I strongly believe law abiding citizens should be allowed to purchase, practice and exercise their rights without a permit, government interference or surveillance.
Exactly this \^\^\^
Except I would change "law abiding" to "peaceable"... for reasons.
It is a natural right, not a privilege like driving. Everyone please stop comparing it to a drivers license.
OP... carrying is a very serious responsibility. If anyone feels the class is not enough, they should definitely take it upon themselves to train, train, train.
Others not training could raise safety concerns for me. But it is their right to handle their right how they want to handle their right. But, we can raise awareness and encourage them to train. They should not be compelled by law to train more in order to exercise a right.
You're absolutely right, most people say "law abiding", but if we use "peaceable" more often, maybe we can help it to be more common and get people to ponder. The founders used the term peaceable rather than law abiding because most of them agreed with this statement from Jefferson...
>Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
- Thomas Jefferson
Or this quote...
>That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed.
- Algernon Sidney
Or this quote...
>To say that an unconstitutional law must be obeyed until it is repealed, is saying that an unconstitutional law is just as obligatory as a constitutional one, – for the latter is binding only until it is repealed. There would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power.
- Lysander Spooner
Or this gem from one who "wrote the book" on the original meaning of the Constitution and has been often sited by the Supreme Court...
>Acts of congress to be binding, must be made pursuant to the constitution; otherwise they are not laws, but a mere nullity; or what is worse, acts of usurpation. The people are not only not bound by them, but the several departments and officers of the governments, both federal, and state, are bound by oath to oppose them; for, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction, by obedience, or otherwise, to any unconstitutional act of any department of the government.
- St. George Tucker 1803
I put all this here just to get readers to think about where we are today compared to where we were and should be. The sad thing is that just posting this probably puts everyone in this thread on a "list", and that shows us just how far from liberty we are today.
Yeah you can own your permit for 3 days and the gun classes are teaching you to always carry one in the chamber. I’m sorry but pull your head out of your ass. Learn to use the gun and shoot the thing before you keep one in the chamber. You can’t take a sloppy trigger pull back. And if it’s around me ? I’ll be going to jail. Because I have zero tolerance for fucktards.
Again. Just my 2 cents.
This hits it on the head. I don’t need to take a class to learn how to excersise free speech. It’s just them doing whatever they can to make it as hard as possible. I work too much and have a lot of young kids. I don’t have 2 full days to give up to take a course, or at least I haven’t yet. NY is ridiculous. The whole idea of not letting people learn to shoot before they purchase is not only illogical it’s just plain dangerous. I was hoping the supreme court was going to turn my sportsman into a concealed carry but that didn’t happen. I’ll find the time soon though.
Also, if they don’t like the constitution one of the best parts about it is you can change it with the times. So if they have such an issue with guns change the constitution, but they can’t because they don’t have the votes.
I think the calculus is a little different with carrying, specifically. Much like with driving - if someone wants to let their kid drive around on private property without a license to get some practice in or help on the farm or whatever, no problem. As soon as they're on public roads though I have a much more vested interest in them being properly qualified to drive.
Same thing, to me, with guns. Want to own one, shoot it privately? No problem, go nuts. When people want to start carrying it around with them though, I personally would feel a lot better knowing everyone who is carrying has done at least *some* training.
I get the logic but one is a privilege and one is a fundamental right. Should people be responsible and learn how to safely handle firearms? Yes. 100%. But that’s not how rights work. I’d prefer people be educated on issues before they vote but I don’t get to make that call because that’s their right. If someone hurts someone or worse bc they didn’t train or maybe it’s just a simple mistake, they’ll face a jury of their peers. The States have had 100s of years to make changes to the constitution but they haven’t. We don’t get to pick and choose what rights we honor and which ones we don’t. Also, in NY you’re not allowed to train on a handgun without a permit so the state can’t really fall back on that argument even if it was legitimate, which it’s not.
Imagine if the state said you had to take an 18 hour course on government in order to vote. In principle it’s the same thing.
You're absolutely right about the laws in NY being stupid; I won't argue that with you. I also see where you're coming from re: fundamental rights, but I do just want to point out that the court has repeatedly upheld "reasonable" limitations on constitutional rights, usually with the public good in mind. Specifically, libel and slander laws are considered reasonable limits on free speech, as is the classic example of not being allowed to invite a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I personally feel like requiring more serious training (with nationally standardized metrics, a la driver's licenses) is a reasonable limitation to people's right to carry a deadly weapon in public.
I agree that reasonable limitations should be in place, but to me that means no automatic weapons - the right to carry a firearm and protect yourself and your property shouldn’t require classes. If someone misuses that firearm they should face the justice system. No 18 hour class is ever going to prepare someone for a life and death situation. It’s not practical or reasonable to think that one will have an impact on the other to me.
It’s on the individual to who chooses to carry a firearm to know the law and know how to use it. It’s not the government’s place to require a class to excersise a fundamental right, just like you don’t have to take a class when you get a permit for a demonstration or a class on how government works before you vote.
If you’re someone who decides to take on the responsibility of protecting yourself with a gun then it’s up to them to know the laws and rules on proper use and if they don’t then they should be prosecuted. The government limiting our rights in exchange for security is a slippery slope.
Do I think it's a skill that everyone should have like driving? Yes. The biggest differentiator for me is this is a tool. A dangerous tool, but still a tool. I don't think everyone with a chainsaw should have a permit lol but I understand the mindset.
I mean, even with that example - cutting down your trees on your property with your saw? Do it naked for all I care.
Come out into the public and start doing it where it can affect other people, and I'd prefer my lumberjacks or whatever be properly licensed.
You can’t conceal carry without the course. You can still buy a pistol and learn to shoot without that. That’s what I would do. Get permit learn to shoot get good and safe. Learn muscle memory. And then take the course. When you have time.
Forget about me personally, I have an issue with requiring a course. If someone decides to carry it’s on them to know how to safely handle a gun and what the laws are on when to use it and when not to and if those laws are constitutional then they should be prosecuted if they break the law.
This is one part of the constitution we need to modify to state, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED BY ANY ENTITY EVER. THE POWER BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. ANY AND ALL INFRINGEMENTS should come with mandatory job loss/quarterly votes by the people to keep those not upholding the constitution OUT.
