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

[sprice37]

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.

Yes, but again bringing law into a conversation where you originally asked for opinions. I do not agree that we should have to have permits to carry a concealed firearm, at the same time I chose to get a permit rather then face numerous legal fees in the of chance I were to be searched and were to be carrying a firearm concealed.

 

[Partsproduction]

CHL's are an infringement against the constitution in my opinion, they are wrong and evil. We put up with them because we don't want to become felons by getting caught without "Permission", but according to the constitution we don't need permission, nor to own machine guns or suppressors or any of it.

It would be nice if the government were afraid of citizens instead of how it is now, we need to fight our way back to the fortress, back to the constitution!

 

[trainsktg]

You're on Big Sis' List, now.

Keith

 

[sprice37]

I have ben on the list.

 

[Doubletap]

Last time I checked, Ted Nugent isn't the law.

See ORS 166:250.

No..but he should be.. The simple answer is "The right of the people..to KEEP and BEAR arms..shall not be infringed" I submit that BEARING arms..ie: carrying..whether openly..or concealed..is absolutely a right..not a priviledge.... Or am I reading that wrong?

 

[Father of four]

No..but he should be.. The simple answer is "The right of the people..to KEEP and BEAR arms..shall not be infringed" I submit that BEARING arms..ie: carrying..whether openly..or concealed..is absolutely a right..not a priviledge.... Or am I reading that wrong?

No, you read it right.

 

[MrGray]

Any government that requires you to take a test to carry a weapon is oppressive.

Anyone who carries a weapon who does not bother to learn how to carry that weapon safely and use it effectively is an idiot.

 

[el gringo loco]

After reading the OP's framing of the question, I figured that this discussion wouldn't go to well. I've participated on this forum long enough to know how the responses would be framed and how this would turn into a discussion about an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, a view similar to what the Supreme Court recently described, or the loony-land view of the Brady Bunch. So, I will frame my response in a different way.

Setting aside the 2nd Amendment argument (we have plenty of those threads), I would support more requirements to get a CHL. I am not basing this on a belief that people with CHLs make us all look bad. I am basing this on the number of CHL holders that I have encountered (in my day to day life, on this forum, and have seen on the news) that lack the training/knowledge/skills/mindset to carry on a regular basis. Primarily, I am concerned about the potential civil and criminal liability that many CHL holders are unaware of. Yes, they should seek out this information, but many are totally unaware of their own deficiencies. You've got to be aware of the problem before you can fix it.

While a pistol qual or safe handling training would be nice, I think training in the laws and case law surrounding the use of deadly force would be of the greatest help.

 

[BearAspen]

If the 2nd ammendment said "You have a right to bear arms...... IF you take a govt approved course and we deem you a non threat..." none of us would own firearms.

Why don't we have an idiot test before letting people speak too. haha

There are checks in place. they are sufficient. "thugs" will get their guns regardless; why make it harder for the 99.99% of Americans whom are law abiding.

 

[nx302stang]

No..but he should be.. The simple answer is "The right of the people..to KEEP and BEAR arms..shall not be infringed" I submit that BEARING arms..ie: carrying..whether openly..or concealed..is absolutely a right..not a priviledge.... Or am I reading that wrong?

Everybody should just open carry, whenever, wherever.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I also think they should be required to take an actual firearm practical for gun handling, shooting, and safety, instead of .....

I think there should be stricter requirements for keyboards and an internet connection.
There are too many know-nothing know-it-alls who like to dictate their ideas in incomplete and incoherent sentences.

As far as stricter CHL laws, I dont believe they are necessary.
No amount of training or testing will weed out all negligence. It would just serve to further restrict peoples right to bear arms based on arbitrary and superfluous guidelines.

 

[eriknemily]

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.

I disagree. I got my boaters card a few years ago and can't remember any of the answers. I had two webpages open. One was the test and the other was Google. I'd look up the answer and enter it in. I can't even remember which buoy means what, who has the right of way or anything like that. So what good did the card do? It would make a person assume that I know more than I do.

 

[nx302stang]

After reading the OP's framing of the question, I figured that this discussion wouldn't go to well. I've participated on this forum long enough to know how the responses would be framed and how this would turn into a discussion about an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment, a view similar to what the Supreme Court recently described, or the loony-land view of the Brady Bunch. So, I will frame my response in a different way.

Setting aside the 2nd Amendment argument (we have plenty of those threads), I would support more requirements to get a CHL. I am not basing this on a belief that people with CHLs make us all look bad. I am basing this on the number of CHL holders that I have encountered (in my day to day life, on this forum, and have seen on the news) that lack the training/knowledge/skills/mindset to carry on a regular basis. Primarily, I am concerned about the potential civil and criminal liability that many CHL holders are unaware of. Yes, they should seek out this information, but many are totally unaware of their own deficiencies. You've got to be aware of the problem before you can fix it.

While a pistol qual or safe handling training would be nice, I think training in the laws and case law surrounding the use of deadly force would be of the greatest help.

