Concealed carry on Post/Base

[ballz]

I think the issue here isnt your comfort level but competence level.  You may have experience and wisdom with your weapon, but you know as well as I do that there are many out there who would be comfortable carrying, but would overestimate their own competence in weapons handling.

You're right, and my solution would be this as a minimum to maintain a CCW. Annual renewal of your CCW via handling test and range test, paid for by user fees and adminstered by an RSO at firing ranges (anyone who has a handgun registered right now MUST be a member of a range anyway, unless they are registered as a collector in which case they wouldn't want to carry their weapon anyway). It *should* take very little red tape, and most of the work delegated to competent people (RSOs at legit firearm ranges), all paid for by the people that want a CCW, not taxpayers. This, of course, is in addition to having to have a PAL-Restricted, etc which is already in place.

I don't honestly care if it's concealed or not concealed, being able to carry it would be nice. I probably wouldn't carry, but if we get to the point that I can carry, then that probably means I don't have to have a Restricted firearm at home double-locked and stored seperate from ammo, therefore rendering it useless in the case that I need it.

See when it comes to gun control in Canada, you've pretty much got to argue for the most extreme things (CCW) to accomplish anything (being able to store it in a matter that actually makes it useful...).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think the issue here isnt your comfort level but competence level.  You may have experience and wisdom with your weapon, but you know as well as I do that there are many out there who would be comfortable carrying, but would overestimate their own competence in weapons handling.

Your statement is a red herring. It has been stated many times by the pro side that a person would be properly trained and tested prior to being issued a CCW.

The fact remains, people's fear of the unknown does not equate to trampling another person's rights to self defence by the most efficient means possible.

 

[Greymatters]

Your statement is a red herring. It has been stated many times by the pro side that a person would be properly trained and tested prior to being issued a CCW.

If we already had a program in place, with proven regulatory and enforcement experience, I would agree.  But a new program is going to be just as susceptable to 'grandfathering' and 'exceptions for persons with appropriate experience and prior occupation' as any other security-related process out there.  Thus I have my doubts about whether a high enough standard of training and testing can be implemented or maintained. 

Regarding fear of the unknown, cant disagree there.  There will always be those who will fear a CCW, or weapons, period.  The public would demand some sort of public oversight and access to records of incidents to overcome their fears and prove them unjustified. 

What would you propose is a high enough standard of training and testing?  Would a probation period be suitable as well?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

To start, being able to complete the same course of fire as most LEO do perhaps. There are many CCW courses already in place in various States that could be looked at for comparison.

I don't think a probation period would be necessary. You follow the law or you don't. There is no way they would be able to enforce it anyway.

Canadian law already allows for ATC-2 (wilderness carry, hard to get) and ATC -3 (concealed everyday carry, almost impossible to get) without the need for the above mentioned scenarios. Issuance is up to the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO).

A compromise in the middle may be a starting point.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good detail, recceguy - wpn std = LEO std makes sense (I know, giving it the kiss of death as a regulation/law).

I don't think a probation period would be necessary. You follow the law or you don't. There is no way they would be able to enforce it anyway.

How about a "you screw up in the first x months, you get a bigger punishment" (like higher fines in school zones), or anytime you screw up, you get the big hammer because of the increased responsibility you carry?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good detail, recceguy - wpn std = LEO std makes sense (I know, giving it the kiss of death as a regulation/law). How about a "you screw up in the first x months, you get a bigger punishment" (like higher fines in school zones), or anytime you screw up, you get the big hammer because of the increased responsibility you carry?

How about, as it should be, you screw up, you lose your ATC?

There are a million scenarios (drinking while carrying, carrying in gun free zones, etc) without trying to determine a COA that the authorities might use.

First we need regulations that will impose a "will issue" on the CFO.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How about, as it should be, you screw up, you lose your ATC?

Short and sweet.

First we need regulations that will impose a "will issue" on the CFO.

Indeed.

 

[ballz]

you get the big hammer because of the increased responsibility you carry?

I think if you are willing to take on that responsiblity and the public offers you that trust, then yes, you should have to pay dearly for breaking that. I don't think taking away someone's ATC would be enough, I think they should have to pay out of the pocket severly if they are caught intoxicated at a bar "wavin' it in the air like they just don't care." This is in addition to losing their ATC for 3 lifetimes.

How about, as it should be, you screw up, you lose your ATC?

This would have to be a minimum.

 

[Greymatters]

I think if you are willing to take on that responsiblity and the public offers you that trust, then yes, you should have to pay dearly for breaking that.

So they would have to be bonded?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think if you are willing to take on that responsiblity and the public offers you that trust, then yes, you should have to pay dearly for breaking that. I don't think taking away someone's ATC would be enough, I think they should have to pay out of the pocket severly if they are caught intoxicated at a bar "wavin' it in the air like they just don't care." This is in addition to losing their ATC for 3 lifetimes.

This would have to be a minimum.

Which is why I said:

There are a million scenarios (drinking while carrying, carrying in gun free zones, etc) without trying to determine a COA that the authorities might use.

 

[ballz]

Which is why I said:

Ah sorry, misinterpretated that part as meaning something completely unrelated.

So they would have to be bonded?

Say again?

 

[Dissident]

Say again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surety_bond

 

[ballz]

Well then yes, obviously, we are all "bonded" by the law.

No different than how I have to "pay" for a speeding (dearly too, according to the only one I've gotten) or pay for driving intoxicated.

 

[Greymatters]

Well then yes, obviously, we are all "bonded" by the law.  No different than how I have to "pay" for a speeding (dearly too, according to the only one I've gotten) or pay for driving intoxicated.

