Shooters Forum banner

Concerning expense to acquire a permit to carry in the U.S.A.

6K views 102 replies 32 participants last post by  Owen49 
#1 ·
I've had this on my heart for quite some time, in fact most of my adult life, yet I don't recall ever seeing any one else discussing this topic in the context I'm now presenting it.

As some of you know Arizona does not require any training, therefore any law abiding citizen or even those visiting our state can legally carry concealed or open without the need for a permit. Just to be clear about my feelings about our state constitutional carry law, I am in full support and support lawful carry by any American citizen inside our border.

What's bothering me is that many feel that at the very least we need to require training for anyone wishing to carry a weapon. I'm not completely abolished to this suggestion, but I feel there needs to be some manner to financially assist individuals who are unable to financially incur the costs of training, and even permitting if desired.

In a conservative culture that represents the vast majority of us who support the right to bear arms, we need to address this. With such a large number of conservative supporters, including the NRA, why can't we organize a group of qualified volunteer's willing to help the financially challenged to obtain training, as well procuring their carry permits in states that require such. A movement like this will only help to increase the number of individuals who carry, which will in effect increase the magnitude of our voice/support throughout the U.S.. NRA fights for us, and they provide a staunch presence in Washington, but there is power in numbers, the more of us there are, the better.

I brought this topic up simply because I personally know of numerous individuals that live in "Shall Issue" states requiring permits to carry that don't carry, simply because they can not bear the financial requirements of training and the other required financial aspects of the process. And to be perfectly honest I am among those who can't bear the costs, fortunately for me though I live in a "Constitutional Carry" state and don't have deal with such requirements. But still, we're a close knitted culture, we should be addressing this and opening the door to those who would like to have the legal ability to defend their selves, but who simply can not endure the expense, don't these folks deserve the legal means to carry also in state that require such?

And what can we do to help?

We have "Donate your car" programs and other assistance programs that are organized by non Government entities, so why isn't there a group or organization willing to assist this rather large percentage of law abiding citizens with permits to carry? We have free self defense training classes offered all the time in my area, but none of it is focused on firearm training? One such approach would be to maybe require that individuals asking for financial assistance with permitting, is for those individuals to register to vote. I feel this would help increase our political voice as well. I also feel strongly that this approach would help politically educate and motivate those who have been silent for so long, help them develop a truth based perspective, get them involved in other words.

What say you?

SMOA
 
See less See more
#4 ·
What I say is that if they cannot afford the $32.50 for the one day course or the approximately $40. a year for the permit (cost of the permit in Tn that's good in 40 states) then they likely cannot afford a firearm and ammunition to carry.
 
#5 ·
Gun safety is not rocket science I learned it at a young age and owned my first rifle at age 7. There is no need for formal training for firearms. Suggesting that it should be required is a tactic of the anti gun folks who will in fact make the training just as unpleasant and expensive as they possibly can, that is unless they can ban guns altogether.
 
#75 ·
No it's not, it's called being responsible. Given the way some people act on the range is a good indicator they need training. Out on their own (shooting by themselves) it only gets worse. Even Law Enforcement that requires training don't always get the best in the way of firearms proficiency which is why you get accidents.
 
#6 ·
Agree with Tnhunter. If a person feels they need to carry the training and licensing is a small part of the total cost.

In SD all we have to do is clear the background check to carry concealed. On the surface requiring training sounds like a great idea but isnt carry a right to begin with?
 
#8 ·
Just a thought. I have no argument with the concept that a person can learn safe gun handling without having the benefit of a formal class. I can't speak for every state that requires some kind of training for either open or concealed carry, but in Texas, the majority of the curriculum for the "training" class involves the legal and moral aspects of the use of deadly force. That is not something that can normally be "picked up" without formal training. To me, it is vital that anyone carrying a firearm for potential self-defense thoroughly know their state's laws regarding deadly force, and also be trained at least in the basics of threat recognition and being aware of his/her surroundings. Does anyone question the viability of Hunter Safety classes for new hunters? They may know gun safety but do they know the laws regarding legally taking game? I think the same principle applies in both situations.
 
#27 ·
Just a thought. I have no argument with the concept that a person can learn safe gun handling without having the benefit of a formal class. I can't speak for every state that requires some kind of training for either open or concealed carry, but in Texas, the majority of the curriculum for the "training" class involves the legal and moral aspects of the use of deadly force. That is not something that can normally be "picked up" without formal training. To me, it is vital that anyone carrying a firearm for potential self-defense thoroughly know their state's laws regarding deadly force, and also be trained at least in the basics of threat recognition and being aware of his/her surroundings. Does anyone question the viability of Hunter Safety classes for new hunters? They may know gun safety but do they know the laws regarding legally taking game? I think the same principle applies in both situations.

