And, who decides that? I am decidedly against state mandated
training. I am strongly in favor of training, but I do not feel that it needs to be formal.
Certainly demonstrating competence and possessing knowledge of the legalities of using deadly force is not too much to ask of someone who wishes to carry a deadly weapon in public.
Here he come to one of the cruxes of the issue. Your (the public's) desire to feel safe, versus the individual's burden of proving such to (supposedly) impartial authority.
You want me to prove my competence to you? Fine. Test me. I'll pass any test within sane standards. I don't have formal" training for ccw, but I have had gun safety, and have been handling firearms for over 40 years, and I know the applicable laws. Plus I did serve in the Army. Now, tell me that I have to attend X number of hours of mandatory training, before you will approve me, and we will have words on that!
The problem is also one of the slippery slope. About 35 years ago, NYS decided that some "formal" training was needed to obtain a pistol license (not ccw). The state (bureaucrats) decided that 8 hrs (classroom type) was needed. They did not fund it. NO state employees gave it, or were involved. The training was given by NRA certified volunteers. But with out it, no permits would be approved. A few years later, the state decided that 24 hrs was needed. And, predictably, as more requirements were added, the number of volunteers giving the courses declined. That was over 30 years ago, I don't know what is needed today.
Other states (at least one in the midwest) passed regs requiring "safety classes", and over time did all that they could to make the classes difficult/impossible for people to get into, thus denying them the opportunity to even apply for permits, without "denying them their rights".
Take a look at the issue of arming airline pilots after 9/11/01! Already licensed, medical examined, psychiatrically evaluated, and trusted with hundreds of passenger's lives every time they take off, the pilots were then required to jump through an extensive (and rediculous) set of hoops in order to be "approved" to be armed! So much so, that many simply didn't bother.
It matters not what the state sets for its training requirements, in the beginning they might be quite reasonable. But they are not fixed, not set in stone. They can, and have been, changed at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, state mandated training is a hugely BAD IDEA! A slippery slope, greased with the "good intentions" of the anti gunners.
So what you wind up with, as the "training requirements" get more and more restrictive, or the opportunities to take the training become reduced, are people who fall into the following classes.
1) People who are serious enough to make what ever sacrifices are necessary, and pay the cost (in time and money) to follow the letter of the laws.
2) People who find compliance too difficult, and do not carry
3) People who find compiance too difficult, and do carry anyway, risking punishment under the law.
And because those who find compliance too difficult are often those in the bottom levels of lawful society, I find the whole concept biased and predjudicial against them. I dislike the situation being applied to them, and especially dislike it being applied to me!
Knowing what you ar doing is good. It is essential to safety. But formal training, while good and useful, is not essential. People can, and do learn important things without being "schooled". I do not object to the idea of a compentency test, but again, beware the slippery slope!