I will surprise you… 4 months. 
I wont say anything new… There are people, no amount of training will take stupid out of them. Mandatory training doesnt help.
FL requires 3 hrs of training to issue CCW. This may be ok to discuss legalities about CC, but as far as mastery of a weapon, safety, ammo , etc, etc -not at all. FL has a lot of hoplophobes, many are imports ftom NY, CA and they bring elements of their culture into FL law.
4 Likes
I don’t recall calling for any gun control in this thread. In other threads I have stated something along the lines of needing law enforcement to do a better job of getting people off the streets or at least taking their weapons away while going through the due process steps when they break the law by threatening to harm others. That is a form of gun control I support. Perhaps you feel that clearly dangerous criminals should maintain their 2A rights. But that would be a discussion for another thread I think.
What I am saying is that we all would clearly benefit as a society if more people were properly trained. I would love to see more focus on promoting training and helping people realize the benefits of getting better training. We need to make sure people know that good training is out there and provide affordable options for those on a limited budget. I think that is a lot better than just rolling with the “We’re exorcising Our 2A rights so nobody needs to get any training mindset.”
Not saying you have that mindset. You obviously care about being the best that you can be. But their are a lot of clueless people out there that don’t have the slightest clue of all the things they don’t know. I certainly wish someone had pointed me to some good training options when I first started looking into purchasing a firearm. I only lucked into my first training opportunity a couple years after my first purchase.
The 2A says we can’t stop clueless people from owning and carrying firearms. But that doesn’t mean we can’t take other actions to help reduce the number of clueless people out here.
Aside from the fact that I don’t want to get shot by someone who doesn’t know where they should and shouldn’t be pointing a gun, I also believe the fewer yahoos out here the less ammunition for the anti gunners to use against us.
3 Likes
Yes, but they’re also human. I’m sure you’ve never crossed a yellow line, or left your wallet somewhere, or or or…
Nearly zero exceptions dont’ make one throw the baby with the bathwater. That is bad math.
Apologizes, confused you with some others. I remember/see now, you favor firearms safety training in schools as part of general curriculum for all.
2 Likes
In Florida and Virginia just to name two states, an applicant can qualify for a Permit by completing the NRA Home Firearm Safety course which doesn’t teach how to aim a firearm. The course is 4-hours in duration and students are not required to take an exam.
1 Like
I got to this rumble late, but it seems to have gone a little sideways.
Observation One
I don’t see how requiring training for CCL is any more onerous or infringe-y than requiring a KBA permit in the first place. That is, yes, of course it’s objectionable — but if we line up to acquire the license, what is the “gun control” part of training which seems more objectionable?
Observation Two
CCL holders are a fraction of gun owners. What makes a constitutional carrier, or open carrier, or home defender, or recreational shooter different when it comes to onerous or unsafe? If one, should not all others? As a universal right, this would argue toward universal training — not just the individuals who choose to exercise the right.
Observation Three
Not all states have similar training requirements for CCL. In Oregon, the required curriculum has nothing to do with safety and nothing to do with proficiency. It is all about requiring applicants to be exposed to the legal obligations involved in use of force and concealed carry. There are many ways to meet the requirement, but a simple method is a couple hours of online self-study and a self-administered quiz. The content seems designed just to eliminate the “ignorance” excuse for unlawful behavior. Becoming a safe, proficient shooter is left to the individual’s inclination.
Observation Four
Imposing individual culpability for irresponsible acts is an alternative to requiring any specific course of training. It’s not a perfect approach, but it is an open path in common use, and already established in law as an encouragement to responsible behavior. It certainly encourages me to behave responsibly, and not being familiar with responsibilities and consequences of a new activity encourages me to learn the game before I get in too deep. Perhaps we could present the advantages of training as a way to carry adult behavior (or at least adult consequences) to others. An uphill path, like any other.
Examples from Oregon:
ORS 163.195 A person commits the crime of recklessly endangering another person if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. Recklessly endangering another person is a Class A misdemeanor.
ORS 163.160 A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another. Assault in the fourth degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
ORS 163.165 A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if the person:
Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon;
Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;
Recklessly causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Assault in the third degree is a Class C felony.
Class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to 364 days in jail, a fine of up to $6,250, or both.
