why you want/need it, no "references", no "training".

3) Do not ADD to the problem by ADDING requirements like more training and definitely not any subjective tests like psych tests....

 

[nx302stang]

I am not sidestepping your question. I just forgot to answer it.

To answer your question. I keep referring to citing the laws because ultimately we have to follow them regardless.

Going back to the right to bear arms, yes that's a constitutional right and it is illegal to for the gov't to take that away from us.

Each state has their own laws regarding firearms. Is Oregon breaking the 2nd amendment by only granting non criminals, BG check or requiring a course to pass in order to get a CHL unconstitutional? I don't think so.

When it comes down to it, the law is the law.

 

[pchewn]

When it comes down to it, the law is the law.

Not when the supreme law of the land (US Constitution) is contradicted by another law.... then what?

Not when the state laws contradict the state constituion.... then what?

Not when courts, juries, and police officers can interpret the law, ignore the law, or selectively enforce the law.... then what?

If "the law is the law" and it was as simple as that -- we wouldn't need lawyers.

 

[sprice37]

I am not sidestepping your question. I just forgot to answer it.

To answer your question. I keep referring to citing the laws because ultimately we have to follow them regardless.

Incorrect, we do not have to follow the laws, we do that by choice. Look at the criminals that carry without a permit everyday and commit crimes. They do not ask to cary a firearm, nor do they take courses in how to safely use a firearm, they just do.

 

[nx302stang]

I was robbed with a brandished knife about 20 years ago. I opted to let the lice-infested thug take the $200 as opposed to shoot him with my concealed .38 (if for no other reason than court costs would have been more expensive ). I know when I should and shouldn't shoot someone, and I think most CHL are just as respectful of the awsome responsibility they bear if they choose to carry a weapon.

Quoted from your original post..."Too many gun totting idiots ruin this priviledge for us. They think they are hard core just because the gov't gave them permission to carry a gun"...I get the feeling you think that most CHL holders are a bunch of Wild West cowboys eager to kill someone. Yes there have been a few prominently displayed goofballs in the press from time to time, but by and large I wish the general population had the same non-existant crime record that CHL holders can claim. Psychos generally don't have criminal histories, so psychological testing in this case is invasive, redundant, and most importantly, subjective.

Some questions if I may...?

Why do you feel this way about CHL holders?

Why do you feel you are better able or trained to carry a firearm (assuming you do) than someone else?

How do you describe your relationship with your father?

Please, lie down over here on this comfortable couch and tell us all about it.

Keith (OK, I'm done. I'm having way too much fun for the middle of the workday )

Actually, I am a CHL holder. Have been for many years. Reading/watching the news sometime makes me cringe on the negative things that other CHL holders do.

I never said I am better trained in firearms than anybody here. If they were to require practical gun handling/shooting classes in order to get a CHL, I'm all for it. More training is better than none. In the long run, the training will come once the real thing happens and I am can protect myself and my family.

My father and I have a great relationship. We actually go shooting quite a bit together. =) he got me into guns when I was only 6 years old.

 

[sprice37]

IMHO, getting a CHL is a privilege, owning a firearm is a right.

Basically what it boils down to, I think people need to be somewhat sane to be able to carry a firearm or own one legally. They should also know how to shoot, and use a firearm safely.

Just my thought.

Can you please define "SANE"

 

[nx302stang]

From what I've seen of the OP's responses he would fail the psych test.

My opinion is split into several parts:

1) Ideally, there would be no license at all required for concealed carry. It violates both the Oregon Constitution and the US Constitution. (Note that some state's constitution specifically call out concealed carry as NOT being a right. Oregon and US constituion do not).

2) OK, given that ideal is not achievable yet and we DO have to jump through some hoops to get a CHL, I believe the MINIMUM requirement is what I would seek and it would look something like this:
A) Identify yourself to the authority using your driver's license. (NO FINGERPRINTING)
B) Sign statement that you are not a felon or guilty of domestic abuse (NO DRUG QUESTIONS)
C) Authority does background check. You clear item B -- you get the permit, which is a new Driver's license (or ID card) that has a concealed handgun endorsement. (So when you hand it to the cops during a traffic stop or other ID processs, they can see it).
D) NOTHING ELSE (No questions about why you want/need it, no "references", no "training".