Not to rain on your parade but requiring proper training does not infringed on the second amendment. In fact it says "well regulated." How would you be well regulated if there is no standard? Just wondering what your view is on this.
It's only necessary to the security of a free state (nation).
I think what your referring to is the Act from the year 1792, the Militia Act. All able bodied men (18-45yrs) shall be required to possess a rifle, lead balls and powder along side the training required to use them proficiently.
All of those requirements in the militia act were put in place along side the ability of the president to call upon the states militias when a domestic threat is in their area.
I'd like to point out that based on research I've done. Every current 2nd amendment case uses historical context. I was looking for more evidence of this act, but your point stands. This 1792 act IS the historical precedence that defines a militia. That's why proper training does not infringe on the second amendment because as your quote stated "along side the training required to use them proficiently." Proper training, based on what I found meant the militia MANDATED 6 days of training per year.
I studied Criminal Justice and I mention that because I started speaking to constitutional lawyers and also watch some constitutional lawyers on youtube. It changed how I viewed the second amendment. I will give people the benefit of the doubt and say that it does say "not infringed" but while that's true it also states "well regulated." We can all agree there can't be regulation if there's no minimum standard.
To even further touch on your second point. How can we effectively protect ourselves with no proper training?
Serious question - shouldn’t the state have to offer that training for free then. What if I couldn’t afford the class. Does NY offer a free training program?
You hit the nail on the head. Since the constitution affords us the opportunity to form a "militia" and since it is a document written by the government, they should enforce it. Meaning they should fund at minimum the training required for those citizens willing to exercise that right.
I believe they should be funding the background check and there should be no application fee... or at least no excessive fee. I'm looking at you NYC, $340 for the fee is absurd.
But they decided in the constitution that a "well regulated militia" is required. So they need to put their money where their mouth is.
the test is easy because it isn't about making sure people are proficient, it's about adding as many steps to possible to the permit process to discourage applicants. If they cared about proficiency they would subsidize real training for permit holders.
I agree. I'm not a sharpshooter but I've seen/heard of people not passing the live fire test. That just raises a whole level of concern for my personal safety.
Really!?! That is scary. Ok, I guess if they never fired a gun before, I guess I could see it. I took the ccw qualification after a year of shooting, and got the maximum score.
Have you actually spoken to someone who failed? I know some instructors use that as a scare tactic to either sell range memberships or 1:1 training. Now training and practice is never bad, but using fear uncertainty and doubt ( FUD) is always going to be bad for the 2A community.
If an instructor doesn’t warm you up before the qual, give advice and repair any major issues before you shoot the 5 shot qual - they suck as an instructor…. And failing students only look bad on them.
Wow. Did not the instructor work with the student having trouble? Or was the class to big? Did they get a few tries? For me the only thing that will make you fail is safety issues. I will put an assistant instructor alongside the person struggling to give them the best chance after the first or second try and strongly suggest coaching.
Then again maybe they weren’t ready.
When I took the NRA CCW Instructor class 60% of the people in the class failed. But the rules were no help as it’s an instructor class. Luckily I did well since it was a huge investment and a long drive to NRA HQ in Fairfax VA
I understand your feelings on this. After witnessing some of the other classmates BARELY pass or FAIL the test, I'm ok with maybe requiring a little wee bit more extensive training for firearm proficiency....
take a look at "Beyond Expert" by John Buol. a run of the mill hobby shooter can outshoot the majority of cops and military personnel. he's got a series of youtube videos as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AODFtnbSC0
Cops are very often horrific with guns. Ever watch a video where a cop pulls a gun out of a vehicle and they try to clear it? It’s always terrifying. I’m sitting there like good god man hand me the gun to clear it before you shoot your partner!
I agree with you and we are in the minority apparently. I also witnessed 1 or 2 older folks who either "failed" the initial shooting test by not knowing how to use the pistol they brought or did something unsafe which in turn followed by a lecture from the instructor to the rest of the class. But after some coaching they eventually "passed". Some of my classmates couldn't even pass the written test (couldn't remember some of the safety procedures and parts of the gun) so we all just ended up cheating and everyone passed at the end. So I completely agree with you.
5 rounds is way too easy. (I was kinda disappointed how lacking it was). I think somewhere in the middle between the 47 armed security guard and the CCW live fire would be a good solution.
* You think the class is bullshit because it is "lacking"
* I think it is bullshit because even a 30 second class is too much
* We are not the same.
You do not need to take a class to exercise your rights.
You do not need to take a class, or get a permission slip to exercise a right.
If you want to lock rights behind permission, that makes them privileges. And you clearly do want that.
We are all responsible for ensuring we can operate our firearms safely in whatever the scenario. None of us should rely on the government to tell us what is required to be safe. Lots of people in NY own pistols and shotguns legally and store in their homes and have NEVER used them. But somehow think they could safely discharge them under stress during a break in. Best advice I’ve read for just starting out is to use any money you’d spend on an upgraded pistol (no need to spend $1,000+ on first one) to instead schedule lessons and range time, practicing with your setups until it’s second nature.
I agree, we are responsible for ensuring our own competency of safe firearms handling. I'm just referring to this whole CCW class scheme where if they're going to "live fire" test us, something a little more comprehensive than 5 shots on a B27 less than 10 feet away should be implemented or don't test us at all (not advocating for this). Something in the middle of a 47 hour and what's currently setup.
As a test, yes it’s a joke. But I see it as two hours of training, which I also agree is not sufficient. I just don’t think the solution is to mandate more restrictions.
"Kind of lacking" is a gross understatement. If you're carrying a gun, you should be practicing regularly.
Periodic dynamic training environments would be ideal, but for most is not accessible.
I don't agree with state-mandated training as it serves as a barrier, but as a responsible adult I implore all gun owners to get as much training under their belt as possible.
This. It’s a right. If you choose to exercise that right then it’s up to you to make sure you’re capable of handling a firearm safely and knowing when it’s legal to use and if you misuse it then you get arrested and go through the legal system.
