Some evidence on how high permit fees impact who gets permit

Ohio has a requirement for obtaining their concealed carry permit. It is a basic firearms lecture class and a practical range session. (In addition to passing the obligatory background checks.)

The lecture class concludes with a multiple choice and true/false test of 50 questions, two points each. You may miss up to five (5) questions and pass the test. The range session is more about safe handling of the firearms instead of grouping or pinpoint accuracy. The instructor wants/needs to see/believe that the student is comfortable with firearms and demonstrates safe handling.

Ohio and Georgia do not share reciprocity for their concealed carry permits. I WONDER if the states that do require something more than passing a background check do not reciprocate with states that require only the background check for this reason? I do not know the answer, but it seems logical.

I am in favor of some level of training/class requirement in addition to the passing of the background checks. Most any weekend in a metro-Atlanta range I've never believed more in this than at that time - seeing the morons handling firearms, ignoring range rules and common sense and safety. The Ohio required training is essentially a cover the basics of firearms (NRA Basic Pistol Training Class). In order to obtain a drivers license people are required to pass a written and practical exam. So if operating a motor vehicle requires testing and some level of education (be it formal or informal to pass a test or meet a requirement) I would hope that carrying a firearm would also require some basic level of education and testing.

The cost for the Ohio class varies depending upon the instructor. Many charge $125.00 for the class (book and range) and I find that hard to believe this fee is outside the reach of those who purchase one or more firearms.

Ohio has a requirement for attending church. It is a theological class and a practical pew-filling session. (In addition to passing the obligatory background checks.)

The lecture class concludes with a multiple choice and true/false test of 50 questions, two points each. You may miss up to five (5) questions and pass the test. The pew-filling session is more about singing on key instead of actual worship. The instructor wants/needs to see/believe that the student is comfortable with worship and demonstrates knowledge of basic musical notes.

Ohio and Georgia do not share reciprocity for church attendance. I WONDER if the states that do require something more than passing a background check do not reciprocate with states that require only the background check for this reason? I do not know the answer, but it seems logical.

I am in favor of some level of training/class requirement in addition to the passing of the background checks. Most any weekend in a metro-Atlanta church I've never believed more in this than at that time - seeing the morons trying to gain sexual favors from their congregation, ignoring altar call and common sense and snoring too loudly during the sermon. The Ohio required training is essentially a cover the basics of worship (Mandatory sunday school). In order to obtain a (PRIVILEGED) drivers license people are required to pass a written and practical exam. So if operating a motor vehicle requires testing and some level of education (be it formal or informal to pass a test or meet a requirement) I would hope that worship would also require some basic level of education and testing. Think about it! People may actually wind up in hell if they don't know how to pray.

The cost for the Ohio class varies depending upon the instructor. Many charge $125.00 for the class (book and range) and I find that hard to believe this fee is outside the reach of those who actually need the churches help.

"Worse is that in Ohio.... this isn't just one time training - you have to recertify everytime you renew your license."

I believe this is inaccurate. I was told by a sheriff that one needs to only present that initial certificate upon renewal, thereby not forcing one to retake the basic training class.


"And just look at how well that prevents accidents and idiots from driving."

Nowhere did I say anything about preventing accidents nor idiots from driving in my original post. A simple analogy was made that if a state requires some education/testing to obtain a driver's license it would seem to make logical sense that some requirement would be made to obtain a concealed carry permit as well.


BTW, for those interested, Ohio does not require one to possess a concealed permit in order to open carry. Following the applicable nothing bars one from possessing a firearm and one carries in the allowed areas one can carry in Ohio openly, unlike Georgia, wherein my understanding is that a permit is required to carry openly in Georgia.


Regarding the "Ohio has a requirement for attending Church" ... umm, sorry, separation of Church and State makes your lengthy reply mute.

new57 said:

Ohio has a requirement for obtaining their concealed carry permit. It is a basic firearms lecture class and a practical range session. (In addition to passing the obligatory background checks.)

The lecture class concludes with a multiple choice and true/false test of 50 questions, two points each. You may miss up to five (5) questions and pass the test. The range session is more about safe handling of the firearms instead of grouping or pinpoint accuracy. The instructor wants/needs to see/believe that the student is comfortable with firearms and demonstrates safe handling.

Click to expand...

How much does this lecture class and "test" cost each applicant? If it cost anything, it directly impedes the law-abiding poor from asserting a constitutionally held right to bear arms for self-defense. After all, the poor often live in high crime areas, and the argument could be made that if anyone needs to be armed in public, it would be those who live in high crime areas. Also, we already pay a tax for a license so that we can assert the "bear" part of our constitutional right, should we really be adding on more tax and cost onto this right? Would you be for a "freedom of speech tax" for a freedom of speech license?

