|
I have no trouble with a State requiring that someone wishing to lawfully carry a loaded firearm in public, where I, a loved one or a friend of mine might be his backstop if he needs to use it, demonstrate basic competence with his gun and a knowledge of applicable law relating to the use of lethal force. I see too much abysmal marksmanship and atrocious gun handling, and run into too many gun owners seriously ignorant of the law of self defense.
I also think that most state training requirements are too lax.
Yes, I know all the arguments about the 2nd Amendment not saying anything about training and everyone having a God given right to self defense. But I also don't think that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be a license, nor is there a God given right, to endanger the innocent. And until a court says so, training requirements aren't unconstitutional.
What you might do on your property is one thing, but if you're going to carry a loaded gun in public you owe it to the rest of us to know what you are doing and to be more competent than a lot of the folks I see at ranges.
FWIW, I have a fair amount of training myself and have had no trouble qualifying for Arizona and Nevada permits.
In any case, I agree with Jeff Cooper when he said, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."
|