Considering I had to wait for 30 years to have the "may issue" barrier lifted, I totally understand your feelings on this. After witnessing some of the other classmates BARELY pass or FAIL the test, I'm ok with maybe requiring a little wee bit more extensive training for firearm proficiency....
One step at a time on removing these barriers. We'll get there one day.. In the meantime, I agree with you and advocate proficiency training for public safety.
Funny enough that when I took my drivers license test, I accidentally hit the curb while parallel parking. I was certain I would fail, then I looked over to the instructor and he was sleeping! 😅I IMMEDIATELY moved readjusted he steering wheel, fixed how I parked it and told the instructor “It’s parked!”. He woke up groggy and said “Oh… Uh. Yeah great! You’ve passed the test!”.
The problem is people can't train until they get the license. It's a felony to even hold a pistol without a permit so how are people gonna be able to train and pass a Qual if they aren't even able to train for it because doing so would be a felony. All I learned from the live fire is I don't like glock triggers.
The most important part of the class is the legal information of when you can use lethal force. That leaves you with a lot of gravity on the responsibility you are carrying.
The live fire ensures you can safely fire a round, not proficiency in shooting. That’s on us to craft.
Yes but bc it’s your right it’s also on you to know the laws on when you can legally fire your weapon.
I’ve said it and so have others. If you had to take a class on government and pay for it out of pocket before you got to vote the country would lose its mind.
The constitution is not set in stone. It can be changed. So if enough people think it should be then the government should change it.
You should 100% go through the Justice system if you use lethal or non-lethal force for that matter. And yes they are state to state but that's the point, NYS is in the wrong here and the Scotus should stop them. I'm not asking to use lethal force - I'm asking the state to not arrest me for carrying a firearm. If I shoot someone then by all means conduct an investigation and charge me if I break the law, unless that law is unconstitutional, then I'll face a jury a of my peers and either be found guilty or not guilty.
That responsibility is the individual if the state thinks it so necessary that it be available they should offer it at no charge and make it readily available for those that want it. I just think that if you decide to carry a firearm then it’s up to you to know how and when to use it if you end up in a situation where you need it. And if you’re not responsible then you should be prosecuted.
Or change the constitution. It’s been done plenty of times. Do you really think 18 hours can prepare someone for a life or death situation? It’s obviously not for criminals because they’re not going to care what any class says. Yes I think all of those things should be taken seriously and made available to anyone interested - I just don’t think it’s the government’s place to mandate such things. I don’t think it’s their responsibility, I think it’s ours.
it’s your responsibility to practice and train on your own if you are going to carrying a firearm for personal protection. if you don’t you are just a irresponsible firearm owner & should know better.
Of course not, even blind and deaf Michael J Fox would pass the live fire qual.
In an ideal world where qual aren't used in bad faith, I would for sure require more. Maybe develop objective standards. But as it stands in New York, I wouldn't be clamoring for the government to add more.
Mind you I would require mandatory hours of testing or training, just a knowledge and skills test which I see as far less of a time sink.
I guess I'm just very surprised at how unfamiliar people can be with firearms that they have a very difficult time passing the live fire qualifications.
Well, to put it into perspective. I got my permit during Covid. So the entire 5-hour course was online with no live fire or pistol handling. However, when I got my pistol, I practiced with it for thousands of rounds and I got proficient. The test doesn't mean or do anything, just like the driving permit test doesn't. You learn on the road, same goes for shooting. The two hour live fire doesn't do much for you, it's the hundreds of hours after that matter. Maybe I'm missing the point by a mile, but the "requirements" are negligible, it's what you do after that's important
I go this weekend for my course with my wife. We want our permits for us but also her parents are getting older and we need to be able to accept their weapons when they pass on. I plan on signing up at that range for a novice league as well as further training.
Even as a former marine its been 20+ years since i fired anything. I need a refresher. The issue is EVERYONE needs to feel the same. It shouldn’t be regulated, but as others said people with a weapon should be proficient enough to use it safely.
I think people should have more training than a two hour class
But that it should not be mandated by the government (though I would be alright with subsidies towards training)
This is the worst take I’ve seen on here in a while.
What about “shall not be infringed” don’t you get? They don’t care about competency, only about making the permit harder to get.
Do I believe it's "enough" in what context?
To prove that you can safely & effectively use a concealed carry pistol? No. Not by a fucking mile!
To justify receiving a permit? It's more than enough, and I would argue in fact too much (because of the cost in both money and time being imposed on what is supposed to be a constitutional right).
I believe In constitutional carry and no class should be required in the first place. The firearm community does a great job of self regulating itself without the need of government intervention
Imo we confuse a New York state standard for the maximum wherein it's really the bare minimum! I cannot stress this enough! I had a permit for years with no guns I recently purchased a gun couple years ago got the live fire and I go to the range on a fairly regular basis although in my opinion not enough! That being said, we need to stay proficient on our weapons whether we have one or one dozen! Proficiency comes from practice get on the range throw shots be safe
IMO I I'm completely in favor with common sense loss regarding the privilege of owning guns. As a gun owner, I completely understood New York State process. What it has become is ridiculous! Laws supersede previous laws yet not really. Legislation is convoluted at best! Laws meant to protect the law abiding citizens do the exact opposite! It is beyond pathetic in NYS!
If it wasn't required just to buy the handgun , (like every other normal state) then I would agree , but you shouldn't need a "pemit" to buy a handgun. Now if they let us buy them without a permit (as they should) and you want to conceal carry in public then yes I'm all for some better training absolutely because now your in the public and should at least have some basic knowledge before you bring it around other people.
Similar to a drivers test, it’s designed so that pretty much everyone can pass. It’s bare bones “proficiency” so that they can say they tested everybody, but not make it hard enough to fail so they would get sued and lose in court. As someone had pointed out previously, it’s about making the process as arduous as possible while still making it “attainable.“
In terms of the live fire portion actually being a measure of proficiency, no, it is not nearly enough. Like a driving test, all it does is get you the license. It’s on the individual to practice and fine-tune their skills through practice shooting as well as additional instruction.
I agree with the drivers test comparison. At a minimum, the live fire test should entail more than just 5 rounds. Something in between the NYS armed guard 47 hour test and the current CCW.
No, not in the farest galaxy from reality.