3) Do not ADD to the problem by ADDING requirements like more training and definitely not any subjective tests like psych tests....

Keyword is, 'ideally.' If you got stopped by LEO and he had PC to frisk you for weapons and finds a loaded handgun on your person w/o a CHL, that would be an instant arrest.

Pchewn, are you a psych evaluator? How would you know that I would fail a psych eval?

 

[sprice37]

Keyword is, 'ideally.' If you got stopped by LEO and he had PC to frisk you for weapons and finds a loaded handgun on your person w/o a CHL, that would be an instant arrest.

And would have been a choice made by the arrested party.

 

[keystir]

1.) Psych eval: No way (We're all crazy in our own way, so this would be worthless.

2.) Practical shooting qualification: Absolutely! Only for a CHL though. There should be no restriction on purchasing or owning other than felony convictions. But I would feel much more comfortable knowing that a CHL holder is trained/qualified to first make an appropriate judgement call on using is CCW, and 2nd that he is able to hit his/her intended target and not myself or my family.

 

[nx302stang]

Please not that I forgot to add a couple things on the poll.

A. No
B. Yes, to both.
C. Yes, to both, and pass both now!
D. Yes, only the psych eval
E. Yes, only the training/practical

I am posting from my iPhone since my laptop is down. I can't exactly reply and read everyones thoughts on this matter.

 

[trainsktg]

Actually, I am a CHL holder. Have been for many years. Reading/watching the news sometime makes me cringe on the negative things that other CHL holders do.

Such incidences are fortunately few and far in between, and are universally condemned by the folks here on NWFirearms when the topic is brought up. I think your recommendation of psychological evaluation and additional training is a solution looking for a problem.

My father and I have a great relationship. We actually go shooting quite a bit together. =) he got me into guns when I was only 6 years old.

Actually I was just playing around with that question, but I appreciate your good humor about it. Unfortunately I haven't been so lucky yet with passing on my interest in firearms to my own children.

I am posting from my iPhone since my laptop is down. I can't exactly reply and read everyones thoughts on this matter.

Such is the nature of the topic you chose .

Keith

 

[nx302stang]

And would have been a choice made by the arrested party.

Does that mean that the LEO is violating that person's 2nd ammendment rights by arresting that person for breaking ORS 166:250? Let's say the arrested party has a clean criminal BG, not even a citation for any violations.

An example of a local law, going against the Constitutional law.

Laws are here to protect us from others and ourselves. Whether it's in our favor or not.

 

[pchewn]

Please not that I forgot to add a couple things on the poll.

A. No
B. Yes, to both.
C. Yes, to both, and pass both now!
D. Yes, only the psych eval
E. Yes, only the training/practical

I am posting from my iPhone since my laptop is down. I can't exactly reply and read everyones thoughts on this matter.

F. No, and there should be fewer requirements than now.
G. No, and there should not even BE a CHL -- it should be automatically allowed.

A is the status-quo. B,C,D,E add new hoops to jump through. F is a relaxation of the status quo. G is like Vermont/Arizona/Alaska

I vote for G.
I am OK with F, because it is one step closer to G.
I follow A because we haven't gone to F or G yet.

I am totally against B, C, D, and E

 

[Father of four]

Actually, I am a CHL holder. Have been for many years. Reading/watching the news sometime makes me cringe on the negative things that other CHL holders do.

I never said I am better trained in firearms than anybody here. If they were to require practical gun handling/shooting classes in order to get a CHL, I'm all for it. More training is better than none. In the long run, the training will come once the real thing happens and I am can protect myself and my family.

My father and I have a great relationship. We actually go shooting quite a bit together. =) he got me into guns when I was only 6 years old.