Also, I assume this multiple choice test is in the written form correct? How about if a person doesn't read very well or have very good reading comprehension skills. Lets say they are uneducated or have a learning disability, should they be barred from asserting their constitutional right to bear a firearm for self-defense? All because they do not do well on test, reading comprehension, or have a learning disability?

I am in favor of some level of training/class requirement in addition to the passing of the background checks. Most any weekend in a metro-Atlanta range I've never believed more in this than at that time - seeing the morons handling firearms, ignoring range rules and common sense and safety. The Ohio required training is essentially a cover the basics of firearms (NRA Basic Pistol Training Class). In order to obtain a drivers license people are required to pass a written and practical exam. So if operating a motor vehicle requires testing and some level of education (be it formal or informal to pass a test or meet a requirement) I would hope that carrying a firearm would also require some basic level of education and testing.

Click to expand...

Only the educated should be able to bear a firearm? WOW! :shock: I think I straight up missed that part in the 2nd Amendment where it says, "Shall not be infringed, except if you are uneducated or poor."

How about making sure that people are educated before they are allowed to speak? We wouldn't want anyone asserting their freedom of speech without them taking a lecture course, passing a written test, and paying a hefty tax for a license, now would we?

Boy, I sure am glad that we live in a Republic in order to protect my rights from people who think like you.

The cost for the Ohio class varies depending upon the instructor. Many charge $125.00 for the class (book and range) and I find that hard to believe this fee is outside the reach of those who purchase one or more firearms.

Click to expand...

$125?!?! Goodness, with that price, and I'm guessing an addition cost for the license we're talking well over twice what Georgians pay for their GWL.

That is certainly restrictive to poor people. About them having enough money for a firearm, they should have enough money for the license and mandatory training logic. First off, this is just completely absurd to argue anyway. Why put a tax and even more heavy mandates on a constitutionally held right anyway? Making it even harder for people to assert?

How about the fact that they now have to buy a cheaper firearm, because they had to spend an extra $125 towards the training that they could have put towards just a little bit more reliable or effective firearm?

Secondly, I guess its impossible that a firearm be passed down to someone through their family? Or even a family member giving them a gun for self protection because they know they live in a high crime area? Those are two possibilities I can think of right there when someone may have a firearm, but cannot afford the training.

Lastly, how about the time off of work, if someone is working, to go to this training, take the test, and shoot the firearm? How about if they cannot get off work to make it to the class? How about if their employer doesn't agree with firearms carry and won't let them get off work to attend? How about the money lost for not working for the time to be at the lecture and take the test and shoot the firearm? That could affect a poor person.

Going through all that to simply assert their 2nd amendment right to bear a firearm for self-defense.

My whole point was to show how absurd it is to have pay and train for a constitutionally protected right. Insert any other right in there and you will see how retarded it is. So the point is not moot.

What about a single mom with 3 kids who has to get a restraining order today against her ex-husband who has threatened to kill her the next time he sees her? She has an old revolver handed down to her. If she wants to carry the gun, she has to risk becoming a criminal until 1.) She comes up with $125 for the class 2.) Finds time off of work to attend the class 3.) Pays "X"$ for the permit 4.) Waits "X" number of days, weeks or even months to receive the permit. She has a legitimate reason to carry a gun but yet has to jump through all these hoops to exercise a right.

Believe it or not, I actually used to think exactly like you so I do understand where you are coming from. Then I studied the constitution and enlightened myself as to what "rights" really are. It is not your fault though. I am a public school graduate and was conditioned to believe that my rights were granted to me by the government. Do you actually understand what the 2nd amendment means? It is a right that the government is not supposed to touch. PERIOD! Incrementalism is what got us where we are today with our 2A rights. It is time to say "No more!" It is time that we take back our rights.

"How much does this lecture class and "test" cost each applicant?"

Fee varies depending upon instructor (individual versus company) but in the neighborhood of $125.00.

For $125.00 the student receives the NRA Basic Pistol Training Course and associated materials as well as range time. The class provides an avenue for the students to converse with one another and the instructor, ask any questions, etc. The range time can be straight range or dynamic range depending upon where you take the class. The dynamic range time is quite nice for the $125 price tag: identifying bad versus good, standing, kneeling, prone, etc. I'm certain someone somewhere will state the class was lame (DISCLAIMER) but everyone I've spoke with regarding it found it an excellent value for the $125 price tag. Research I've completed shows that $125 for 10+ hours of class and range time is very affordable.


"If it cost anything, it directly impedes the law-abiding poor from asserting a constitutionally held right to bear arms for self-defense."

So is your argument A) against a fee associated with the training (paid to the instructor), B) against a fee associated with obtaining the actual permit (paid to the sheriff), and/or C) against any fee, direct or indirect, charged to ALL Amendments or only the Second Amendment?