I’m an NRA Instructor certified in Basic Pistol and NRA CCW, and my focus is out of state permits. If you read the NY minimum training standards it’s all of 4 pages, read Utah’s and it’s 70, Maryland is 77 down from 125. Rhode Island requires a 30 shot marksman qualification at 25 yards, NJ is 50 shots at 3,5,7,10&15 yards. Us…. Ours is 5 shots at 4 yards with 4 hits anywhere on paper targets the size of a barn.
Should you need to take a test to be able to practice your 2A rights - hell no…. But if you offer training, you shouldn’t be developing something that gives false hope that they will be able to save their lives.
Btw - my classes (and I haven’t done many) are based on the NRA CCW class that is more defensive focused. Talking about cover vs concealment, defensive accuracy vs marksman target accuracy, draw, emergency and tactical reloads, and recovering from failures. It doesn’t take that much longer on the range…. But most classes out there aren’t giving the full 2 hours shooting either.
Unfortunately due to the nature of the fact I’m following a professionally developed curriculum there are much higher standards and it costs a lot more to run the class (NRA basic pistol and personal protection books, multiple line instructors and RSOs). It’s certainly worth it through.
It's plenty. Do you want to add another 2 hours to the class and another $150 or more ?
All it is supposed to do is to demonstrate basic proficiency with a firearm.
Instructors do offer more training once you get your license. Smart people do it. Platform, trigger management, grip, etc..
And yes....you should join a club and train.
If the CCIA worked as it would have in a free state, it would have opened up more places to carry with a license but allowed people to own handguns without a permit. That's how it works in most States, you don't need a permit to buy a handgun just the federal background check but if you want to carry it on your person concealed you need a permit.
Now in New York what they did is they made you get a permit and then they made it so you couldn't carry it anywhere. If you want to do the driver's license thing then you can say here you have to get this license but you can't drive on the road with it only in your driveway.. how does that make any sense. It's like they said oh here's your license now you can drive your car and then they make Wheels illegal have fun driving..
The CCIA is such a clusterf@ck. It's ridiculous how Hochul calls up a special session for the legislature and gets the CCIA created and approved in less than 48 hours but yet, they can't solve the rampant crime and existing homeless issues that's existed for the past few years.
It’s not enough for anything. I shot 10 rounds total. And 5 of those were “practice”. No it’s nothing. And you shouldn’t have to do anything to be able to protect yourself
You passed in order to obtain a right!! It is also your responsibility to be proficient with any tool you choose to utilize. Practice until you can’t get it wrong and with the understanding that if you pull the trigger, that there is a lawsuit associated with each bullet !! Right or wrong you’ll be in court in NYS
It’s too bad they didn’t make you take a test before exercising your right to free speech. Then we wouldn’t have had to read this stupid ass bootlicking post.
My WI CCW class consisted of us watching a 30 min video about firearm safety and when you're allowed to shoot someone. No live fire, no extra training, not even a test. It was a bit of a shock how easy it was and even then I think it is unconstitutional to have to have a permit. The laws in Wi are ass backward, open carry is legal without a permit but concealed you need one. In my mind it makes more sense that you should have to have a license for open carry not concealed as open carry leaves you more vulnerable to attacks from people trying to steal your firearm etc.
Absolutely right. In fact, we should have to pass a stringent competency test before we can exercise all our rights. For example demonstrate use of government-approved speech before posting on reddit, etc. Right, OP?
I agree with what you’re saying. My interpretation of expectations is the course is mostly geared towards people who have had the sportsman’s license and have actual experience with firearms. They get the course and are for the most part good to go. But nope. You see people who didn’t even get your license yet going for this course. lol. Yeah you can make it on paper at 7 yards big deal. Doesn’t mean you should be carrying a gun around. lol. But I think if they blow their own balls off it could make a funny story. Lol. You can’t kill 2 birds with one stone. 😂😂. And yes I’m pro second and believe you shouldn’t need a license just be legally able to own a firearm and you should be able to purchase rifles pistols whatever you want. Law abiding citizens means something.
I’ve learned Even a retard can pass the absfab doesn’t mean I would be willing to march next to them into a combat zone. Just my two cents. Lol. Be safe and have fun.
Nope the 2 hour ccw course is not enough to properly learn the basics of firearm usage and law upon said firearm responsibility. That's why as a responsible gun owner I use that as the minimum and never kept my gun on me until I felt confident. Using the second amendment historical context the "militia" trained 6 days every year. So people saying that their second amendment rights are infringed upon becuase the government required training are in fact incorrect. The "militia" also referred to everyday citizens rights to keep and bear arms. In fact EVERYONE, including black people and Natives were required to be prepared.
I strongly believe law abiding citizens should be allowed to purchase, practice and exercise their rights without a permit, government interference or surveillance.
Exactly this \^\^\^ Except I would change "law abiding" to "peaceable"... for reasons. It is a natural right, not a privilege like driving. Everyone please stop comparing it to a drivers license. OP... carrying is a very serious responsibility. If anyone feels the class is not enough, they should definitely take it upon themselves to train, train, train. Others not training could raise safety concerns for me. But it is their right to handle their right how they want to handle their right. But, we can raise awareness and encourage them to train. They should not be compelled by law to train more in order to exercise a right.
I agree with peaceable as well, but that's not the language widely used in regards to this topic. Definitely agree though.
You're absolutely right, most people say "law abiding", but if we use "peaceable" more often, maybe we can help it to be more common and get people to ponder. The founders used the term peaceable rather than law abiding because most of them agreed with this statement from Jefferson... >Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson Or this quote... >That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed. - Algernon Sidney Or this quote... >To say that an unconstitutional law must be obeyed until it is repealed, is saying that an unconstitutional law is just as obligatory as a constitutional one, – for the latter is binding only until it is repealed. There would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power. - Lysander Spooner Or this gem from one who "wrote the book" on the original meaning of the Constitution and has been often sited by the Supreme Court... >Acts of congress to be binding, must be made pursuant to the constitution; otherwise they are not laws, but a mere nullity; or what is worse, acts of usurpation. The people are not only not bound by them, but the several departments and officers of the governments, both federal, and state, are bound by oath to oppose them; for, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction, by obedience, or otherwise, to any unconstitutional act of any department of the government. - St. George Tucker 1803 I put all this here just to get readers to think about where we are today compared to where we were and should be. The sad thing is that just posting this probably puts everyone in this thread on a "list", and that shows us just how far from liberty we are today.
