Training Reqirements for CCW... Good or Bad?

[TxCajun]

RKBA... Shall not be infringed...
A strick interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment is pretty clear, but we all know that it is NOT reality these days. People have not been allowed to carry guns in many times and places throughout the 20th century. Now with the advent of CCW permits in more recent history, this right has re-emerged to varying degrees. In many states, to aquire this "privelege", one must complete various degrees of training regarding the law and proficiency with a firearm.

Do such training requirements constitute "infringement"? Should any law-abiding citizen be allowed to "bear" arms at any time or place of their choosing, without having to jump through the various hoops? For that matter, the 2nd Ammendment, as written, does not even preclude felons, does it? To me, under a strict interpretation of 2A, even a requirement for CCW permit would be an infringement, let alone the training, classes, etc.

On the other hand, do I really want my half-blind, rarely sober, fumbling idiot neighbor carrying a gun in public without the benefit of some training? Most men of my generation were taught gun saftey at an early age by their fathers. Often today, children are raised without a father in the household. Gun saftey training, let alone common sense, is far from assumable these days. In fact, many people make it well into adulthood having never fired a weapon. At a certain point, these uninitiated citizens may decide that they need to carry a weapon. Some states have little or no requirement for training. My question is:

Does requiring training for a CCW permit violate the 2nd Ammendment? Is such a requirement a good or bad thing?

 

[rick_reno]

A generation or two ago, when a larger segment of the population were involved in shooting sports I doubt training would have been needed. Today it's probably not a bad thing - if nothing else it seems to inform people about the legalities of carrying a firearm. I'm happy that it's not required where I live.

 

[jefnvk]

I dunno. It probably isn't a bad thing, unless it starts being used to keep people from getting permits. Then again, when the 2A was written, everyone (well, the 16-fortysomething year old guys) was part of the militia and expected to know how to use their weapon.

I think the biggest issue is the fear that either price or training requirements will become so high, that the average guy couldn't ever get a license.

 

[El Tejon]

A permit per se to exercise a Constitutional right violates the Constitution. Any other governmental conditions are equally unlawful.

Training is a very good thing. Education is the one thing no one can take away from you. It should be encouraged but not mandated by government. (Remember all the training you did for your House of Worship License?)

From a utilitarians perspective, I don't believe as a matter of policy that it makes any difference. We do not require training for our LTCH up here. I fail to see how codifying training would do anything other than create a greater barrier to entry to the license and create a parasite class to serve the rule.

 

[XLMiguel]

Technically, I believe it does.

Pragmatically, however, I think training requirements are a good thing. Your comments on earlier generations having better exposure to firearms and the fact that 'common sense' isn't common are germaine. A certain portion of the population will behave responsibly and take the time to educate themselves on firearm safety and legal issues associated with lethal force, but the rest are just plain lazy, and if you don't enforce some basic requirements, it just won't happen. People don't do what you expect, they do what you inspect. I realize you can't save people from themselves. but I think society benefits giving them the opportunity to get educated, and then holding them accountable if they skrew up.

And then there's the other end of the bell curve that shouldn't be allowed to breed, let alone have guns, but there really isn't much we can do about them

 

[WT]

I think training should be required for those under age 60. After age 60 no training should be required.

The 10 hour NRA basic course is a little long so I would recommend something in the order of 4 hours.

 

[Vernal45]

Seek training on your own. If you require training, who regulates is? If training is a requirement to carry/have a gun, then it is no longer a right. You cant regulate a right, it only leads to more regulating and no more rights.

 

[RealGun]

I wouldn't need a lot of training to know how to carry concealed. I would need some knowledge of the law to stay out of avoidable legal difficulty. What I would need is for someone at sometime in my life to show me how to handle a gun safely and to hit what I'm shooting at. I see no good reason to single out CCW license holders for basic safety and how to shoot. I believe we are singled out as identifiable, controllable people. I don't beieve in that authority, but what am I going to do in the short term?

What is no doubt desired by authorities is some way to train everyone who owns a gun or has access to one, i.e has a right to be exercised at any time. 200 years ago familiarity with guns could be well taken for granted. Not today. Seems to me a good way to ensure basic knowledge of guns and safety to the extent practical is to require gun handling and safety as a condition for high school level graduation. I wouldn't require students to shoot, making it optional, but they should know how to handle a gun, actually holding one, checking for being loaded, unloading, etc. If physically unable, they should simply be shown how. There should be both male and female instructors for gender identification.

 

[Vernal45]

There should be both male and female instructors for gender identification.

