Summit County sheriff worried about surge in CCW permits [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Summit County sheriff worried about surge in CCW permits


HerrGlock
08-11-2012, 11:02
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/akron_canton_news/summit-county-sheriff-worried-about-surge-in-ccw-permits

M24C
08-11-2012, 11:41
Typical Liberal media bias, if you look at the state of Ohio alone since 2009 the ccw permits have been increasing year over year. You will have fluctuations and shooting incidents will help drive those up at times, the trend has been up for awhile. The complaint is not requiring more training and some states don't require any. So honest journalism goes out the window when it doesn't fit their agenda. That's another example of why I don't watch the news.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

janice6
08-11-2012, 11:52
He is worried that CCW carriers don't have enough training with 10 hours classroom and two hours shooting. It's much less then Police.

We are not Police. We do not arrest people. We do not draw and use our pistols against another person as a everyday occurrence.

We cannot force compliance at gunpoint.

It's not the same as law enforcement.

This is the same training as my state.

Caver 60
08-11-2012, 12:11
The high sheriff himself said, I think you have to understand in today's society, we don't know who is carrying weapons out there.

That's exactly the best reason for me to have my carry permit. I'm all for training, but not mandated training.

Like someone in another recent thread said perhaps a person should be required to spend six months with Glocktalk Carry Issues. Or at least go to www.handgunlaw.us Ha ha.

redbaron007
08-11-2012, 13:17
This sheriff is trying to have it both ways; he's a liberal....plain and simple. Telling me you are a 2A supporter, then say I want MORE gubbermint intervention.......sure...I believe you! :steamed:

When a LEO (ie. COP, Sheriff etc) is going after MORE training and MORE background checks, that is code for "I" want to give CCW to who "I" want to have it! What MORE background checks does he want? What MORE training does he want? :faint:

:wavey:

red

cowboy1964
08-11-2012, 14:08
Alexander has never liked Ohio's CCW. He wants to go interview your neighbors and even your employer when you apply for the CHL so they can look for "red flags". In 2011 he stated in an interview that "we in law enforcement are still not used to people carrying guns". Uh hello, it's only been seven years! Really disingenuous of him to keep proclaiming that he is so pro-2nd Amendment.

"I think you have to understand in today's society, we don't know who is carrying weapons out there," - Sheriff Alexander.

You're right, Sheriff. But before legal CCW only the bad guys were carrying.

Sheriff Drew Alexander talks about controversial Ohio gun law. - YouTube

liberty addict
08-11-2012, 14:12
Herr Glock has it right: Required training is a 2nd amendment infringement, and is not proven to help AT ALL.
Indeed, in the states which have required training, these seem to be exactly the places where bad shoots happen. At any rate, the logic is easy: If training helps, use statistics to show your case. So far you cannot, the data is just not there to show it helps.

cowboy1964
08-11-2012, 14:16
Indeed, in the states which have required training, these seem to be exactly the places where bad shoots happen. At any rate, the logic is easy: If training helps, use statistics to show your case. So far you cannot, the data is just not there to show it helps.

That goes both ways... If training is bad use statistics to show your case. I would venture to say there is no such data supporting your contention that training actually causes bad shoots.

Personally I have no problem with SOME level of training. At least for the legal aspects of using deadly force, if not the firearm training. Use some common sense.

jph02
08-11-2012, 18:15
Alexander has never liked Ohio's CCW. He wants to go interview your neighbors and even your employer when you apply for the CHL so they can look for "red flags". In 2011 he stated in an interview that "we in law enforcement are still not used to people carrying guns". Uh hello, it's only been seven years! Really disengenious of him to keep proclaiming that he is pro-2nd Amendment.

"I think you have to understand in today's society, we don't know who is carrying weapons out there," - Sheriff Alexander.

You're right, Sheriff. But before legal CCW only the bad guys were carrying.

Sheriff Drew Alexander talks about controversial Ohio gun law. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-JM1ywgDyg)
:goodpost:

Drain You
08-11-2012, 19:21
He should be more worried about the surge in people carrying illegally.

TheExplorer
08-11-2012, 19:33
See, I think this could be something the police and CCW carriers could work on together. I would have been happy to take a classroom and range course taught by officers in order to get a CCW. I took the courses at my local NRA certified instructor club on my own.

H&K 4 LIFE
08-12-2012, 06:04
...When a LEO (ie. COP, Sheriff etc) is going after MORE training and MORE background checks, that is code for "I" want to give CCW to who "I" want to have it! What MORE background checks does he want? What MORE training does he want?...

Actually, it's worse than that. I believe it's code for "only I (the police) should be able to carry a firearm". There's nothing to suggest he wants any citizen to posses a permit to carry.

..."we in law enforcement are still not used to people carrying guns"...

:rofl:Well then, I guess the Sheriff doesn't catch on too fast.

Furthermore, I don't think he can speak for all law enforcement officers, as many of them are actually acquainted with the laws surrounding the practice of citizens legally carrying concealed.

pipedreams
08-12-2012, 06:11
You can bet he's a liberal.........................

smokin762
08-12-2012, 06:30
As I always write and say, I want fewer laws not more.

While I don’t think more training should be a law, I do think it should be a personal goal for a person with a CCW. I think that advanced training might help if a person gets into a bad situation. For me, I think it’s about survival. Times are getting worse not better.

MKEgal
08-13-2012, 22:30
That goes both ways... If training is bad use statistics to show your case.
Since the default position is (or at least, should be) no gov't interference with the peaceful exercise of protected civil rights, anyone (especially any gov't official) who wants to impose restrictions has the burden of proving that those restrictions will benefit society.