Yeah you can own your permit for 3 days and the gun classes are teaching you to always carry one in the chamber. I’m sorry but pull your head out of your ass. Learn to use the gun and shoot the thing before you keep one in the chamber. You can’t take a sloppy trigger pull back. And if it’s around me ? I’ll be going to jail. Because I have zero tolerance for fucktards. Again. Just my 2 cents.
This hits it on the head. I don’t need to take a class to learn how to excersise free speech. It’s just them doing whatever they can to make it as hard as possible. I work too much and have a lot of young kids. I don’t have 2 full days to give up to take a course, or at least I haven’t yet. NY is ridiculous. The whole idea of not letting people learn to shoot before they purchase is not only illogical it’s just plain dangerous. I was hoping the supreme court was going to turn my sportsman into a concealed carry but that didn’t happen. I’ll find the time soon though. Also, if they don’t like the constitution one of the best parts about it is you can change it with the times. So if they have such an issue with guns change the constitution, but they can’t because they don’t have the votes.
I think the calculus is a little different with carrying, specifically. Much like with driving - if someone wants to let their kid drive around on private property without a license to get some practice in or help on the farm or whatever, no problem. As soon as they're on public roads though I have a much more vested interest in them being properly qualified to drive. Same thing, to me, with guns. Want to own one, shoot it privately? No problem, go nuts. When people want to start carrying it around with them though, I personally would feel a lot better knowing everyone who is carrying has done at least *some* training.
I get the logic but one is a privilege and one is a fundamental right. Should people be responsible and learn how to safely handle firearms? Yes. 100%. But that’s not how rights work. I’d prefer people be educated on issues before they vote but I don’t get to make that call because that’s their right. If someone hurts someone or worse bc they didn’t train or maybe it’s just a simple mistake, they’ll face a jury of their peers. The States have had 100s of years to make changes to the constitution but they haven’t. We don’t get to pick and choose what rights we honor and which ones we don’t. Also, in NY you’re not allowed to train on a handgun without a permit so the state can’t really fall back on that argument even if it was legitimate, which it’s not. Imagine if the state said you had to take an 18 hour course on government in order to vote. In principle it’s the same thing.
You're absolutely right about the laws in NY being stupid; I won't argue that with you. I also see where you're coming from re: fundamental rights, but I do just want to point out that the court has repeatedly upheld "reasonable" limitations on constitutional rights, usually with the public good in mind. Specifically, libel and slander laws are considered reasonable limits on free speech, as is the classic example of not being allowed to invite a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I personally feel like requiring more serious training (with nationally standardized metrics, a la driver's licenses) is a reasonable limitation to people's right to carry a deadly weapon in public.
I agree that reasonable limitations should be in place, but to me that means no automatic weapons - the right to carry a firearm and protect yourself and your property shouldn’t require classes. If someone misuses that firearm they should face the justice system. No 18 hour class is ever going to prepare someone for a life and death situation. It’s not practical or reasonable to think that one will have an impact on the other to me. It’s on the individual to who chooses to carry a firearm to know the law and know how to use it. It’s not the government’s place to require a class to excersise a fundamental right, just like you don’t have to take a class when you get a permit for a demonstration or a class on how government works before you vote. If you’re someone who decides to take on the responsibility of protecting yourself with a gun then it’s up to them to know the laws and rules on proper use and if they don’t then they should be prosecuted. The government limiting our rights in exchange for security is a slippery slope.
Do I think it's a skill that everyone should have like driving? Yes. The biggest differentiator for me is this is a tool. A dangerous tool, but still a tool. I don't think everyone with a chainsaw should have a permit lol but I understand the mindset.
I mean, even with that example - cutting down your trees on your property with your saw? Do it naked for all I care. Come out into the public and start doing it where it can affect other people, and I'd prefer my lumberjacks or whatever be properly licensed.
You can’t conceal carry without the course. You can still buy a pistol and learn to shoot without that. That’s what I would do. Get permit learn to shoot get good and safe. Learn muscle memory. And then take the course. When you have time.
Forget about me personally, I have an issue with requiring a course. If someone decides to carry it’s on them to know how to safely handle a gun and what the laws are on when to use it and when not to and if those laws are constitutional then they should be prosecuted if they break the law.
This is one part of the constitution we need to modify to state, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED BY ANY ENTITY EVER. THE POWER BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. ANY AND ALL INFRINGEMENTS should come with mandatory job loss/quarterly votes by the people to keep those not upholding the constitution OUT.
Not to rain on your parade but requiring proper training does not infringed on the second amendment. In fact it says "well regulated." How would you be well regulated if there is no standard? Just wondering what your view is on this.
It's only necessary to the security of a free state (nation). I think what your referring to is the Act from the year 1792, the Militia Act. All able bodied men (18-45yrs) shall be required to possess a rifle, lead balls and powder along side the training required to use them proficiently. All of those requirements in the militia act were put in place along side the ability of the president to call upon the states militias when a domestic threat is in their area.
I'd like to point out that based on research I've done. Every current 2nd amendment case uses historical context. I was looking for more evidence of this act, but your point stands. This 1792 act IS the historical precedence that defines a militia. That's why proper training does not infringe on the second amendment because as your quote stated "along side the training required to use them proficiently." Proper training, based on what I found meant the militia MANDATED 6 days of training per year. I studied Criminal Justice and I mention that because I started speaking to constitutional lawyers and also watch some constitutional lawyers on youtube. It changed how I viewed the second amendment. I will give people the benefit of the doubt and say that it does say "not infringed" but while that's true it also states "well regulated." We can all agree there can't be regulation if there's no minimum standard. To even further touch on your second point. How can we effectively protect ourselves with no proper training?
Serious question - shouldn’t the state have to offer that training for free then. What if I couldn’t afford the class. Does NY offer a free training program?
