Required training for nationwide CCW

[armoredman]

Howabout this, offer firearms education in high school, like drivers ed, without making it mandatory...kinda like AZ already allows.

...I saw some of the blue haired group coming in to the local DMV a few years ago to pick up their CC permits. They had already finished their "training". Some of these folks were using canes. I guess it was a 'special' class since they all appeared to be 70+.

Some of those little old people were killing Japanese, Nazis, or Chinese before you were born. They are more fragile than most anyone else out there - they need Sam Colt's "equalizer" more than some strapping young types I know.
I had a permit when AZ law went into effect, then later I let it expire when my state issued ID took over. Seen both sides, worked as an assistant instructor for CCW classes at a local range for 1.5 years. Seen my fellow staff qualifying each year on the Dept range. Toss up on who's worse.
Agree on reciprocity - I don't want to have to deal with an onerous requirement added by some New Yorker or Californian, ours works just fine.

[10mm man]

If we have learned anything the last couple of months, we need to keep this out of the hands of the federal govt. It would take us down the road to confiscation surely faster.
I agree with those that say reciprocity should be extended between all the states.

[orangello]

I would be all for a voluntary training program that offered some additional carry options, but i do not favor opening the door to more federal supervision of my rights as a gun owner.

For ME, not speaking for anyone else, i wouldn't mind taking a course on handgun safety that was tailored to concealed carry situations, so long as it was voluntary. I do not have my permit but plan to obtain one before the summer's end.

I realize that driving on public roads is a priviledge & not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but simply for comparisons' sake, in some places a rider safety course can/must be completed to get a motorcycle permit with less hassle & testing. Perhaps a national training class or program could be used to "fast track" an applicant's carry permit approval.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BTW, a national 'training' system will entail a federal license or similar certificate for trainers. Another bureaucracy. I suggest raising the taxes on wealthy gun owners to pay for that? Or a luxury gun tax on those expensive shotguns or fancy dancy 1911s? Or a tax on ammo?

TX CHL instructors do have to go through a class to be certified.

What do you think?

[knight0334]

My vote is no for a training requirement. Its bad enough we have to get licenses to carry concealed, requiring training is just conceding away your rights even further.

The next thing you'll need is a license and training to practice a religion, or speak your mind.

[doh_312]

Just a simple hunter safety course would be good enough for me. My class was a weekend of lecture, with a final 10 rnd shoot with a .22 rifle at the range. I think that is a that should be strongly suggested by our govt. I do not think they should be able to force any kind of classes before your allowed to exercise your 2nd ammendment right.

[stevelyn]

Training should be highly recommended, but not mandated.

[grey sky]

Every time I hear people speak of training I think of the expert who was the only one in the room qualified to handle this Glock BANG!
One trains a dog not a man.

[Wagonman]

One trains a dog not a man.

That is a perfect example of a statement that sounds wise but isn't.

Why can't a man be trained?

[44 AMP]

I am in the reciprocity camp. NO Federal standard need or should be allowed to exist.

Want a perfect example? Just look at the Fed program "allowing" pilots to be armed!

Think govt. health care is a good idea? Just look at the wonderful job they do with the VA hospitals!

Anytime we can keep anything out of the Fed gov. reach, it is a good thing!

[grey sky]

Wagonman
A man is educated then makes decisions. A dog is trained and will obey without question.

[Wagonman]

Distinction without a difference.

You can be trained to make proper decisions

[ImprobableJoe]

Specifically addressing the topic of "nationwide" CCW? I don't see a serious problem with reciprocity. It works for my drivers licence after all. If Florida thinks I'm good to go, the other 49 states should accept it.

My stance on training in general is "the more the better" and a certain amount of demonstration should be required... again, just like my drivers licence. All talk about rights and anti-government concerns set aside for the moment, from a practical standpoint we all know that the purpose of a CCW is to be able to kill another human being. That's an awesome responsibility, and you should be able to demonstrate that you can actually kill the person who needs killing, and not shoot yourself or an innocent bystander in the process.