Its actually quite different.  If you get caught violating a speeding law, they write you a ticket and maybe you'll pay.  If its a camera, its up to them to prove it was you driving or if they can prove you owned the vehicle.  If you dont pay, they might catch you when you need to renew your insurance.  Until then you can still drive.  You move and noone knows where where you are.  You can pretend you never got the notice or forgot about the ticket.  In the end you might pay $100-200.  At court you can plead the fine is a hardship and might get it reduced to $50. 

Being bonded has much more serious consequences if violated.  If this were an actual CCW with all the associated security and laws, I believe you would immediately lose your license and your bond, which can be up to $10,000 or more.  You would not be able to work or carry without breaking additional laws that are criminal code violations.  You can lose any security clearances you have.  They have your name and personal information and will pay you a visit if they get a report of you carrying or working without your license.  Big difference!

 

[ballz]

Well then no, that is not what I meant at all. Stopping them from being allowed to work? We don't do that to some of the worst criminals in our system, and for good reason.

i meant to just treat it like a normal criminal offense to "drink and carry," with fines/punishments, one of which is an automatic lifetime ban from a CCW. But TOUGH sentences, since the public has entrusted you with a license to carry a firearm and expects you to be responsible with it.

When I meant "pay dearly" I meant like $5,000 - $15,000 fines, criminal record, probation, house arrest, jail time... etc, all depending on the seriousness of the offense.

I doubt many people would go down to George Street for a few drinks with their pistol if they knew they'd be facing a $10,000 fine and 6 months probation.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

MOST legal firearms owners in this country are already well ahead of the general population when it comes to complying with the law. While I'm sure someone will break the terms, I doubt it would be enough of the norm to substantiate this tangent.

You simply have to look at the archaic laws and endless intrusions that we have to endure simply to own a firearm to confirm that.

The idea of making hypothetical cases and fines against CCW holders is outside the realm of reality, before we even have the ability to carry.

 

[cupper]

Well then no, that is not what I meant at all. Stopping them from being allowed to work? We don't do that to some of the worst criminals in our system, and for good reason.

i meant to just treat it like a normal criminal offense to "drink and carry," with fines/punishments, one of which is an automatic lifetime ban from a CCW. But TOUGH sentences, since the public has entrusted you with a license to carry a firearm and expects you to be responsible with it.

When I meant "pay dearly" I meant like $5,000 - $15,000 fines, criminal record, probation, house arrest, jail time... etc, all depending on the seriousness of the offense.

I doubt many people would go down to George Street for a few drinks with their pistol if they knew they'd be facing a $10,000 fine and 6 months probation.

Actually, I think you still don't understand. It's not a fine, or penalty. It's money you need to pay upfront.

A bond is an insurance policy that you need to purchase to cover potential damages, losses, lawsuits, failures to meet obligations, etc. that may occur in the regular performance of your job, running your business, etc.

It is fairly common in the construction industry, security and investigation firms, even cleaning companies.

Most contracts where there is a potential for big losses due to negligence, or failure to meet obligations, etc. require some form of bond be made or cash equivalent be held in trust that would cover the potential losses. Most companies that engage in work where bonding of employees are required would need to have their workers complete background checks, and possibly training before the can be bonded.

The bond itself may cost $10,000 but usually covers losses for significantly more. The cost is usually a small percentage of the potential loss.

If you were not able to obtain a bond as a requirement of your employment, you wouldn't be employable. If it was a requirement for a CCW, you wouldn't be able to get through the CCW permitting.

 

[Greymatters]

The idea of making hypothetical cases and fines against CCW holders is outside the realm of reality, before we even have the ability to carry.

In my example, I took the case of a bonded locksmith and fit in CCW, just to give an idea of how the bonded concept would apply.  Its all theoretical so yes I could be completely out in left field for a future CCW.

edit - hit the wrong button, sorry

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In my example, I took the case of a bonded locksmith and fit in CCW, just to give an idea of how the bonded concept would might possibly apply.  Its all theoretical so yes I could be completely out in left field for a future CCW.

TFTFY. Let's not carried away too far just yet

Anyway folks. We're way off track and this discussion more properly belongs in The Great Gun Control Debate thread.

 

[ballz]

Actually, I think you still don't understand. It's not a fine, or penalty. It's money you need to pay upfront.

A bond is an insurance policy that you need to purchase to cover potential damages, losses, lawsuits, failures to meet obligations, etc. that may occur in the regular performance of your job, running your business, etc.

It is fairly common in the construction industry, security and investigation firms, even cleaning companies.

Most contracts where there is a potential for big losses due to negligence, or failure to meet obligations, etc. require some form of bond be made or cash equivalent be held in trust that would cover the potential losses. Most companies that engage in work where bonding of employees are required would need to have their workers complete background checks, and possibly training before the can be bonded.

The bond itself may cost $10,000 but usually covers losses for significantly more. The cost is usually a small percentage of the potential loss.

If you were not able to obtain a bond as a requirement of your employment, you wouldn't be employable. If it was a requirement for a CCW, you wouldn't be able to get through the CCW permitting.

It's still a bad idea... This is about crime and your right to defend yourself, not corporate law.

If you have to post a 10,000 bond to own a CCW, you are basically paying 10k for the right to defend yourself with the most efficient means possible, plus all the other fees you will continue to pay (annual testing, renewal, registration, etc). You wouldn't be getting your 10k back unless you decided you didn't want your CCW correct? Well I'd be wanting to keep my CCW until I keeled over, so I'd be kissing that 10k good-bye. Also, not many people can afford that, and your right to defend yourself shouldn't come down to your chequing account.

I honestly don't understand how a corporate solution got brought into a criminal law debate.

EDIT: And I agree a lot of these posts need to be moved to the Great Gun Control Debate