If you believe government mandated handgun training must be the prerequisite for a CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT, what is the curriculum you suggest?

That’s not a good way to write laws.

I believe responsible gun owners are capable of writing better definitions than lawmakers are. We are the ones knowledgeable on this topic, if anybody can properly and effectively define these terms, it should be us.

We should be the last ones using undefined, vague, open to interpretation terms when calling for new gun laws.

This was your proposal. You wrote it, you are saying this is what you think the mandate should be. It’s your definition to either create, or copy and paste from an existing reference. Nobody else can tell you what your definition is.

1 Like

OK. I think that is the moment we have to stop it.

:point_right: We are not writing any Laws at this Community :point_left:

You have to understand difference between Internet Forum or Community and Lawmaking offices.
Whatever has been written here is just a discussion, nothing else. My curriculum perhaps can and will be used against me in a court of law, but I’m not creating any Laws here.

That’s what mandatory training, that is required to get a permit, is. A law. The question posed is, what would you suggest for the legally required curriculum?

The whole point of this thread is what curriculum do you suggest the law requires.

If you are merely suggesting a good curriculum for a class that trainers might offer and random people might decide to take, then a lack of definitions is fine.

Not answering the question of whether or not a person’s own firearm needs to be used is also fine, if it’s just a random training class nobody has to take before being granted a permission.

But if it is indeed an idea for what should be legally required…these are higher standards, and definitions need to be clear.

1 Like

BTW I’m not picking on you so much as you are providing the perfect example of how these laws are flawed by design, and an example of why I oppose them existing in the first place, no matter who writes them

Not even Die Hard gun guys can make them easily.

(Edit: Although, even if we could, I would still oppose them :wink: )

1 Like

I believe this is the question that should be asked;

If you believe government mandated training must be a prerequisite for a [CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE EXERCISED], what is the curriculum you suggest?

What training should be required to vote; to exercise free speech, freedom of religion, a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, to petition the government for a redress of grievances; to keep and bear arms; to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search or seizure; against double jeopardy and self incrimination; to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury with the assistance of counsel; against excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment; and against slavery or involuntary or involuntary servitude?

I think it is safe to say that the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and to vote allow those with no knowledge of a subject at all to speak freely and allow the press to blatantly lie and voters with no knowledge of candidates to vote. Frankly, I believe these to be the greatest threat to our republic!

As to other parts of the discussion, the initial question was specific to “mandated handgun training” so a concealed or concealable weapon would be a handgun. Since almost every hand/body carried weapon is concealable in some manner with the right smoke and mirrors, how important is the definition. I can conceal an AR, AK and shotgun, with the proper clothing, all at the same time. And let’s not forget that Warthog conceals a cannon as an airplane.

If we want to talk about flawed laws, lets look at the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The first amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting …” Wouldn’t it have been nice if the second amendment said “Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” How simple that would have been. But it does not! In the law, words have meaning and if different words are used they have different meanings. The people who wrote the 1st Amendment were same as those who wrote the 2nd Amendment. SO, “shall not be infringed” does not have the same meaning as “Congress shall make no law.”

If you want a real primer on the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of "shall not be infringed, you really should read District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Illinois.



Is an AR-15 style firearm with, say, a 10.3" barrel, and a pistol brace a handgun? :upside_down_face:


@MikeBKY - now it’s your turn. You take it from here. Good luck ! :v:

1 Like

I’m happy with nothing more than the A10 concealing a gun as a plane, honestly.

The plane is an accessory that allows the gun to fly. That’s what I’m talking about

1 Like

Under Kentucky law, a handgun is any pistol, revolver or any other firearm designed to be fired by the use of a single hand.


Nvm that quote didn’t travel how I thought it would

1 Like

I’m definitely going to take my mandated training for carry with a pistol braced 11.5" Geissele Super Duty in that case. :smiley: (once I buy one)

AFG of course, no VFG…that’s reserved for the SBR (which is also concealable according the laws as I understand the laws’ reasoning for SBR’s being NFA items…too concealable)

1 Like

Yes, it appears there is at least one that is confused about the meaning of “shall not be infringed”. Maybe ESL and believing the RKBA is outdated is the issue (“people who don’t know how to read it and adopt to current times”).

That is the ATF definition, too.

That is why I think this might be the very best handgun to use on a concealed carry licensing test

1 Like