Well said! That's what I'm trying to get across. But you're a lot better with words than I am. =)

 

[nx302stang]

I disagree. I got my boaters card a few years ago and can't remember any of the answers. I had two webpages open. One was the test and the other was Google. I'd look up the answer and enter it in. I can't even remember which buoy means what, who has the right of way or anything like that. So what good did the card do? It would make a person assume that I know more than I do.

So if you get stopped by a marine deputy for not giving the right of way to a stand on vessel like a yacht or big ship, you hand them your boater card and say, "I googled the answer to pass the test a few years ago, but I don't remember who has the right of way."

 

[eriknemily]

So if you get stopped by a marine deputy for not giving the right of way to a stand on vessel like a yacht or big ship, you hand them your boater card and say, "I googled the answer to pass the test a few years ago, but I don't remember who has the right of way."

I'm not proud of my ignorance but that would be the best I could do. Of course I've only operated a boat a handful of times on the Nehalem river. I figure I can't get into too much trouble by trolling or bobber fishing

 

[bradsteen]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this one initially, but... what the heck!
*NOTE: I'm a WA resident, so my post is framed in response to the question as it pertains to my region.*

Let's look at the context of your question:

1. Your title contains the substance of your question: "Should the government make more requirements in order to get a CHL?"

2. In the body of your post, the only additional comment you put in regarding qualifying your statement was: "What are your thoughts?"

3. The remaining content was your opinion on the topic: "I think they should. Too many..."

In my opinion, the idea of adding more restrictions to an already cumbersome process is a waste. In order to be licensed to carry in Washington State, you must:
+ Submit an application for a permit
+ Pay a fee
+ Get your background checked
+ Get your fingerprints taken
+ Wait for approval

In my opinion, having to be licensed in order to carry a concealed weapon is simply a means of discouraging citizens from being armed. Consequently, I think that going the way of Alaska and Arizona would be a step in the right direction. That being said, I am a law-abiding citizen, and follow the current state laws to the letter in regards to concealed carry. They aren't specifically repressive... yet (though I disagree with the idea of having to pay a fee in order to be able to carry)... but I would certainly disagree with them being any more strict than they already are.

In regards to public safety and firearms training, local police departments could always host firearms training courses that would be open to citizens, and simply charge a small fee (i.e. $20 per person) for that service, but mandating it via the federal government would be a mistake.

As far as post-incident fallout is concerned, don't we already hold people accountable for their actions? Applying the "reasonable person" standard, one can presume that if a concealed carry permit holder negligently uses a weapon (i.e. fires on an unarmed person without a credible threat being present, etc), and is convicted of having done so in a trial by jury, then the sentencing could be measured to equitably respond to that negligence. Isn't that what the judicial system is there for?

...That's my $0.02, for what it's worth.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

At our range, the Tacoma Rifle and Revolver club, a private institution of shooters, run by members, there is now a mandatory training session in the classroom and a live fire proficiency test required to demonstrate safe handling, loading, shooting and unloading before you can shoot on the pistol range.

Why do you suppose that has been instituted? Because everybody with a gun is safe and proficient by birth? ah, nope.

Rounds in the overhang, rounds burrowing canals in the ground in front of the sandbags. Rounds going over the berm onto people's houses.

Safety and knowledge does not come with a gun anymore than it does with a car. Both can have deadly unintended consequences when handled by the ignorant.

I am in favor of a basic knowledge of the law and safety qualification before turning people loose with guns. Not all of them have been as lucky as many of you to have parents, family, boy scouts, police academies, boot camp sergeants, and NRA instructors set 'em straight before they go forth into that good night.

The second amendment is an incomplete idea.
The original Constitution was intended to avoid having a standing army in peacetime as we have now. Instead, Pennsylvania's constitution and militia was the pattern the founding fathers used to provide for national defense when they granted the right to keep and bear arms. (Check out George Washington's views on a standing army for extra credit.)

That's why it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The preamble which many choose to ignore for whatever reason. Now you know the rest of the story.

But back on-topic, I am a firm believer that sane people should possess the means for all forms of self defense, including lethal force, provided we can demonstrate proficiency and that we have been advised of both the responsibilities and the law.

As my criminal law professor was fond of saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

 

[jonathon]

The only thing I like about Oregon's CHL is it has your picture on it and can be used for ID. Otherwise.. Washington's is much more superior. There is one standard of issuance, no BS for out of staters, and all the permits look the same.

The downside with WA is.. it's administered by DOL. The same idiots that mess up your drivers license are in charge of handgun registration(dealer sales ONLY) and WA CPLs.. it's awesome. Not only that but they are about a year behind on getting new CPL's in the state computers.

 

[Partsproduction]

That's why it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The preamble which many choose to ignore for whatever reason.

Because it's there to add understanding, it doesn't mean every American will be a member of a militia but that a militia, being necessary, cannot be called up suddenly if no one has any weapons.

 

[Father of four]

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me its simple understanding.

1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
2. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
3. shall not be infringed.

Sounds good to me!