Agree! This is the main point for such training, absolutely.
 
#10 ·
Another thought. What if someone proposed to the state agencies that regulate school curriculum that a new course be required that teaches students the penal code? What a novel idea, to actually teach citizens what the laws are they they are to abide by. Another interesting course, probably as an elective, would be something to do with personal safety, you know, being aware of your surroundings, alert levels, how to avoid being a victim, that sort of thing. Could there actually be any value to the general populace being taught not to be victims? Oh, and an ethics class where students could discern right from wrong. Nah, that would never fly. After all, there is no right and wrong. It depends on the situation (and who you know). Seems to me these courses might be more useful than some of the fluff that is required now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMW1954
#13 ·
Whether or not an individual can afford the gun or ammunition has absolutely no bearing on this topic. So just because they may live on a tight budgeted fixed income should dictate whether they can carry or not is really very pompous, snobby, and arrogant.

What would be best is if the United States allowed us the freedom as a free nation to bear arms without having to ask permission, like it is here in Arizona. Federal law doesn't require that we have a permit to carry, so how is it that each state can impose laws that violate our written constitutional amendment. The 1A doesn't say if you live in Texas that some restrictions may apply, so why should it be any different regarding the 2A or any other freedoms guaranteed to us as Americans? No, instead it's a felony offense to carry without a permit in Texas, that's not only ridiculous, but it's unjustly imposing on those common less financially blessed law abiding citizens, who by the way are just as entitled to the legal right to defend their life as anyone else. I guess our lives just aren't as important as the middle class and wealthy?

All I can say is I thank God I live in the "Right" state, and that there are other states that extend constitutionality to all it's law abiding residents.

SMOA
 
#14 · (Edited)
It really is a very difficult question. As an outsider to this discussion I do have some examples here in the UK which developed, not because of any concern about the overall safety of hunters, but because insurance companies asked the Forestry Commission if hunters on their land had appropriate training and then that was picked up by the unscrupulous to make money. Now we have TWO stages Deer Stalker Certificate 1 and Deer Stalker Certificate 2, plus as said above, refresher courses are being run at about $500 a shot(no pun intended) The courses themselves cost about the same each and without that certificate it can be impossible to hunt on what is our public land run by various timber companies, because their hands are tied by insurance companies.

I refuse to take the courses because I ask to see the CV of the instructor. One I know of was thrown off the estate he worked for, for total incompetence and then was employed as a training instructor. Having been shooting now for close to 70yrs and spent 14yrs of those as a Tactical Firearms trained Police Officer and part of a twenty man sniper team, I believe my CV may give me a bit more kudos than a two day expensive course.

NOW, having said all of that, then I am not against education and as long as a handling and safety course is ,as Tn says affordable, it can only be a good thing and then as here shooters can make their minds up if they wish to take it further and add to their knowledge and ability with the extra expence.

Certainly a subject worth talking about Submoa
 
#15 ·
Thank you for the intelligent as well informative point of view Sus Scrofa. I just feel that as an American citizen, law abiding to the hilt, that the constitution should be full expressed in every amendment across the board. And that if some feel better asking citizens to obtain some form of further training and, or education that this should be offered at no cost to anyone.

Look, I've been carrying for almost 50 years and have never had, been required to obtain, nor do I intend to procure a permit. However, there have been times in my life when I lived in such restrictive states in which reporting a crime in which I was brutally victimized, kidnapped or other wise physically violated I would have been treated like a common criminal, rather than the victim that I was, entirely the result of unconstitutional infringement and the laws that go with such.

I currently live comfortably, not by any standard wealthy, but comfortably and secure. But I also live on a fixed and very modest income in which if required to be permitted would place a very imposing financial strain on my wife and I each time we would have to re-new our permits.

As I stated in my previous post, the federal government does not require a permit, they completely and fully recognize the 2A as constitutionally established. So again I ask, why are individual states legally permitted to place such conditions and stipulations upon us, law abiding citizens who are afforded constitutional rights without stipulation. It's only when addressing the 2A that this becomes debatable, when in fact there should be no legal basis for any state to put in place stipulations that contradict or supersede the very purpose of our constitution, regardless of the specific amendment.

I'm fired up over this, and it especially gains my interest when I read how restrictive some states are in this respect, a felony for carrying a legal firearm by a law abiding citizen, that's just wrong. And no matter how it's reasoned, there's no way anyone will ever sell me a bill of goods that justifies such blatant violation of the constitution as it applies to law abiding citizens, no way.

SMOA
 
#17 ·
The real question is, why do so many US officials get away with not following their oaths of office? That is, to support and defend The Constitution of the United States of America. All of it. Not just the parts they like. It seems to me there are legal grounds for termination of office for a very large number of federal, state, and local "officials". The oath is a verbal contract.
 