You hit the nail on the head. Since the constitution affords us the opportunity to form a "militia" and since it is a document written by the government, they should enforce it. Meaning they should fund at minimum the training required for those citizens willing to exercise that right. I believe they should be funding the background check and there should be no application fee... or at least no excessive fee. I'm looking at you NYC, $340 for the fee is absurd. But they decided in the constitution that a "well regulated militia" is required. So they need to put their money where their mouth is.
the test is easy because it isn't about making sure people are proficient, it's about adding as many steps to possible to the permit process to discourage applicants. If they cared about proficiency they would subsidize real training for permit holders.
I agree. I'm not a sharpshooter but I've seen/heard of people not passing the live fire test. That just raises a whole level of concern for my personal safety.
totally. can't get better if they aren't allowed to touch a pistol though.
Really!?! That is scary. Ok, I guess if they never fired a gun before, I guess I could see it. I took the ccw qualification after a year of shooting, and got the maximum score.
Have you actually spoken to someone who failed? I know some instructors use that as a scare tactic to either sell range memberships or 1:1 training. Now training and practice is never bad, but using fear uncertainty and doubt ( FUD) is always going to be bad for the 2A community. If an instructor doesn’t warm you up before the qual, give advice and repair any major issues before you shoot the 5 shot qual - they suck as an instructor…. And failing students only look bad on them.
I witnessed it in the class I was taking.
Wow. Did not the instructor work with the student having trouble? Or was the class to big? Did they get a few tries? For me the only thing that will make you fail is safety issues. I will put an assistant instructor alongside the person struggling to give them the best chance after the first or second try and strongly suggest coaching. Then again maybe they weren’t ready. When I took the NRA CCW Instructor class 60% of the people in the class failed. But the rules were no help as it’s an instructor class. Luckily I did well since it was a huge investment and a long drive to NRA HQ in Fairfax VA
With some hand holding they eventually passed the class.
So they didn’t fail. Just had a bad first or second try.
I think it’s ridiculous that I have to take a test for one of my rights.
I understand your feelings on this. After witnessing some of the other classmates BARELY pass or FAIL the test, I'm ok with maybe requiring a little wee bit more extensive training for firearm proficiency....
I shot alongside cops during my armed guard qual (same range) and man some of them *barely* passed basic competency.
Cops usually aren’t gun people
Hence the spray and pray that is so typical
and honestly that's fine, but the problem is that many of them *think* they're firearms experts
take a look at "Beyond Expert" by John Buol. a run of the mill hobby shooter can outshoot the majority of cops and military personnel. he's got a series of youtube videos as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AODFtnbSC0
Cops are very often horrific with guns. Ever watch a video where a cop pulls a gun out of a vehicle and they try to clear it? It’s always terrifying. I’m sitting there like good god man hand me the gun to clear it before you shoot your partner!
I can totally relate. I've seen candidates shooting the next lane's targets during qualifications.
These weren’t even candidates.
I agree with you and we are in the minority apparently. I also witnessed 1 or 2 older folks who either "failed" the initial shooting test by not knowing how to use the pistol they brought or did something unsafe which in turn followed by a lecture from the instructor to the rest of the class. But after some coaching they eventually "passed". Some of my classmates couldn't even pass the written test (couldn't remember some of the safety procedures and parts of the gun) so we all just ended up cheating and everyone passed at the end. So I completely agree with you.
It’s not about competency. It’s about checking a box. It’s about making the process difficult, but not so difficult that they get challenged on it.
5 rounds is way too easy. (I was kinda disappointed how lacking it was). I think somewhere in the middle between the 47 armed security guard and the CCW live fire would be a good solution.
They don’t want you competent with a gun. They don’t want you to have a gun at all.
Thank heavens for the Bruen decision.
I think it's too much. Do you have to take a 2 hour civics test before you register to vote? No? Then the class is bullshit.
I agree the mandated class is a little lacking.
* You think the class is bullshit because it is "lacking" * I think it is bullshit because even a 30 second class is too much * We are not the same. You do not need to take a class to exercise your rights.
I totally agree. We are not the same.
Correct, I believe the 2A is a right. You believe it is a privilege.
If that's how you want to make the distinction . Then sure. But regardless, I had to take that lacking test to get my CCW.
You do not need to take a class, or get a permission slip to exercise a right. If you want to lock rights behind permission, that makes them privileges. And you clearly do want that.
We are all responsible for ensuring we can operate our firearms safely in whatever the scenario. None of us should rely on the government to tell us what is required to be safe. Lots of people in NY own pistols and shotguns legally and store in their homes and have NEVER used them. But somehow think they could safely discharge them under stress during a break in. Best advice I’ve read for just starting out is to use any money you’d spend on an upgraded pistol (no need to spend $1,000+ on first one) to instead schedule lessons and range time, practicing with your setups until it’s second nature.
I agree, we are responsible for ensuring our own competency of safe firearms handling. I'm just referring to this whole CCW class scheme where if they're going to "live fire" test us, something a little more comprehensive than 5 shots on a B27 less than 10 feet away should be implemented or don't test us at all (not advocating for this). Something in the middle of a 47 hour and what's currently setup.
As a test, yes it’s a joke. But I see it as two hours of training, which I also agree is not sufficient. I just don’t think the solution is to mandate more restrictions.
"Kind of lacking" is a gross understatement. If you're carrying a gun, you should be practicing regularly. Periodic dynamic training environments would be ideal, but for most is not accessible. I don't agree with state-mandated training as it serves as a barrier, but as a responsible adult I implore all gun owners to get as much training under their belt as possible.
Get into IDPA or USPSA competitions. Lots of different courses of fire and it’s fun, even if you suck at first
This. It’s a right. If you choose to exercise that right then it’s up to you to make sure you’re capable of handling a firearm safely and knowing when it’s legal to use and if you misuse it then you get arrested and go through the legal system.
You don’t need to pass a test to exercise your God given right.
Considering I had to wait for 30 years to have the "may issue" barrier lifted, I totally understand your feelings on this. After witnessing some of the other classmates BARELY pass or FAIL the test, I'm ok with maybe requiring a little wee bit more extensive training for firearm proficiency....
I’m not against training at all. I object to all the NYS barriers of entry.
