In my State, permits to carry concealed weapons are not available to private citizens. Only law enforcement officers are afforded that privilege. I am a D.A. and I have appointed several unpaid "public service" investigators which makes them sworn officers with full police powers. This is definitely NOT a Posse or Militia situation--just the opposite. In fact, I have vigorously prosecuted members of both groups. It is simply my notion that my community can be a safer place if very conscientious, highly stable people carry weapons if they are qualified and emotionally suited to do so. <br><br>That leads to my questions. <br>1. Is anyone aware of a good screening tool or tools that might be appropriate to require of participants? I have zero budget for this, so it would pretty much have to be something I could administer personally. <br>2. Has anyone taken or been made aware of a model 8-16 hour training/certification program that could be adminstered by competent volunteers? <br><br> I would greatly appreciate any ideas. Also, any opinions as to whether this type of program is a good or terrible idea would be welcomed.<br><br>I hope that no one sees this type of question as a misuse of this site. If so--please let me know. I have seen so much expertise and good common-sense advice come from these forums, I thought I would try to tap in on some of that expertise for free! <br><br><br>

Florida was the first of the Shall Issue states and requires a quantity of class work to get it, so they might be able to send you an outline of thier course. It's probably the first of the modern courses of it's type, and with the results of a decade of Shall Issue are pretty hard to dispute. <br><br>As for screeening, I'd say limit yourself to the basics. If you can't buy a handgun under CGA 1968 on the grounds of felony conviction, mental imbalance or drug addiction, then you can't carry it. Anything else starts getting dangerously close to prior restraint. I can't imagine you want someone fighting something with your name (and rep as a DA) attached to it on PR grounds.

Robb, I can tell you without reservation that there is NO appropriate screening instrument for your purpose. Part of my clinical practice is "threat assessment", and I often evaluate even certified law enforcement officers to determine if they should remain armed.<br><br>There are probably sources which will sell such screening instruments to you. I'll argue (I've testified to the fact) that while this may make you feel better, there is no scientific basis for the concept of simple screening in this context. On the other hand, even with the best.. most complex.. and professional psychological evaluation available, you better your odds minimally over a toss of a coin in most circumstances.<br><br>A complex question.

Naro and Cyber...thank you much for the very useful information. I have followed up on a request to a colleague in Orlando, Cyber , and they in fact have a freely available outline for their required course....I wish I had thought of that--grateful that you did. Now to find some free (or very cheap) instructors! lol<br><br>Naro--All of the competent experts I have used in the context of commitment or sentencing proceedings seem to agree that future dangerousness is impossible to predict by any means other than past conduct. I actually had one (very colorful ) psychologist put it as "The only way you know what a jackass is going to do in the future is determine who it has kicked in the past." I guess I was hoping that among the "general" population where you don't have a track record (hopefully anyway) there might be some quick, dirty and accurate scale. As cynical as it sounds, I am thinking it might be worth using a flawed tool simply to show the effort in the event of the unthinkable. (I may be talking myself out of this whole thing). I note you are a wilderness hunter. My best friend is also a psychiatrist and hunts annually in Alaska for Moose. Wonderful meat. I am wondering if this is a shrink thing? lol<br><br>If you are testifying about risk of future danger, I assume you are called for sentencing and/or commitment proceedings? And if you testify that there is no valid test, you must be on the side of truth and justice (the prosecution of course). D o you do any NGI work? I am preparing a trial where the defendant is alleging a dissociate disorder all the way to the extent of MPD--the first for me, where they are actually claiming MPD. I am fascinated but OVERWHELMED by the extent of the dispute that seems to be raging in the psychological community about the viability of the defense (and even the validity of the disease). There seem to be lot of professionals out there that think that Sybil must have been faking! Not sure I am ever going to get it sorted out.<br><br>At any rate...Thanks to you guys for the help....<br><br>Take good care....Robb<br><br> <br>

Robb, I don't do ANY criminal forensic work. I keep my criminal activities limited to my own time. As a clinician who has been in active practice for >25years... I think the MPD diagnosis and defense is BS. I think I'm in the majority, but there are some "experts" who make a great living on the defense side of that question.<br> Re: the idea that screening would be simpler in the general population of folks than in the "jackass" population... actually, the OPPOSITE is true. On the carry permit issue, for instance, the "base rate" in society for carry permit holders to actually use the weapon in a criminal endeavor is so low that "prediction statistics" fail. To oversimplify - the "target event" (criminal use of a handgun) has to occur with a high enough base frequency in the population being tested. <br><br>Enough of that academic stuff... just don't you pay your hard earned $$$$$ for any mope who says he can do that kind of evaluation for you with any accuracy!!