#18 · (Edited)
A few thoughts.

Hunter safety programs are required to obtain HUNTING licenses, not own guns. Yes gun safety is not rocket science but for kids that are dying because they were never taught how to treat a gun safely, it's a sad state of affairs. Not everyone is lucky enough to be raised with parents educated about guns, or that take the time to teach it to their kids. IMO as a public service safety matter a quick/simple, what to do if a gun is found type scenario should be taught in schools yearly. It should not be pro or anti gun, just basic gun safety & hopefully take some of the mystery/curiosity of guns away from kids. Let's face facts, there are a lot of guns in our country, owned by good & bad people. Not all (or most IMO) are kept unloaded in safes. The odds of a kid coming across a gun at some point in his/her life are pretty high. I can't see anyone pro or anti gun disputing this. Some quick & very simple, what to do if, do's/dont's should be required curriculum & could save lives. Further training/education optional with parental approval. I can see several QUALIFIED volunteers for this type of program. The more gun education in our country, the less irrational fears & anti's IMO, BUT it would need to be presented in a neutral way, without pushing ANY agenda & let the individuals decide for themselves if they want to remain anti. You can't expect people with no real gun knowledge to make good decisions regarding them. We don't appreciate their anti views being forced on us, we should not try to impose our beliefs on them. How can an intelligent person argue that an educated decision is not the better one. A group of people demonstrating carrying weapons & scaring people does more harm than good IMO. I remember nuclear duck & cover drills, drivers education & sex education. Why not some gun education & terrorist attack/mass shooting education as well for that matter.
 
#22 ·
Hunter safety programs are required to obtain HUNTING licenses, not own guns. Yes gun safety is not rocket science but for kids that are dying because they were never taught how to treat a gun safely, it's a sad state of affairs. Not everyone is lucky enough to be raised with parents educated about guns, or that take the time to teach it to their kids. IMO as a public service safety matter a quick/simple, what to do if a gun is found type scenario should be taught in schools yearly. It should not be pro or anti gun, just basic gun safety & hopefully take some of the mystery/curiosity of guns away from kids. Let's face facts, there are a lot of guns in our country, owned by good & bad people. Not all (or most IMO) are kept unloaded in safes. The odds of a kid coming across a gun at some point in his/her life are pretty high. I can't see anyone pro or anti gun disputing this. Some quick & very simple, what to do if, do's/dont's should be required curriculum & could save lives. Further training/education optional with parental approval. I can see several QUALIFIED volunteers for this type of program. The more gun education in our country, the less irrational fears & anti's IMO, BUT it would need to be presented in a neutral way, without pushing ANY agenda & let the individuals decide for themselves if they want to remain anti. You can't expect people with no real gun knowledge to make good decisions regarding them. We don't appreciate their anti views being forced on us, we should not try to impose our beliefs on them. How can an intelligent person argue that an educated decision is not the better one. A group of people demonstrating carrying weapons & scaring people does more harm than good IMO. I remember nuclear duck & cover drills, drivers education & sex education. Why not some gun education & terrorist attack/mass shooting education as well for that matter.

Actually, I'm not sure about other states but I was born and raised in NY and the state constitution mandates teaching marksmanship and gun safety in the schools. But like so many laws the politicians ignore it if it suits their agenda to do so. When I was young marksmanship and gun safety was taught in schools but no longer. NY is now turning into an anti gun state. First they stopped teaching it in schools, next they started spreading misinformation and then they started banning guns. Breaking the law every step of the way.
 
#21 ·
When I lived in Tucson,my business required that I would make almost a daily deposit. The Bank was down town,when I had to walk pushing a cart with money I was left very exposed.I carried a gun sometimes out and sometimes concealed,and I did feel safe.
When I moved to Ca I had to go through a course and fire a quantification round before I could even apply for a CCW,then finger prints and a interview with an Officer that would issue for one year a permit. This was in the city,the rules for the county was much easier. But in my business the crud knew I carried money and many times I would be followed,I would not form a pattern.
I didn't like having to go through all the bureaucratic system just to protect myself,but if caught with a concealed weapon without a permit was not worth the risk.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Concealed-carry laws are instituted because the public has been trained to distrust people who carry a concealed weapon. Only criminals carry concealed, don't you know. If a man has his permit, that tells the public he has met any & all state requirements which are in place to mollify any concerns the public may have about a crazy man running around with a gun hidden under his overcoat. A concealed carrying permit is there only to relax the public mind. It has nothing to do with how well a man who can carry concealed can use the weapon he has. Look at Arizona: Any man who meets the legal criteria can carry. Now have that man step across the border into Kalifonia, and compare Arizona's law to that of Kalifonia. Which State has greater trust in its People?
 