[Wagonman]

I don't see a serious problem with reciprocity. It works for my drivers licence after all. If Florida thinks I'm good to go, the other 49 states should accept it.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

My stance on training in general is "the more the better" and a certain amount of demonstration should be required

My stance is also the more training the better, but there shouldn't be any to exercise your RIGHT to bear arm

[ImprobableJoe]

My stance is also the more training the better, but there shouldn't be any to exercise your RIGHT to bear arm

All rights have restrictions, none are absolute... and thank goodness for it!

I'm guessing that this is a "agree to disagree" thing...

[PT111]

I am against any Federal mandated, controlled or sanctioned CCW process. The problem with the nationwide recognition is those states that are either may issue or non issue at all. Then you have those states where it is not statewide. As for training I think that before anyone steps out into th epublic with a gun on their side, in their pocket or purse they should be required to demonstrate that they know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of and can at least hit the side of a barn while inside of it without shooting themselves. Inside your house, I don't care but not walking down the street. Secondly some basic understanding of the laws should be required.

When I say basic understanding I mean such things as a CCW does not make you a policeman. I have seen posts on this board where newly licensed members have asked such questions. Also such things as you shouldn't shoot someone in the back while they are running away, that seems to be a reoccuring question on here. As for the citizenship, sane or of good character tests I am not sure about those. I also think it should be shall issue and the local sheriffs taken out of it and turned over to a state agency.

[Parapliers]

One can be trained to make politically correct decisions. Americans have been trained to repeat the mantra " Driving is a privilege not a right."

[Al Norris]

Parapliers has it correct.

This also ties in directly to gun rights as it pertains to taxation and licensure (permits) in order to own (keep) and use (bear) the right.

[PT111]

One can be trained to make politically correct decisions. Americans have been trained to repeat the mantra " Driving is a privilege not a right."

Requiring a drivers license in no way restricts your right to travel in the US. It only restricts your right to pilot a 2 ton weapon down a publicly owned right of way. You can drive a car all you want while on private property and can travel in a car bus, truck or train as long as someone else is the pilot. You can also hook up your covered wagon, get on back off your horse or walk freely all over the US You can ever drive your lawnmore or tractor. You just can't pilot that weapon on the highway. Yes driving is a privilege.

[Too Tall in Texas]

Driving is a privilege, not a right?

South Dakota was the last state to require driver licensing (in 1954). Most states started out with just issuing the licenses and all one had to do was pay the fee; there were no tests involved in many cases.

I'd argue that driving is a right that has been regulated, just as many other freedoms/rights have been regulated. One of the really bad side effects of gun regulation, imnsho, is that the mindset of the public is too often conditioned to believe that the RKBA is a privilege and not an inherent right in the U.S.

To sort of answer the original question: I don't have a problem with Texas' requirements for a state CCL. I think they're a little too strict on what laws one can break and still qualify, but I won't get into that. The fifteen hour required course I took was worth the time and effort; and I learned some things I didn't know about Texas statutes re guns. While CCL instructors in Texas vary in quality, they do have to be licensed by the state to teach and I think that's reasonable. I mean, if you're gonna require a license for carrying a gun, then the least you can do is make sure the qualifying course meets minimum standards, right? The gun safety part of the course was a plus. I don't think people can be reminded of these things too often, even if they've been taught about them from early on. The shooting requirements sure wouldn't get you a marksman medal, but it seems adequate for the purpose; and I don't suppose it's a bad thing to require that you prove you can put a minimum number of bullets in the proverbial barn side. I personally don't have any problem with the photo ID on Texas CCLs or that you get fingerprinted (twice!) to get their piece of plastic. I have a right to own and bear arms and this is a regulation by the Lone Star State on parts of that right, just as my Texas DL is, and I can live with both for the most part. All that said, I can't adequately verbalize how deeply against a national CCL I am. It would be just one more messed up federal regulatory bureaucracy over something certainly better handled by the states. No thank you!

Aside: I, too, have seen folks at ranges who obviously weren't raised with guns or at least certainly weren't taught about safe gun handling. I feel sorry for them and sorrier for the rest of us; but seeing such makes me appreciate my dad all over again. LOL (I wish I had a nickel for every time he told me, "Guns are always loaded; even the ones you can see have no bullets in 'em." I'd retire.) I just leave the range when the seriously unsafe show up; but I wonder if ranges shouldn't tell these woefully ignorant souls they can't come back until they've taken a course in gun safety.