Class C felonies are punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $125,000, or both.
3 Likes
Costs time.
Costs money.
The government gets to dictate what qualifies and what doesn’t (and as we have seen, is not a good judge even now even in “gun friendly” states)
Government could easily change that as time goes on and make it even more difficult.
Furthers the gun control argument for needing permits to carry by saying “yeah well if we went Constitutional Carry blood would run in the streets because now people could do it without gov mandated training” without the retort of “they could already do it without gov mandated training and it’s good”
Give it a few years and that inch you give the gun control advocates for required training that’s 4 hours of education without a test will turn into a LEO-eque course of fire every year and you have to pass it with every gun you’re going to carry by serial number and register it (CA is almost there already) oh and BTW there’s another ___ and in person courses (required to be in person) are closed come back in six months and schedule it for 6 months from now.
Don’t even start down this road. Just say no to gun control. Don’t give a millimeter.
5 Likes
My point to those examples was that even with training, mistakes can be made. The training those individuals received, is the prescribed training by a government agency. The same government that would set the “required “ training standards. Which in and of itself shows the fallacy in the required training idea.
Should someone seek training? Absolutely. Should it be required by an organization that has a history of substandard training?
3 Likes
We’re already 20 miles down that road.
My objection is to the permit — which nobody needs.
Not to the safety, proficiency, and/or knowledge — which everybody needs.
While every little bit is a burden to someone, my training one-time cost was no more than a box of ammo and the time to shoot it off. I’m more concerned about the considerably greater cost of the permit permits, which just nearly doubled. And the possibility of stretching permit requirements to include gun ownership, purchase, ammunition, etc.
There is quite a lot of hollering about national CHL reciprocity in the 2A community — that prospect is a dead horse without a training component. Certainly for my lifetime; maybe yours.
I get your point about mandated training as an infringement. I’m just not willing to die on that hill.
I would put up considerable fuss about being labeled a “gun control advocate” for disagreeing.
1 Like
No, it shouldn’t. Because then it changes from a right to a privilege. You should want to get all of the training, that you personally feel you need to be comfortable.
8 Likes
Would you like to fly with a pilot that does not have a flying license?
1 Like
You are wrong. Everyone that has a CCW and has proven himself/herself will change the statistics to the plus side.
1 Like
What statistics will change?
What statistics are not on the plus side already?
1 Like
What Constitutional Amendment guarantees the right to pilots licenses? Privilege vs right.
6 Likes
If I read your article right, you stated that you did not think training on shooting was needed. Did I misread you article?
No.
And No again to get more than 6 characters…
1 Like
What does that even mean?
Training should not be mandatory, is not the same as training is not needed. Everyone that comes in contact with a firearm needs knowledge of firearms and firearm safety rules. No one is denying that. It is the mandatory part that is the issue. If you look at state firearm laws with mandatory training, they are all different. If x hours of training, shooting, etc., were the “correct” amount, all states would have that in their laws. If x dollars to obtain the permit/license was the “appropriate” amount, all states would have that. These laws are arbitrary, and as stats prove, solve nothing.
One thing these onerous, costly to the firearm owner laws do show, is that they are discriminatory. Minorities and women own far fewer by percentage of population in states with restrictive laws than in states with more liberal laws. Since discrimination is unconstitutional, these laws are unconstitutional.
4 Likes
Training is necessary
Training shall not infringe RKBA
Please reconcile these in a legal framework, and I will accept this kind of mandatory training. This probably means training must be free, delivered right to the gun owner’s home, and take 0 minutes of their time. LOL
5 Likes
Training is good.
The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and shall be a Right, not a mommy-may-I privilege
Reconcile the two?
How about the many states and tens or hundreds of millions of people, including tens of millions of carriers, across decades, right through to the current day, who are able to legally carry, and do legally carry, without any government requirement for training?
The proof is out there, in spades, right now, and has been for a long time.
You may as well be asking for proof that allowing people to own guns does not result in blood running in hte streets like the grabbers claim every time a new state starts issuing permits.
What you are asking for already exists, in abundance. We know the outcome of not requiring training. We KNOW it. We HAVE it. There is NO need for government mandated training before exercising the privilege to keep and bear arms
3 Likes