That statement of your reminds me of a past employment position I had at a Yacht Club. I needed to get my Boaters Card in order to legally operate any of the Yacht Clubs boats. There had been a law past recently that required people to get a Boaters Card here in Oregon. Some people have owned and operated boats for years but still had to go to school to pass the new regulation (Get the Boaters Card). Now some people had more the 30+ years in Oregon operating boats and have had NO ACCIDENTS. But had to go to class, pay a fee and get the card anyways.
I got my Boaters Card within 3 hours on an online class. That my friend is pretty stupid to me and once again shows that the Gov will stick their nose where it does not belong if we keep letting them.
Those people who have operated boats for years were made to do something just to keep what they had been doing for years. Why did we let them do that? Why do the People of the United States even contemplate letting the Gov come up with any more rules and regulations? Do people just have the need to be controlled?
I am not trying to preach..But please read this example. There is a story in the Bible where God leads his people out of Egypt and are now free. But they Pleaded to God, "We need a king!" They pleaded and pleaded with God for a king. So God said ok, you Dummies! Then once again they became under bondage by being ruled by a king. I guess some people just need to be sheep.
I say we have WAY TO MANY rules and regulations at this moment. NO ONE KNOWS ALL OF THEM RIGHT NOW! Its just crazy to me what we let the people who work for us do to us! Insane!

 

[nx302stang]

That statement of your reminds me of a past employment position I had at a Yacht Club. I needed to get my Boaters Card in order to legally operate any of the Yacht Clubs boats. There had been a law past recently that required people to get a Boaters Card here in Oregon. Some people have owned and operated boats for years but still had to go to school to pass the new regulation (Get the Boaters Card). Now some people had more the 30+ years in Oregon operating boats and have had NO ACCIDENTS. But had to go to class, pay a fee and get the card anyways.
I got my Boaters Card within 3 hours on an online class. That my friend is pretty stupid to me and once again shows that the Gov will stick their nose where it does not belong if we keep letting them.
Those people who have operated boats for years were made to do something just to keep what they had been doing for years. Why did we let them do that? Why do the People of the United States even contemplate letting the Gov come up with any more rules and regulations? Do people just have the need to be controlled?
I am not trying to preach..But please read this example. There is a story in the Bible where God leads his people out of Egypt and are now free. But they Pleaded to God, "We need a king!" They pleaded and pleaded with God for a king. So God said ok, you Dummies! Then once again they became under bondage by being ruled by a king. I guess some people just need to be sheep.
I say we have WAY TO MANY rules and regulations at this moment. NO ONE KNOWS ALL OF THEM RIGHT NOW! Its just crazy to me what we let the people who work for us do to us! Insane!

I am also a boater. I agree, getting the boater education card was a pain. But, it makes people that do not know the rules of the 'road' more aware about maritime laws.

To get a motorcycle endorsement, you now need to take the team Oregon riding course. It was designed to make people learn how to ride. For everyones safety. In a few years, it will be a requirement to take the class to get the endorsement.

Off road motorcycles and atv's, you now need to take an online course to be able to ride legally.

Same as CDL drivers and regular DL's. You need to show that you know what you're doing before they give you a license to drive a 80,000 pound bullet driving down the road.

CHL holders should be able to show that they are familiar with their firearms.

Know how to used the use of force continuum, knowing their backstop, when they are legally justified to pull their guns out. Basically, cardinal rules of firearms safety.

 

[Kimber Custom]

I don't like to wave the 2A banner very often but Boating, Driving, ATV's and motorcycles are not covered by the constitution. I can also argue that those licenses are taxes in disguise.

I'm all for making people responsible for every round that leaves their gun.

I would also point out that a sych test is based on sociatal norms. How much of todays sociaty believes that gun ownership/use is normal?

 

[Bad Droid]

When it comes down to it, the law is the law.

And how about if tomorrow the Law decided to make it illegal for you to carry no matter what your training or ability is. Would you:

1) Still think the "law is the law"

2) Would you come to the conclusion that some elitist somewhere needed to be removed from power, beaten, and then tried for treason?

3) Or would you you just wear a more concealable firearm?

 

[nx302stang]

I don't like to wave the 2A banner very often but Boating, Driving, ATV's and motorcycles are not covered by the constitution. I can also argue that those licenses are taxes in disguise.

I'm all for making people responsible for every round that leaves their gun.

I would also point out that a sych test is based on sociatal norms. How much of todays sociaty believes that gun ownership/use is normal?

CHL fees are also taxes in disguise.