"After all, the poor often live in high crime areas, and the argument could be made that if anyone needs to be armed in public, it would be those who live in high crime areas. "

I know you do, so what is your argument then against using demographics and statistics as a deciding factor in the fees associated with training and permit application and renewal? Taking your statement above could the governments simply not then charge only those living in low crime areas and those with an income level above 'X' the fee and subsidize those living in the high crime areas? Sounds silly, doesn't it?


"Also, we already pay a tax for a license so that we can assert the "bear" part of our constitutional right, should we really be adding on more tax and cost onto this right? "

It isn't a cost factor for me. It's more simple: I prefer that those who want to possess a concealed carry permit go through a basic firearms class and range session. That's my opinion. That does not translate into everyone coming out of the class demonstrating safe handling of a firearm at all times, etc. However, a percentage of students will learn and remember something from the experience and that percentage is better than none to me. Remember, the training is a one time cost. The renewal cost for the permit is always there. Very similar to driver's education wherein the student pays once for the education and keeps renewing their driver's license (Not an Amendment I'm aware).


" Would you be for a "freedom of speech tax" for a freedom of speech license?"

We could delve into all types of scenarios and analogies, but if you believe that freedom of speech is free then you might want to remove the wool from your eyes. Because there are both direct and indirect costs associated with "freedom" of speech.


"Also, I assume this multiple choice test is in the written form correct? How about if a person doesn't read very well or have very good reading comprehension skills. Lets say they are uneducated or have a learning disability, should they be barred from asserting their constitutional right to bear a firearm for self-defense? All because they do not do well on test, reading comprehension, or have a learning disability?"

Or for that matter what if they can only read upside down to get enough oxygen to their brain and there's no hanging bar available to them? Or what if they can speak and read only Italian but the test is in English (just as the firearms manual is only in English)? Or what if the student ...

By the way, so I presume from your statements above that you are against the form 4473, correct? Because that form certainly would pose problems for those who cannot read very well, comprehend well, etc.

Yes, the test is presented on paper to the students. Any student can ask the instructor anything they want. I'm certain that most instructors would work with a student on whatever level they need.


"Only the educated should be able to bear a firearm? WOW! I think I straight up missed that part in the 2nd Amendment where it says, "Shall not be infringed, except if you are uneducated or poor.""

Let's split hairs: you'd best be educated about your rights and the laws because if you are not you may quickly find yourself in a place you don't wish to be. Freedom of speech gets folks in trouble every year, putting them in a place they didn't think they'd be because they thought they had freedom of speech. However, perhaps a little education would have helped them along the way and they wouldn't have ended up in that position.

And again, who is arguing the class fee and the permit fee are unreasonable? Stands to reason that the "poor" you refer to would have banded together by now and made their voice known. Fact of the matter is, I think, you simply want to be able to carry whenever wherever without any Government intervention, and so arguing that the class fee (and not the permit fee, not yet at least) is unfair to the uneducated/under-educated and the poor is the pony you'll ride in on.



"$125?!?! Goodness, with that price, and I'm guessing an addition cost for the license we're talking well over twice what Georgians pay for their GWL. "

If $125 for 10 hours of firearms training, class and range, is unreasonable then ...

By the way, where is your response that in Ohio one can carry openly without a permit yet in Georgia one has to pay for a carry permit in order to carry openly? Should you not be arguing to the Government of Georgia that the permit fee is too high, that there should be no fees, and that you should be able to open carry without a permit?


"That is certainly restrictive to poor people."

Robin Hood, seeing how you're so vocal about firearms training and the poor, does this passion extend to ALL areas of assistance and understanding? Are you asking for lower driver's license fees for the poor? Are you opening your home and business to assisting the poor? Would you sell them groceries at a lower price, simply because they are "poor" as you've defined it? After all, the right to eat is a staple, isn't it?

It certainly appears that your driving force, the more you respond, is not against people being educated on firearms and safe handling of firearms, but against Government imposing what you view as restrictions on your rights. I'm not arguing anything about the Second Amendment, I was simply stating what my opinion is on the Ohio permit process. By the way, even after your dissertation I believe it's a good thing - having folks educated. On anything, but especially firearms. And you better start your public support now, because rumors are that Georgia may be moving to something similar to Ohio.


"Lastly, how about the time off of work, if someone is working, to go to this training, take the test, and shoot the firearm?"

Do you have this same sentiment regarding the driver's license? The bar exam? And other such tests and requirements? Probably not, because it's absurd to argue all the possible scenarios about why or how requirements impose hardship upon the taker.

I won't touch the understanding the Amendments bit here because it's off-topic for this firearms forum. I will give you something to think about: Do you think that something written more than two hundred years ago applies as-is today? Or is there room for the possibility for change?