'Loosening' of KY gun law I'm not sure I support
- Thread starter Elkins45
- Start date
- Status
Again I ask... Do you have ANY proof that the "training" (classes) actually helps?
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
He's right. You're mixing up the concepts of what is wise, or prudent with what restrictions on a right the GOVERNMENT is allowed to levy against us.
WestKentucky
Member
I'm on the fence here as well. Having gone through the class it was very interesting, informative, and quite useful, however the price for paying the instructor is kinda high, especially in a class of 20. So I don't know how I feel on this yet. Common sense says we would be fine without training, but training is never a bad thing. Maybe if training was encouraged but not mandated, or you had a quiz to pass as part of the permit process that could touch on handgun safety, legal stuff, and ethical stuff.
I'm not going to play the game.
If a bill comes up for training before concealed carry that
requires education as to the law, real world case studies
in application of that law, and demonstration as to just basic
competence before shall issue, I'm supporting it.
If one asks "what is reasonable?" I have no problem pointing
to the current NRA Basic Pistol course.
BTW: Arizona's proposed HB2300 provides a "minimally reasonable" outline of standards for concealed carry training/background:
E. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to an applicant who meets all of the following conditions:
6. Has ever demonstrated competence with a firearm as prescribed by subsection N of this section and provides adequate documentation that the person has satisfactorily completed a training program or demonstrated competence with a firearm in any state or political subdivision in the United States. For the purposes of this paragraph, "adequate documentation" means:
(a) A current or expired permit issued by the department of public safety pursuant to this section.
(b) An original or copy of a certificate, card or document that shows the applicant has ever completed any course or class prescribed by subsection N of this section or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club or organization that conducted or taught the course or class attesting to the applicant's completion of the course or class.
(c) An original or a copy of a United States department of defense form 214 (DD‑214) indicating an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions, a certificate of completion of basic training or any other document demonstrating proof of the applicant's current or former service in the United States armed forces as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 5 of this section.
(d) An original or a copy of a concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or a license as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 6 of this section.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section "N" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N. An applicant shall demonstrate competence with a firearm through any of the following:
1. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class that is available to the general public, that is offered by a law enforcement agency, a junior college, a college or a private or public institution, academy, organization or firearms training school and that is approved by the department of public safety or that uses instructors who are certified by the national rifle association.
2. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Arizona game and fish department or a similar agency of another state.
3. Completion of any national rifle association firearms safety or training course.
4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies or other divisions or subdivisions of law enforcement or security enforcement and that is approved by the department of public safety.
5. Evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces.
6. A valid current or expired concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or license that is issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state and that has a training or testing requirement for initial issuance.
7. Completion of any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualification to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties.
8. Completion of any other firearms safety or training course or class that is conducted by a department of public safety approved or national rifle association certified firearms instructor.
If a bill comes up for training before concealed carry that
requires education as to the law, real world case studies
in application of that law, and demonstration as to just basic
competence before shall issue, I'm supporting it.
If one asks "what is reasonable?" I have no problem pointing
to the current NRA Basic Pistol course.
BTW: Arizona's proposed HB2300 provides a "minimally reasonable" outline of standards for concealed carry training/background:
E. The department of public safety shall issue a permit to an applicant who meets all of the following conditions:
6. Has ever demonstrated competence with a firearm as prescribed by subsection N of this section and provides adequate documentation that the person has satisfactorily completed a training program or demonstrated competence with a firearm in any state or political subdivision in the United States. For the purposes of this paragraph, "adequate documentation" means:
(a) A current or expired permit issued by the department of public safety pursuant to this section.
(b) An original or copy of a certificate, card or document that shows the applicant has ever completed any course or class prescribed by subsection N of this section or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club or organization that conducted or taught the course or class attesting to the applicant's completion of the course or class.
(c) An original or a copy of a United States department of defense form 214 (DD‑214) indicating an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions, a certificate of completion of basic training or any other document demonstrating proof of the applicant's current or former service in the United States armed forces as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 5 of this section.
(d) An original or a copy of a concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or a license as prescribed by subsection N, paragraph 6 of this section.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Section "N" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N. An applicant shall demonstrate competence with a firearm through any of the following:
1. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class that is available to the general public, that is offered by a law enforcement agency, a junior college, a college or a private or public institution, academy, organization or firearms training school and that is approved by the department of public safety or that uses instructors who are certified by the national rifle association.
2. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Arizona game and fish department or a similar agency of another state.
3. Completion of any national rifle association firearms safety or training course.
4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies or other divisions or subdivisions of law enforcement or security enforcement and that is approved by the department of public safety.
5. Evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces.
6. A valid current or expired concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or license that is issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state and that has a training or testing requirement for initial issuance.
7. Completion of any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualification to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties.
8. Completion of any other firearms safety or training course or class that is conducted by a department of public safety approved or national rifle association certified firearms instructor.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Regardless of reason or experience or examples of any sort to support your assumption that it is a positive benefit to anyone?
Of course, such decision choices are not uncommon but we tend to see fewer of that type here.
Of course, such decision choices are not uncommon but we tend to see fewer of that type here.
In Kentucky you don't need training to open carry, you don't need permission from the State to open carry, you don't need to pay fees to the State to open carry, you don't need any kind of permit to open carry.
The minute that firearm is concealed under a thin piece of cloth... you need training, you need permission from the state, you need to pay fees to the state, you need a permit.
Why?
.
The minute that firearm is concealed under a thin piece of cloth... you need training, you need permission from the state, you need to pay fees to the state, you need a permit.
Why?
.
NO training? Or no government MANDATED training? Sure, they may be some people that may carry without taking responsibility to train themselves, but I bet the vast majority of people who carry feel at least some responsibility to train themselves.
Remember, there are 'highly trained' individuals that still screw up, there are threads about that right now. .Gov mandated training should not be necessary. What's next? Monthly qualifications to be able to keep your CCW? Maybe that's not often enough, and weekly is needed for some people, etc etc. it can get pretty onerous for what seems to be not that big of a problem.
Remember, there are 'highly trained' individuals that still screw up, there are threads about that right now. .Gov mandated training should not be necessary. What's next? Monthly qualifications to be able to keep your CCW? Maybe that's not often enough, and weekly is needed for some people, etc etc. it can get pretty onerous for what seems to be not that big of a problem.
WVsig
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,063
I personally would expect more respect from a moderator of the forum. I do not think it is necessary to question the integrity of another member just because he disagrees with you. I do not agree with him but I am not going to to attack his integrity. Disagree with his words but don't attack the man. It IMHO is not THR way.
He is right about one thing. When we attack people personally because we disagree with their stance on a particular gun law or gun topic we end up polarizing the issue and not being people to our way of thinking. We in fact do the opposite. Your language and your tactic causes them to choose a side because you make them defend not only their beliefs but their personal integrity. I don't think that is the correct approach. IHMO YMMV
The reality is that many states have basic training requirements even though they are shall issue states. The last 3 states I have been licensed in all had a training/class requirement. KY was the first that had its own program vs something like the NRA basic pistol course. I was not happy about it but I took the course and got my permit.
I would fully support KY allowing one to take the NRA Basic Pistol course instead of the KY class.
Last edited:
Yes...KY kinda does that...Kentucky does monthly NICS check on all the permit holders in the state.
.
BSA1
member
MEHarvey,
You of course realize that Concealed Carry Classes and State issued Permits;
1. Discriminate against those people who lack the financial resources (money) to pay for the application fee(s), cost of taking the class, transportation to and from the class, depending when class is held time off work and arranging for child care. This group is mainly the poor, the elderly and single working parents who are usually female.
In other words you are supporting denying a significant portion of your state's population the same level of self-protection you enjoy.
And
2. That State issued Conceal Carry Permits are registration of gun owners.
You of course realize that Concealed Carry Classes and State issued Permits;
1. Discriminate against those people who lack the financial resources (money) to pay for the application fee(s), cost of taking the class, transportation to and from the class, depending when class is held time off work and arranging for child care. This group is mainly the poor, the elderly and single working parents who are usually female.
In other words you are supporting denying a significant portion of your state's population the same level of self-protection you enjoy.
And
2. That State issued Conceal Carry Permits are registration of gun owners.
The state has a database of all it's permit holders. So now they know for sure who has a handgun. Is it Registration? No, guns are not registered. But the permit is a license and the state knows where you live.