That hasn't happened.
The rate of wrongful shootings, the rate of crime committed by LACs, etc., are NOT higher in Constitutional Carry states than in states with no training requirement, which are not higher than in states with minimal training, which are not higher than in states with rigorous training.

In fact, there's nothing bad happening in the Constitutional Carry states (or states which only require a background check for a cc license) which could be solved by training (or more training) of citizens.
If there were problems, I'm sure the media would be all over it.

NEOH212
08-14-2012, 01:04
And not one word of concern about criminals carrying guns illegally but God forbid that someone legally carry a gun.

:upeyes::upeyes::upeyes:

NEOH212
08-14-2012, 01:05
Alexander has never liked Ohio's CCW. He wants to go interview your neighbors and even your employer when you apply for the CHL so they can look for "red flags". In 2011 he stated in an interview that "we in law enforcement are still not used to people carrying guns". Uh hello, it's only been seven years! Really disingenuous of him to keep proclaiming that he is so pro-2nd Amendment.

"I think you have to understand in today's society, we don't know who is carrying weapons out there," - Sheriff Alexander.

You're right, Sheriff. But before legal CCW only the bad guys were carrying.

Sheriff Drew Alexander talks about controversial Ohio gun law. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-JM1ywgDyg)

I never like the guy. He's something I can't call him here. You can guess what the word is.

HerrGlock
08-14-2012, 02:47
I never like the guy. He's something I can't call him here. You can guess what the word is.

Urinalysis taste tester. It also isn't against the TOS to use :supergrin:

jeanderson
08-14-2012, 04:12
Wht the article fails to mention is that in Ohio, you can apply for a CCW in your own county or an adjoining county. Summit county is bordered by Cuyahoga County (greater Cleveland) to the north, where over 1.2 million people live (10% of state population). Many in Cuyahoga County are going to Summit to apply for their CCW. Why?

The law in Ohio gives the sheriff’s office up to 45 days to process CCW applications. Cuyahoga County takes the full 45 days to process applications – mostly because it’s heavily Democratic and anti-gun. In Summit and other surrounding counties, the processing time is much less, sometimes only a week. So if you want to get your CCW license processed quickly, you go to Summit county.

eracer
08-14-2012, 04:27
That goes both ways... If training is bad use statistics to show your case. I would venture to say there is no such data supporting your contention that training actually causes bad shoots.

Personally I have no problem with SOME level of training. At least for the legal aspects of using deadly force, if not the firearm training. Use some common sense.But 'Common Sense' is an intrusive attempt by the gubmint to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

At least that's what I've been told by the tinfoilers.

soflasmg
08-14-2012, 05:53
Sounds like the Summit County Sheriff needs to lay off the estrogen and put on some man pants.

LoadToadBoss
08-14-2012, 06:22
I think it is illogical to require specialized training for concealed carry when Ohio is an open carry state. Anyone legally able to possess a firearm can openly carry without additional background checks or training. However, put a cover garment over the weapon and all of a sudden the carrier needs extra scrutiny and training. What has really changed about the carrier? Now you see it; now you don't.

TheExplorer
08-14-2012, 06:35
I think it is illogical to require specialized training for concealed carry when Ohio is an open carry state. Anyone legally able to possess a firearm can openly carry without additional background checks or training. However, put a cover garment over the weapon and all of a sudden the carrier needs extra scrutiny and training. What has really changed about the carrier? Now you see it; now you don't.

I know many wont like this, but even a simple police taught training class for any handgun purcase might quite the waters a bit. It certainly can't hurt to take a class and learn to fieldstrip, learn about jams, and fire a few range shots over a weekend or two.

HerrGlock
08-14-2012, 06:49
I know many wont like this, but even a simple police taught training class for any handgun purcase might quite the waters a bit. It certainly can't hurt to take a class and learn to fieldstrip, learn about jams, and fire a few range shots over a weekend or two.

If you made that a requirement to graduate from HS with the ability to opt-out and kept a listing of those who opted out that you compared to when someone was to buy a firearm, I would be all for it.

Then you have a registration of everyone who opted out and not one of gun owners.

To get off the listing, all someone would have to do is take the class.

(edit) One reason I keep saying this is it's not just the owners who come in contact with firearms. Kids of anti-gun people would never see a safe handling course because their parents believe since they don't own them the kid will never be in proximity of one, for one.

SouthernBoyVA
08-14-2012, 07:37
Wants to interview neighbors and employers. Suppose a neighbor or two doesn't like guns or doesn't like the applicant. Do you think they are going to be objective? And as for employers, same thing with the additional possibility that they may decide to search the applicant's bags or briefcase, or just let the applicant go.

This opens up a whole new can of worms under the banner of infringement. A neighbor says something like, "Joe wants to carry a concealed handgun? Man would that be crazy". Now Joe not only doesn't get his permit but he may very well be put on a watch list.

H&K 4 LIFE
08-14-2012, 08:10
I know many wont like this, but even a simple police taught training class for any handgun purcase might quite the waters a bit. It certainly can't hurt to take a class and learn to fieldstrip, learn about jams, and fire a few range shots over a weekend or two.

I agree that taking a basic firearms class never hurts. However, I do not think it should be required by law in order to obtain a permit.

There is also the issue that the training and standards could be designed to be purposely difficult or prohibitively expensive, which could make obtaining a permit next to impossible.

As I see it, as a responsible adult who wishes to carry a firearm the logical thing to do is to seek out an education about firearms yourself. We do so because we understand that just having a gun means nothing without the knowledge and skills to use it.

If we all took personal responsibility for gaining the necessary level of competency in safe operation of a firearm, familiarity with the laws surrounding carrying it, and some basic training in it's proper implementation without being required to do so then we would not need the government to intervene and construct any laws telling us what we must do. :)