I passed a class in preparation for receiving a carry permit<br>in Florida.<br><br>Although my class might be the exception, it was quite through. It<br>was taught by a county deputy (a Sgt) who was a very good <br>instructor. In fact, prior to starting the class, he gathered all<br>the name/dob/ssn of the folks signed up and ran a FDLE/NCIC<br>check. He wanted to know who he was instructing.<br><br>If I remember correctly, FDLE is the one issuing the carry<br>permit. Not any local authority, so there is a much broader<br>interest in who gets the permit. <br><br>I wish all states had similar programs. If drivers license are<br>good across state lines, then why not carry-permits? But<br>I digress.... :)<br><br>Jeff

I can name one reason why full co-recognition off CC permits won't happen: Vemont. If you can legally buy it, you can legally carry it here, and the thought of 600,000 people who can just whip out any id that holds thier legal address bothers a lot of the politicians who stole police uniforms. Not as easy as it to get joint legal residency here, and/or copy our state ids. <br><br>BTW, we recognize every sentient being's right to keep and bare, including sea monsters, yeti/bigfeet and little green guys from Neptune.

Some states do recognize each others carry permits, so you might want to inquire before you take your next trip.

Rob you said this: "If you are testifying about risk of future danger, I assume you are called for sentencing and/or commitment proceedings? And if you testify that there is no valid test, you must be on the side of truth and justice (the prosecution of course"<br><br>being on the side of justice is not a trueism..... sorry thats just the way I feel... That side is rift with abuse, and untill that side is not abusive there will remain a certain distance between the authority and the common man.<br><br>As for any permiting it is a mere hoax, and rather meaningless. The only thing that might be good that can possibly come from permiting is it may keep out convicts, and menatly disturbed people with a previous record.<br><br>In 1977 I moved from Fla to Mass, and was issued a carry permit in 3 days, something that was unheard of at that time. Even the police were to be checked out for better than a 6 weeks delay.<br><br>The problem with the permit is that it is useless. How do I know that you might ask.... Well the chief of police that issued the permit to me soon thereafter blew out his brains with his side arm. I still have that permit to remind me, and would offer details in e-mail to prove it.<br><br>I once again moved to the state of New Hampshire where again I was issued permits to carry and still have one.<br><br>The chief from that town is now residing in prison due to the fact that he was convicted for extortion, and embezzelment recently.<br> In the same county recently the "DA" was also convited of 512 counts lumped in to 2 for sexually molesting children! For Christ sakes! I had dealing with this "DA" and it does my heart good to see him in dire straights I might add. He was willing to lie, cheat, steal, insult my wife openly, and anything else that might get him his beloved conviction. He failed in my case. But even 5 years later I am angered by abuse of the system. <br><br>Just so you know I am 50 years of age and am no kid...<br><br>Now I know you have nothing to do with this, but it should show that no permit is needed period! That any law abiding citizen should not even have to apply for said permit. That said permiting should be allowed as the state of Vermont does, and that it should be National. That is to say if I have a drivers lic. and I go to any state at any time that it is Lawful to carry for protection of self and property period.<br><br>To me anything less is a violation of the 2 nd Ammendment.<br><br>No one can see the future, unless of course you believe in Miss Cleo........ Mac

Mac, you have had more than your share of bad experiences with law enforcement and that is a tragedy. My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Certainly there are at least as many evil people in the ranks of prosecutors as in any other occupation or profession. I have had to prosecute other prosecutors, police officers and even a judge in my career. In each of those cases I argued for, and usually obtained, a stiffer penalty because of their profession and the inherent breach of trust involved.<br><br> The position of prosecutor, however, is unique in the legal system. A prosecutors only responsibility is to do justice. A defense attorney, on the other hand, must represent his/her client to the best of their ability, even if the upshot is to thwart justice. That is the source of my "truth and justice" remark. As you point out, this assumes an honest and fair prosecutor. I assume that someone must have prosecuted the DA you describe. Thast is the magic of the system isn't it? Ultimately no one is above the law.