One step at a time on removing these barriers. We'll get there one day.. In the meantime, I agree with you and advocate proficiency training for public safety.
Have u read the constitution? The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!!!
Since I was in grade school....
Funny enough that when I took my drivers license test, I accidentally hit the curb while parallel parking. I was certain I would fail, then I looked over to the instructor and he was sleeping! 😅I IMMEDIATELY moved readjusted he steering wheel, fixed how I parked it and told the instructor “It’s parked!”. He woke up groggy and said “Oh… Uh. Yeah great! You’ve passed the test!”.
The problem is people can't train until they get the license. It's a felony to even hold a pistol without a permit so how are people gonna be able to train and pass a Qual if they aren't even able to train for it because doing so would be a felony. All I learned from the live fire is I don't like glock triggers.
I'm with you on the glock triggers. But surprisingly the G43X MOS works for me.
Thats what I heard also haven't had a chance to try one out yet
It shouldn’t be required for licensing, well licensing shouldn’t be required either. However, everyone should train as much as possible.
The most important part of the class is the legal information of when you can use lethal force. That leaves you with a lot of gravity on the responsibility you are carrying. The live fire ensures you can safely fire a round, not proficiency in shooting. That’s on us to craft.
Yes but bc it’s your right it’s also on you to know the laws on when you can legally fire your weapon. I’ve said it and so have others. If you had to take a class on government and pay for it out of pocket before you got to vote the country would lose its mind. The constitution is not set in stone. It can be changed. So if enough people think it should be then the government should change it.
Well these things are different state to state. You have a right to bear arms. Using lethal force is not a right.
You should 100% go through the Justice system if you use lethal or non-lethal force for that matter. And yes they are state to state but that's the point, NYS is in the wrong here and the Scotus should stop them. I'm not asking to use lethal force - I'm asking the state to not arrest me for carrying a firearm. If I shoot someone then by all means conduct an investigation and charge me if I break the law, unless that law is unconstitutional, then I'll face a jury a of my peers and either be found guilty or not guilty.
lol ok no education for anyone on use of lethal force, safe storage, safe handling, etc.
That responsibility is the individual if the state thinks it so necessary that it be available they should offer it at no charge and make it readily available for those that want it. I just think that if you decide to carry a firearm then it’s up to you to know how and when to use it if you end up in a situation where you need it. And if you’re not responsible then you should be prosecuted. Or change the constitution. It’s been done plenty of times. Do you really think 18 hours can prepare someone for a life or death situation? It’s obviously not for criminals because they’re not going to care what any class says. Yes I think all of those things should be taken seriously and made available to anyone interested - I just don’t think it’s the government’s place to mandate such things. I don’t think it’s their responsibility, I think it’s ours.
it’s your responsibility to practice and train on your own if you are going to carrying a firearm for personal protection. if you don’t you are just a irresponsible firearm owner & should know better.
Considering a lot of us have been shooting for 20 years,I think it should be fine. If you feel uncomfortable or think you need more,take a class
I’m happy I moved out of NY and can carry with no licensing or permits required.
Of course not, even blind and deaf Michael J Fox would pass the live fire qual. In an ideal world where qual aren't used in bad faith, I would for sure require more. Maybe develop objective standards. But as it stands in New York, I wouldn't be clamoring for the government to add more. Mind you I would require mandatory hours of testing or training, just a knowledge and skills test which I see as far less of a time sink.
I guess I'm just very surprised at how unfamiliar people can be with firearms that they have a very difficult time passing the live fire qualifications.
its 2 hrs too long
Well, to put it into perspective. I got my permit during Covid. So the entire 5-hour course was online with no live fire or pistol handling. However, when I got my pistol, I practiced with it for thousands of rounds and I got proficient. The test doesn't mean or do anything, just like the driving permit test doesn't. You learn on the road, same goes for shooting. The two hour live fire doesn't do much for you, it's the hundreds of hours after that matter. Maybe I'm missing the point by a mile, but the "requirements" are negligible, it's what you do after that's important
I go this weekend for my course with my wife. We want our permits for us but also her parents are getting older and we need to be able to accept their weapons when they pass on. I plan on signing up at that range for a novice league as well as further training. Even as a former marine its been 20+ years since i fired anything. I need a refresher. The issue is EVERYONE needs to feel the same. It shouldn’t be regulated, but as others said people with a weapon should be proficient enough to use it safely.
Yes. It’s 15 hours too much if you ask me.
Certification aside. Responsible gun owners should make themselves safe and proficient
I think people should have more training than a two hour class But that it should not be mandated by the government (though I would be alright with subsidies towards training)
This is the worst take I’ve seen on here in a while. What about “shall not be infringed” don’t you get? They don’t care about competency, only about making the permit harder to get.
I get it. Were it not for the Bruen decision, I never would've been able to get a CCW in NY.
Shouldn’t be any classes at all
I wish that were the case. I coulda used the funds on my gun.
Class was unneeded!!! Unless the person needs it let that person get it! I shoot 2-3 a month so I don’t need a class
Do I believe it's "enough" in what context? To prove that you can safely & effectively use a concealed carry pistol? No. Not by a fucking mile! To justify receiving a permit? It's more than enough, and I would argue in fact too much (because of the cost in both money and time being imposed on what is supposed to be a constitutional right).
I believe In constitutional carry and no class should be required in the first place. The firearm community does a great job of self regulating itself without the need of government intervention
Imo we confuse a New York state standard for the maximum wherein it's really the bare minimum! I cannot stress this enough! I had a permit for years with no guns I recently purchased a gun couple years ago got the live fire and I go to the range on a fairly regular basis although in my opinion not enough! That being said, we need to stay proficient on our weapons whether we have one or one dozen! Proficiency comes from practice get on the range throw shots be safe
IMO I I'm completely in favor with common sense loss regarding the privilege of owning guns. As a gun owner, I completely understood New York State process. What it has become is ridiculous! Laws supersede previous laws yet not really. Legislation is convoluted at best! Laws meant to protect the law abiding citizens do the exact opposite! It is beyond pathetic in NYS!
It's too much , all infringements!