If you open carried all the time, you would not need a permit, and your name would not go through a monthly NICS check, and your name would not be on any state list.
Even worse than that...suppose due a glitch in the monthly NICS checks (on all it's permit holders) results in a false positive? So what happens then?
Does the state come kick your door in?
Does the state notify the feds?
Do you get all your firearms confiscated? (I know we are talking KY here, that is why I am asking.)
Is your permit suspended automatically?
Does your name automatically go onto some prohibited list?
How would one go about clearing their name?
Who would pay to clear their name if the state was in error?
Permit systems are ripe for abuses and glitches, they are also a point of potential Privacy breaches and potential Identity Theft. Not to mention a permit is a financial burden on those who can least afford it. (as the last post pointed out very well).
Again, what is the difference between open carry and concealed carry in KY? A piece of cloth? No permission needed for open carry, cover it with a thin piece of cloth....permission needed.
.
Last edited:
ngnrd
Member
The actual content of any given NRA course notwithstanding, denial of the free exercise of a person's natural rights until 'proper' competence and knowledge of the relevant laws can be proven and recorded in some bureaucrat's 'good guy' file does not fall within the purview of the government's duty, responsibility, or authority. Is the dissemination of such information and training beneficial? Absolutely. But the responsibility to be competent and to know the law falls squarely on the citizen. I am constantly baffled at just how many folks don't understand that.
Last edited:
MEHavey I'm sorry you feel this is some sort of "game".
To me it isn't.
I am just trying to understand why you feel these classes
(and lets be real here, these are classes, NOT training), have merit if no one can point to any recordable data showing any real benefit.
Do I believe knowledge of the law & the workings of firearms to be a good thing? Yes I do. Do I think the government should require it in order to be able to exercise your RIGHT to keep & bear arms? NO!
Would I support classes given in school? Say starting in 1st grade? YES!! Do I believe gun safety and handling and marksmanship would reduce ND's & AD's? Yes I do.
All that aside, I still can't find data to support classes making people and or society safer in states that have strict gun laws & control as opposed to states that have no educational or training requirements.
To me it isn't.
I am just trying to understand why you feel these classes
(and lets be real here, these are classes, NOT training), have merit if no one can point to any recordable data showing any real benefit.
Do I believe knowledge of the law & the workings of firearms to be a good thing? Yes I do. Do I think the government should require it in order to be able to exercise your RIGHT to keep & bear arms? NO!
Would I support classes given in school? Say starting in 1st grade? YES!! Do I believe gun safety and handling and marksmanship would reduce ND's & AD's? Yes I do.
All that aside, I still can't find data to support classes making people and or society safer in states that have strict gun laws & control as opposed to states that have no educational or training requirements.
smalls
Member
Let's really be real, some states classes are a joke. Pretty much if you know which way the gun points, and can get a couple rounds on paper at 5 yards you pass.
What's the point? Most people breeze through the class to get their permit, then never practice or train further, anyway. They barely learn anything, and anything theat is soaked up is forgotten in a week. I don't feel safe about 99% of the people carrying a firearm in public. But as they say, freedom does not equal safety
OP
OP
Elkins45
Member
This is an amazingly good point. Your reasoning simply cannot be denied. What's most amazing about it is that I had never even considered it in all of these years.
At my age I don't get to say this often, but you have changed my thinking on this issue. Since open carry is legal with no training requirement then there's no reason to care which particular course a CCDW applicant takes. The only small rebuttal I can come up with is that a CCDW applicant is actively planning on carrying vs Joe Public who has the right to open carry but has no intention of ever doing so, but that's a minor point at best.
BSA1
member
steve4102,
That is a most excellent point that I overlooked.
Thank you for pointing that out.
That is a most excellent point that I overlooked.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Coyote3855
Member
How much training is required to exercise other parts of the Bill of Rights?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Free expression of perceived firearms rights can destroy a few people. Free expression of ideas has already destroyed entire nations.
earlthegoat2
Member
Maybe the laws have changed since, but when I got my KY CCDW Lic., there was an option to not have to take any class if you were currently in the military. The theory being, that you had firearms training. Not state law training.
- Status
Similar threads
