Mandatory Training for CCW

[hogdogs]

I am at odds with myself trying to read this stuff...
1)My folks taught me the rules of safe gun ownership, handling and use... It is not the duty of schools or the taxpayers to teach their idea of gun safety on kids! i took gun safety in school in the late '70's and it was a JOKE! ALL OF US IN THAT class had already been taught that info and much more!
2)For every law passed a little freedom is lost! Everyone here should know this fundamental!
3)Every american has the right to NOT carry a gun but none IMHO has the right to expect no guns are in the hands of others! I bet those involved in shootings at schools of any level expected to be in a gun free zone! had there been a CCW owner around the shooting would have ceased sooner most likely! While I FULLY respect the right of others to not carry a gun I do not expect to be sued by that person if I take the life of a person imposing the threat of death or severe injury upon them!
I have all too often seen vehicle operators that had "training" that obviously had no clue of the info shown to them! NONE of these so called classes that the government backs are to teach! They are simply bureaucracies taking money from one group to BS another group that they are doing right by them!
Brent

[WhiteFeather93]

People have the right to expect a safe workplace.

Good luck with that one. I'm not arguing that they don't have the right I'm simply stating the truth. I have the right to expect to win the lotto too but I have yet to collect on that thought.

[Creature]

IMHO parents should have the right to expect that their kids will be relatively safe in school, professors have the right to expect that they can enter a lecture hall without carrying. People have the right to expect a safe workplace.

Mandatory safety training would have in no way prevented the VT tragedy if that is what you are implying.

[MeekAndMild]

People in the United States also have the right to live without guns.

No, I don't think so. I've read the rest of your posts and you express some reasonable wishes but I think that this particular one is not really traditional thinking. I've noticed that there seems to be a rise of similar opinions, everything from the 'right of freedom from religion' and the 'right to have a smoke free environment' to the 'right to eat pesticide free food', 'the right to a college education regardless of intellectual handicap' or even 'animal rights'. I wonder exactly where these rights come from and what do they mean except that their exerciser subtracts from someone else's rights in order to maintain them. Regarding your sentiments about wishing that people in an academic environment should never have to protect themselves, exactly who will protect them? Who pays for the protection and who else has their rights abrogated to allow them this privilege?

Back to the topic of guns this country was established under the assumption that "the people" would protect it and the founding fathers intended that the citizenry would participate in armed duty. (Originally they had no intent of any sort of standing army except for a small training cadre.) I would think that the historically correct answer to Wild's original question would be to require universal weapons training (as per my high school PE recommendation). Making training a ccw requirement without making mandatory universal familiarization training a requirement for all voting citizens is putting the cart before the horse.

(BTW I also think that parents should have the right to assign a machine-gun wielding family member to watch the kid's school in the Israeli anti-terrorist tradition. That would put an end to these school massacres. When is the last time you've seen news of some pimply punk shooting up an Israeli school?)

[ATW525]

People in the United States also have the right to live without guns.

If you mean they have a right not to own personally, then I can agree with that. If you think they have a right to infringe upon other's peoples choice to own firearms and carry them for personal protection then I think you're on the wrong forum.

Again, I had to take a training class before I could hunt, but I still got to hunt.

Next door here in New Hampshire, hunters are required to take mandatory training to get the license. CCWers are not.

Guess what? I can't remember the last time I've heard about a CCW related accident in this state. However, I can recall quite a few hunting accidents. Doesn't speak well for the supposed "benefits" of mandatory training.

[Creature]

I totally agree with both of you. Brings driver training to mind.

Stipulating that testing is required in order to receive a motor vehicle driving license, it would appear that based on the yearly traffic accident statistics alone that safety training has little to no effect on accident prevention.

Mandatory training/testing does nothing other than prove that you know how to operate something safely at the time of the test. It does not guarantee that the person tested will continue to operate the object safely from that point on. Most motor vehicle accidents are the result of unsafe driving by tested and licensed drivers. Go figure! Certainly mandatory gun safety training no bearing on crime prevention and to suggest that it does is naive and foolish at best.

From the OP, mandating gun training was presented as a "moral" question and not a legal question. I would counter that our constitutional rights are based on morals and protected by law, and thus it ultimately IS a legal question.

Every poster in this thread so far who is in favor of mandatory training to own or carry a handgun did not come close to coming up with valid reason or provided even a scrap of proof sufficient enough to for us to agree to give up our 2nd Amendment right and turn it into a privilege.

This is why 200+ years after The Bill of Rights was ratified, safety training is still not a requirement to own a gun.

[Mainah]

Next door here in New Hampshire, hunters are required to take mandatory training to get the license. CCWers are not.