#25 ·
Ny mandated marksmanship?

I was Long Island born & raised schooled 1962-1974 & NEVER had any type of firearms training or heard of such until now. An upstate thing maybe? Many of the "older" schools did have indoor ranges in the basements, but were phased out in the 70's??? Too bad, I think it would be a good idea & maybe even save a few kids lives. Good luck getting it on the curriculum & past the PTA however.
 
#26 · (Edited)
Good luck getting it on the curriculum & past the PTA, however.
I have three words for that: "Sandy Hook hoax." How about "Columbine massacre?" Not to forget how politically-correct we have become, what about "Orlando nightclub hoax?" Yes, it would be a very good thing if kids were trained in firearms at an early age. But would Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action ever approve? Hardly. That would disrupt their nefarious plans to disarm us all, which is the pathway to the socialist dictatorship about which they dream America should become...

Anyone notice there was no 24-hour, wall-to-wall, days-on-end and L-I-I-I-I-VE! news coverage of the fifty funerals that the (alleged) Pulse Nightclub murdering spree should have generated? There was the alleged shooting, a day or two of intense & saturating news about it, then it just evaporated. Poof! Gone. No days and days of funerals, no sobbing friends and relatives, no shrill-throated calls for more and more and more gun control. Well, there was some of that from one particular moron in Washington, DC but by and large, the whole thing just went away in less than a week. I remember Columbine-- the news about it dragged on for weeks. Pulse? Gone in sixty seconds. Maybe "Orlando" never really happened?
 
#99 ·
Proves the point about "an armed society is a safe society" however, the first guy who yelled "i have a gun" probably shouldn't have one if he's leaning towards using one over a parking space.:rolleyes:
 
#29 · (Edited)
Here in Illinois its a $20 fee just for applying for a "required" FOI card.. And if you decide to carry it's $300 for the "required courses" PLUS $150 for a 5 year permit, not to mention any fees and taxes assessed in the permit process.. So $500.00 just for the right to carry is a lot of money for a lot of people..
 
#32 · (Edited)
"ALLEGED/HOAX" at the Pulse nightclub? SHIRLEY, you must be kidding?
Well, where was the endless, repetitive and tear-jerking reporting about who was allegedly murdered? We saw none of it. Wouldn't an anti-Freedom media and an anti-Freedom moron from somewhere along Pennsylvania Avenue in DC have taken such a deliciously good crisis and made it their cause celebre to further erode our Freedom by taking us right into the casket at the funeral home, and right into the open grave at the cemetery? Why no series of photographs of the alleged victims as smiling & happy kids, in grade school, as Little League players, at college or at their "weddings?" We saw none of that, either. Just intense reporting of the alleged murders, a few TV pictures of victims who were also on the payroll of Handgun Control at earlier alleged shootings in other locations around the country, calls for the destruction of our Second Amendment... and then it was all gone. Like it never happened. Makes me wonder "Did it?" We must remember the words of Rahm Emanuel when these things crop up. Never forget those words...

"And stop calling me "Shirley!""
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachogrande
#31 · (Edited)
I'm not a big fan of excess government rules and regulations - but it is my personal opinion that ANYONE who carries a firearm, ought to be taking at least SOME training on the deadly force statues of the jurisdiction you live in. I was sort of resentful when hunter safety education became mandatory where I lived, because I had been hunting several years, but in the end I was glad I took the course. The game warden that taught it was an enthusiastic turkey hunter and sprinkled his presentation with lots of good info. And, without taking it, I wouldn't have been able to hunt in other states where it would have been required, anyway.

Back to self-defense... without taking in some information on the laws ... setting yourself up for serious potential problems, should you ever have to defend yourself. There was a story in yesterday's paper of a local resident (same county as me, different city) who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for an unjustified shooting that resulted in the death of someone who was wandering through his yard at night, unarmed but inebriated.

And I can't think of one single constitutional right, that can be exercised in public, at no expense whatsoever and with no restrictions whatsoever. Think about it... even if you walk to the town square to "peaceably assemble" or express your "freedom of speech," you still have to wear clothes, don't you?


That is my opinion.
 
#33 ·
Having a CCW comes with the responsibility to do the right thing.It does give you a feeling of safety. I have often thought while in a bank and a robbery started what would I do,you will never know until the time comes.
I have had a call from the alarm company telling me someone has entered my business,what would I do,grab your handgun rush down to your business and maybe be there before the police,and you are standing there with a gun in your hand,or on your person,this happened to me at 3:00pm and I was glad I did not have my gun on me. The creeps could not get into my vault or safe,these people are looking for something quick,they grabbed stuff from the shop and left before we got there.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top