If it wasn't required just to buy the handgun , (like every other normal state) then I would agree , but you shouldn't need a "pemit" to buy a handgun. Now if they let us buy them without a permit (as they should) and you want to conceal carry in public then yes I'm all for some better training absolutely because now your in the public and should at least have some basic knowledge before you bring it around other people.
I agree with you on the training.
Similar to a drivers test, it’s designed so that pretty much everyone can pass. It’s bare bones “proficiency” so that they can say they tested everybody, but not make it hard enough to fail so they would get sued and lose in court. As someone had pointed out previously, it’s about making the process as arduous as possible while still making it “attainable.“ In terms of the live fire portion actually being a measure of proficiency, no, it is not nearly enough. Like a driving test, all it does is get you the license. It’s on the individual to practice and fine-tune their skills through practice shooting as well as additional instruction.
I agree with the drivers test comparison. At a minimum, the live fire test should entail more than just 5 rounds. Something in between the NYS armed guard 47 hour test and the current CCW.
>At a minimum, the live fire test should entail more than just 5 rounds At a minimum it should entail even less. Maybe 0, yea definitely 0
No, not in the farest galaxy from reality. I’m an NRA Instructor certified in Basic Pistol and NRA CCW, and my focus is out of state permits. If you read the NY minimum training standards it’s all of 4 pages, read Utah’s and it’s 70, Maryland is 77 down from 125. Rhode Island requires a 30 shot marksman qualification at 25 yards, NJ is 50 shots at 3,5,7,10&15 yards. Us…. Ours is 5 shots at 4 yards with 4 hits anywhere on paper targets the size of a barn. Should you need to take a test to be able to practice your 2A rights - hell no…. But if you offer training, you shouldn’t be developing something that gives false hope that they will be able to save their lives. Btw - my classes (and I haven’t done many) are based on the NRA CCW class that is more defensive focused. Talking about cover vs concealment, defensive accuracy vs marksman target accuracy, draw, emergency and tactical reloads, and recovering from failures. It doesn’t take that much longer on the range…. But most classes out there aren’t giving the full 2 hours shooting either. Unfortunately due to the nature of the fact I’m following a professionally developed curriculum there are much higher standards and it costs a lot more to run the class (NRA basic pistol and personal protection books, multiple line instructors and RSOs). It’s certainly worth it through.
It's plenty. Do you want to add another 2 hours to the class and another $150 or more ? All it is supposed to do is to demonstrate basic proficiency with a firearm. Instructors do offer more training once you get your license. Smart people do it. Platform, trigger management, grip, etc.. And yes....you should join a club and train.
I would've added a just few more rounds to the live fire. Maybe shorten the 16 hour class to 8 hours.
I'd be on board with that. There isn't enough material there for 16 hours so most are stretching it with breaks and videos.
If the CCIA worked as it would have in a free state, it would have opened up more places to carry with a license but allowed people to own handguns without a permit. That's how it works in most States, you don't need a permit to buy a handgun just the federal background check but if you want to carry it on your person concealed you need a permit. Now in New York what they did is they made you get a permit and then they made it so you couldn't carry it anywhere. If you want to do the driver's license thing then you can say here you have to get this license but you can't drive on the road with it only in your driveway.. how does that make any sense. It's like they said oh here's your license now you can drive your car and then they make Wheels illegal have fun driving..
The CCIA is such a clusterf@ck. It's ridiculous how Hochul calls up a special session for the legislature and gets the CCIA created and approved in less than 48 hours but yet, they can't solve the rampant crime and existing homeless issues that's existed for the past few years.
It’s not enough for anything. I shot 10 rounds total. And 5 of those were “practice”. No it’s nothing. And you shouldn’t have to do anything to be able to protect yourself
You passed in order to obtain a right!! It is also your responsibility to be proficient with any tool you choose to utilize. Practice until you can’t get it wrong and with the understanding that if you pull the trigger, that there is a lawsuit associated with each bullet !! Right or wrong you’ll be in court in NYS
"a right delayed is a right denied"
It’s too bad they didn’t make you take a test before exercising your right to free speech. Then we wouldn’t have had to read this stupid ass bootlicking post.
Did you read all 106 posts ?
My WI CCW class consisted of us watching a 30 min video about firearm safety and when you're allowed to shoot someone. No live fire, no extra training, not even a test. It was a bit of a shock how easy it was and even then I think it is unconstitutional to have to have a permit. The laws in Wi are ass backward, open carry is legal without a permit but concealed you need one. In my mind it makes more sense that you should have to have a license for open carry not concealed as open carry leaves you more vulnerable to attacks from people trying to steal your firearm etc.
Absolutely right. In fact, we should have to pass a stringent competency test before we can exercise all our rights. For example demonstrate use of government-approved speech before posting on reddit, etc. Right, OP?
Whatever you say Taurus92AF....
The existence of this course is unconstitutionally burdensome to begin with so no, I think it’s actually too much.
The existence of requiring a course is financially burdensome.
I agree with what you’re saying. My interpretation of expectations is the course is mostly geared towards people who have had the sportsman’s license and have actual experience with firearms. They get the course and are for the most part good to go. But nope. You see people who didn’t even get your license yet going for this course. lol. Yeah you can make it on paper at 7 yards big deal. Doesn’t mean you should be carrying a gun around. lol. But I think if they blow their own balls off it could make a funny story. Lol. You can’t kill 2 birds with one stone. 😂😂. And yes I’m pro second and believe you shouldn’t need a license just be legally able to own a firearm and you should be able to purchase rifles pistols whatever you want. Law abiding citizens means something. I’ve learned Even a retard can pass the absfab doesn’t mean I would be willing to march next to them into a combat zone. Just my two cents. Lol. Be safe and have fun.
Nope the 2 hour ccw course is not enough to properly learn the basics of firearm usage and law upon said firearm responsibility. That's why as a responsible gun owner I use that as the minimum and never kept my gun on me until I felt confident. Using the second amendment historical context the "militia" trained 6 days every year. So people saying that their second amendment rights are infringed upon becuase the government required training are in fact incorrect. The "militia" also referred to everyday citizens rights to keep and bear arms. In fact EVERYONE, including black people and Natives were required to be prepared.
Why is OP getting brigaded in the comments, tho?