Guess what? I can't remember the last time I've heard about a CCW related accident in this state. However, I can recall quite a few hunting accidents. Doesn't speak well for the supposed "benefits" of mandatory training.

Excellent point. I learned something from this, you guys are right. Thanks for the good exchange and Happy Thanksgiving.

[Wildalaska]

This is why 200+ years after The Bill of Rights was ratified, safety training is still not a requirement to own a gun.

Dont get complacent, under an reasonably expansive favourable ruling in Heller mandatory training would be constituional.

Again, you guys keep turning to the legalities. Im talking practicalities, morality, efficiency, utility (in the benthamite sense)...

Here think outside the box...stop simplistically looking at your gun-woobie as a right, but look as it was intended, as a duty...

Happy Tday

WildofftothegrocerystoreAlaska TM

[MeekAndMild]

Im talking practicalities, morality, efficiency, utility (in the benthamite sense)...

Trouble with your question is that most of us are believers in at least a form of the natural "rights of man" in the Paine-ian or Locke-ian sense and your hypothetical box excludes Benthamitic argument.

So with this in mind I think that when we abolish high school ball sports in favor of a good foundation in gun handling we need to also do away with "social studies" in favor of a solid course in political history and moral philosophy.

WhereisLtColJeanVDuboiswhenyouneedhim?

Meek

Edited to add that in all seriousness the only way that any mandatory firearms training would achieve the purpose of the founding fathers would be if it was 1) universal 2) tied into our individual duties to serve in the collective military 3) firmly supported by a populace trained in the history, philosophy and science of freedom and 4) not merely a screening tool for CCW.

[Creature]

Execllent point, Meek.

btt

[SAWBONES]

"...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No mandatory ANYTHING in order to exercise the right both to possess and to bear (carry) arms.
Period. The end.

I'm all for training, and have a fair amount of professional training and certification personally. Training however, should be made attractive via incentives of some sort, NOT be mandatory.

After all, who would enforce the "mandatoriness"? Let any sort of gubmint overseership get a toe-hold on this, and it will be misused, that's guaranteed. Or is anyone still naive enough to trust the federal government?

[David Armstrong]

No mandatory ANYTHING in order to exercise the right both to possess and to bear (carry) arms.
Period. The end.

Actually, I believe virtually everyone agrees with some level of "infringement" on all rights. The question thus becomes on e of "how much" rather than "any".

[Creature]

Actually, I believe virtually everyone agrees with some level of "infringement" on all rights.

I, for one, don't agree with any level of infringement in this case.

[David Armstrong]

I, for one, don't agree with any level of infringement in this case.

But you apparently would agree with some other infringements. Thus the concept of "how much."

[Conn. Trooper]

If I had a nickel for every time I was scared half to death by somebody with no training at the range, I would be rich. I have seen people look down the barrel when their gun failed to go bang (I am not kidding), I have seen people put 9mm's in a .40, and wonder why it didnt work.People that dont even know how their guns work, walk around with a $3000 Les Bear that could not take it apart and stuck it in their belt to carry it. Training should be more than just "Dont point it at anyone".

[Thunderhawk88]

Good Lord, this thing rose from the dead!

[DVC9]

I am a firearms instructor in Maine. The issuing authority here "may" require proof of safety training.

Among other things I teach the Basic Handgun Safety course, which is the min requirement to meet the standard. I have no problem with requiring "Basic Safety" training.

However I have been at odds with another instructor lately, who believes that advanced training in Defensive tactics should be mandated. This I disagree with. It makes the training too arbitrary. Also since it is also more costly, and harder to find, it becomes a barrier to the would be ccw permitee.

Some of the worst gun handling and safety issues I have seen has been from the Law Enforcement community, where we mandate certain training and Skill reqirements(Read quals).
As the saying goes, " Familiarity breeds contempt"

People should be encouraged to take further training but NOT required.

M

[gyp_c2]

...I'm all for it, as long as the cost of the permit covers it and it's provided by someone qualified...therein lies another rub...who's qualified to decide how much is enough and how dang much is it all gonna' cost when it's said and done...If it's so expensive that it disqualifies some of us, that's just another way to regulate it into oblivion...
...I hate anything mandatory...but then again, I think anyone that gets caught driving drunk should be stoned...literally...hmmm...
I certainly see the hangnail, but who decides and what's reasonable...Geez...too muchofanythingisjusttoomuch, except 6920s.

[easyG]

Just because some folks are idiots, that is not a reason to destroy the 2nd Amendment and require "mandatory training".
Besides, the ones who would write such laws are probably idiots themselves in respect to guns.
"Mandatory training" would just become another method to prevent an armed populance.

Power to the people! (even the ones that are not "trained").

[Denny Hansen]

Some think it's a good idea.
Some think it's a bad idea.

I think this one has gone on long enough.

Denny