What’s some opinions on the new laws in Kentucky? No training, no classes?My opinion is you should have some classroom, minor testing 1st and if they can’t pass a common sense then take a course. Especially the younger a person is.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say, I dont think much of most common sense laws because the majority of them were passed by people who do not possess common sense nor do most of them have any real facts on the subjects. If they did most of these so called common sense laws would not exist.
5 Likes
I believe people should seek out as much training as they can. That said, I don’t believe in mandatory training to exercise any God given, inalienable rights.
9 Likes
I’m very much pro training. I am not for government mandated training. That being said, I believe it was the FBI that conducted a study and found that in states with constitutional carry people voluntarily sought out MORE training than what would have been required to get a CPL/CHL/CCW/whatever your state calls it.
Without mandating, more training was sought. Let that sink in a moment. People started carrying because they could, and without artificial guidelines invented by the government continued that training in excess of what the government would require.
Now before someone says “not everybody gets training in constitutional carry states” I wasn’t talking about everyone. All I’m saying is that things usually balance themselves out when the government isn’t busy meddling in them.
8 Likes
Yes, this ^^^
And this ^^^^
Citizenship itself carries responsibility, exercising your rights has an obligation attached, unwritten though it is.
Many people don’t do all they should to uphold their responsibilities, around rights or anything else. That should have consequences if it results in unneccesary harm to others.
That said, my right is my right. Full stop. It is not my right only if I jump through hoops, get training, fill out a form, get approval of some official.
It is my right without permission, without qualification.
I may not use my rights to deprive others of their rights except in extraordinary circumstances, and usually only once they’ve abdicated their own responsibility.
No government or regulatory body should be allowed to require anything more of me than the responsible USE of my rights in not inappropriately violating others’. If they require ANYthing of me in order to ACCESS my rights, that is infringement.
10 Likes
Exactly this!
4 Likes
I believe as most here do, it should not be forced mandated by government. If they want people to get training I feel they should use some of those tax dollars to offer free range practice and training for new ccw holders at their local police range, or give vouchers for them to be compensated one box of ammo at any other range where there is a qualified shooting instructor.
4 Likes
Ya I don’t believe the government should stick their nose into anything especially when it’s our right! But I’m all for as much training as a person can get without it being forced upon anyone. But I do think just because it passed everyone should carry especially if they answer some basic knowledge Q&A’s and don’t know basic knowledge of the laws or weapons.
1 Like
@ShaneB the difficulty is between “should” and “must”. I strongly believe people SHOULD train hard, learn the law, understand and practice good judgment. But “should” cannot be regulated or legislated. As soon as we start applying MUST you get laws and you create restrictions and consequences for what happens if you don’t (train, know, etc.) Its your right, but ONLY IF (blah).
That’s not a right, that’s infringement.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That takes it from recommended to required.
That’s why I believe we must not require training and licensing.
And I still believe training in skills and laws and judgement is what everyone who carries should do.
I think I’d change the title of this thread from “no training for permits " to " no training OR permits”. A permit means someone (the government) gives you permission… I don’t NEED the government’s permission, I am a free citizen and it is my RIGHT.
The government does NOT have the authority to grant permission for you to exercise your rights.
Added: and of course one still has to deal with the current (infringing) laws as a practical fact.
7 Likes
Exactly 
4 Likes
I personally do not like the idea of no training. But, Kentucky has had an open carry law for years which required no training. To extend that to concealed carry isn’t surprising. (I currently live in KY.) If you conceal carry in KY without a permit, it limits your ability to travel and conceal carry elsewhere. That was one of the things I addressed when writing my legislatures when they planned to make the CC change, keeping the training program in place and keeping CCDW permits available. If you can’t afford a one-time class and under $100, you probably can’t afford a decent gun and ammo to practice with, or a holster and won’t try to educate yourself.
The class is only about 7 1/2 to 8 hours and the written test, if you pay attention, is easy. The shooting test is easy also. I think it should be harder, but having said that, Indiana has no training and no shooting test. (I had a permit there for several years.) While I am not in favor of the federal government making a program - everything they touch turns to crap pretty fast - I am a strong advocate of training. I think a program for basic skills and understanding of firearm laws is needed, but it is a catch 22 at best. I think a recommended test could be devised by several different pro-gun groups, not as tough as the original Air Marshal’s test and not as simple as Indiana’s. Maybe more like the Texas test or the 50 round practice.
This is why we must work with new shooters as much as possible. Many people didn’t have an uncle, father, mother or other family member who taught them to gun safety and to shoot. It would seem that some people only know what they see on TV and the movies. If we expect to keep this Natural Right, we need to do our part in making sure those who exercise it with us do so responsibly.
2 Likes
I understand where you’re coming from but don’t the government give us the right to have or not-have a weapon in the 1st place? You can legally or illegally own a gun! It’s our right but even though it is, it can be “infringed” upon as quickly as you bought that pistol or rifle!
1 Like
I think you’re misunderstanding the Constitution and Bill of Rights sir. These documents do NOT grant us Rights, our Rights are natural, inalienable Rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was put in place to limit governmental control. Unfortunately these documents get more and more misunderstood as time passes.
3 Likes
No I understand and have studied the Constitution quite a long time. My point is infringement happens EVERY DAY! Does the government tell you that you CAN or CANNOT have a weapon?I believe it’s everyones right from birth. I believe that when you have a house full of guns and have children it’s the parents job to teach them safety of all them weapons like we all do. But would you rather have someone you know has had your training, or someone that just bought a gun and refuses to train just because their state said they don’t have to know anything about the gun but can own n carry it everywhere they go?
1 Like
My point is that before you get to pick that gun up, did the state tell the gunshop YES you can give it to her or NO, under no circumstances can they have a weapon!
1 Like
I think i just misunderstood the message i replied to. Text is not a good format to convey inflections so misunderstandings can happen easily. My bad dude.
When it comes to training i invite you to fact check my earlier statement. Studies have shown that when the Government doesn’t place requirements on training the amount of training people get voluntarily goes up and exceeds whatever the government would have required.
Without a government mandated “imaginary training requirement”, people seem to realize that more training is better all on their own. In fact, without the government setting a bar to reach, people have a natural tendency to set their own bar higher and higher.
Again please feel free to fact check me.
2 Likes
No need to fact check you because I agree with that statement! 100% The problem I have is with them telling me what guns I’m allowed to have! Ppl that have passed their background checks should be allowed to buy whatever and own whatever! (Including bump stocks)!
1 Like
The government does not grant us any of our unalienable rights, that’s the point of the bill of rights, to make that clear. Those rights are ours naturally and are specifically not GRANTED to us by the government. They are not allowed to grant permission, by definition.
Every place where they act to grant permission or restrict conditions IS an infringement.
And, if I understand part of what you mean correctly, i agree, our right IS being infringed All Day Every Day. It should NOT be, but it is.
A second part of this is to understand that rights come attached to citizenship. If you’re not a citizen, or if you’ve had your rights curtailed because of a felony conviction or an adjudication of mental incompetence, I think that’s where legitimate limitations apply.
A significant point of the bill of rights is to protect us from the government. And yet, one place we are almost universally restricted from carrying in government buildings. I think that makes the point of infringing pretty clear.
1 Like
I’ll take this a step further. If one has been in a penitentiary, or mental facility, and we trust them enough to be released, should they have their right to bear arms restored? If we don’t trust people to live freely with firearms, do we trust those people to leave freely in society?
3 Likes
@45IPAC, I agree. Mental conditions can be temporary or permanent… if they are temporary, once functioning is restored, rights should be as well. Same for legal rights.
2 Likes