[PT111]

In 1954 there was maybe a half dozen paved roads total in the area that I grew up in. I remember most of the roads being paved and a lot of people in my community including several of my relatives got into the road paving business because it was the new thing. We lived right beside Hwy 301 and if you don't remember it was the major N-S highway that was replaced by I-95. Only because of luck was I not killed on that highway. The speed limit was 55 and most of the time you were lucky if you could get up to 45. I doubt that South Dakota had many more paved roads than we did.

As I have told before I watched two ladies shot a a human size target 100 rounds from 3 yards and hit it three times. Neither one could shoot with their eyes open. I would never deny them the right to have a gun in their home but I don't want to be around either one if they try to defend themselves in a Wal-Mart.

And please note that I never said driving was a privilege. I drove around all over the place on dirt roads when I was 8 years old. Having a drivers license to drive on the public highways is a privilege. There is a BIG difference. Just like shooting. You can shoot at a shooting range all you want to but you can't sight your scope in on main street.

[Wagonman]

Perfect clarification of the point.

[OuTcAsT]

This also ties in directly to gun rights as it pertains to taxation and licensure (permits) in order to own (keep) and use (bear) the right.

Absolutely, Other than "toll roads" and "ferrys" Americans have been free to travel without encumbrance, the method of conveyance, IE: foot, horse, wagon, even automobile, was not an issue. The Right to travel freely was only changed when someone realized that there was a revenue source available thru a "tax" in the form of requiring a "license" to operate an automobile on a roadway. It was not until much later that, under the banner of "safety" that testing became required. Free travel is a right, just like the RKBA, and has been infringed "for safety" exactly like our 2A rights.

[Al Norris]

For those of you that believe that driving is a privilege, I have a few court cases for you. The following are Supreme Court, Circuit Court, State High Court and other appellate court findings:

“The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

“No state government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation, i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurance.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience.” ibid at 206.

“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” ibid at 221.

“It is well-established law that the highways of the state are public property; and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes...” Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.

“It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.

“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v Burgess, 82 P 864, 866, 14 Wyo 173.

“A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license, would be illegal.” Beard v City of Atlanta 86 SE 2nd 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584.

“A licensee is one privileged to enter or remain on land by virtue of the possessor’s consent, whether given by invitation or permission.” Wool v Larner, 26 A 2nd 89, 92, 112 Vt. 431.

“The licensor has the power to prohibit. Since the licensor is in the position to grant a right or permission it logically follows that he has the power to prohibit the act also. Likewise, having the power to prohibit something from being done, it follows as a corollary that power also exists to permit its use.” Taylor v Smith, 140 Va. 217, 235.

“A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family.” Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).

“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]”” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235 “19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.”

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen not be deprived without due process of law.” Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).

Driving is part and parcel of the right to travel. Requiring a license to drive, in a non-commercial manner, is repugnant to the right to travel. Requiring registration of your private vehicle, since it part of your "household effects," is also repugnant to your right to personal property, as it singles out a specific property and does not require all personal property to be registered (when moving on a public byway), if even that were possible. Further, since your vehicle is tied to your right to travel, it is, again, repugnant to require such registration (licensure).

This is one possible future of gun rights.

[ImprobableJoe]

Driving is part and parcel of the right to travel. Requiring a license to drive, in a non-commercial manner, is repugnant to the right to travel. Requiring registration of your private vehicle, since it part of your "household effects," is also repugnant to your right to personal property, as it singles out a specific property and does not require all personal property to be registered (when moving on a public byway), if even that were possible. Further, since your vehicle is tied to your right to travel, it is, again, repugnant to require such registration (licensure).

This is one possible future of gun rights.

Yeah! The government already took our cars, and they're going to come after our guns next!!

... ohhh, wait. That never happened, did it? I guess living in a nation of laws isn't so "repugnant" after all. (Don't get mad at me!!)

The point is that the world is a better place when there are rules and regulations in it.