More PC

 

[stevelyn]

Shouldn't be required. A pre-condition attached to a right before excercising isn't a right at all and sets the stage for revocation.
However, I strongly suggest training, at least the legal aspects portion if nothing else.

 

[Colonel Klink]

No training necessary. No one has mentioned Vermont and Alaska where anyone can carry concealed - period! What is happening to this country is people not willing to take responsibiltiy for their actions. If your "half-blind, rarely sober, fumbling idiot neighbor" is held responsible for how he uses a gun he would probably not be a problem to you.

I would allow everyone to own full auto guns like we can do in Neveda. The same responsibility applies. An armed society is a polite society.

 

[P95Carry]

It should NOT be mandated but is IMO highly desirable.

The NRA Basic Pistol courses I coach on are I think a good foundation for folks and they can then proceed to a personal protection course if thinking of carry.

It is more than worthwhile to not only familairize (safely) with a firearm but to also have some idea as to the law. It should be realized by any wishing to carry that a degree of practice/training also makes for a much better chance of survival if an extreme situation should be encountered.... just ''having a gun'' may very well be far from adequate.

 

[wolf]

right vs privilege

my view..not mandatory training..but encouraged training...

i love cars...here in CA (i would guess most states) the "driving test" is to determine if you are breathing..not to demonstrate an ability to drive..i would go as far to say that it discourages any ability to "drive" ... if you can start the vehicle..go in a straight line..turn the wheel...and know where the break pedal is...you have a license that is for the most part automatically renewed every 5 to 7 yrs until you are declared dead...(true story: santa monica..a legally blind driver killed a pedestrian)..

you can learn to drive on a 1965 VW and not have take any additional "drivers training" for your next vehicle..a 2005 C6 corvette..

a drivers license is a necessity..primary ID..needed for just about every major financial transaction and almost all legal transactions

and this is a privilege remember..that is regulated and taxed beyond measure..

i cannot legally carry my gun..even though i have been trained and practice regularly..and have no law violations of any kind..

many have forgotten how precious a "right" is...and i fear many more will never know..

wolf

 

[TxCajun]

Lots of good responses here on both sides of the coin. Assumably, people are already held accountable for their actions with a gun. Let me play devil's advocate here in a hypothetical situation:

If your "half-blind, rarely sober, fumbling idiot neighbor" is held responsible for how he uses a gun he would probably not be a problem to you.

Let's assume that my untrained, incompetent neighbor IS held accountable AFTER he kills my innocent, bystanding kid, while shooting at a shoplifter in a crowded shopping mall. I DO think that WOULD be a problem for me?

Holding people responsible for their actions is a "given". After the fact, it does NOT solve everything, does it? Perhaps that responsibility should be in advance. Don't my neighbor's rights end where my kid's begin?

And, in states that require no training, when irresponsible use of deadly force takes place, and sooner or later, it will; Won't the "antis" use that to further curtail RKBA? If they ever get national laws passed, folks in Vermont, Alaska and Nevada may as well move to California.

Does requiring training for a CCW permit violate the 2nd Ammendment? Is such a requirement a good or bad thing?

 

[jefnvk]

I would need some knowledge of the law to stay out of avoidable legal difficulty.

That is the type of training that I think should be needed. Not, this is the business end of a gun, point that towards the bad guy stuff. Not what the best holsters are, or if you really need a .45 over a 9mm. But the legal issues, when deadly force is allowed, etc.

Let's assume that my untrained, incompetent neighbor IS held accountable AFTER he kills my innocent, bystanding kid, while shooting at a shoplifter in a crowded shopping mall. I DO think that WOULD be a problem for me?

You know, I was just arguing this point over on TFL. Some do argue that if you are shooting to stop a crime, or to save your life, and kill a bystander not involved, you should not be held responsible. That, I suppose, would be even more of a problem for you.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think training should be required for those under age 60. After age 60 no training should be required.

Could someone explain to me what age has to do with this???

You have to be kidding, right? This is the silliest notion I have heard in a while.

And no, training should not be required to carry or own a gun, and I see no authority in the Constitution for the government to even recommend it.

If, during the Revolution, only men formally trained in the use of arms had been allowed to fight, we would all still be speaking English right now.

 

[TxCajun]

I see no authority in the Constitution for the government to even recommend it.

Nor do I, but what has the Constitution got to do with it? I bet many people in these states agree with us but the Constitution didn't do them much good, did it?

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=142352

 

[WT]

Gunman - I am not kidding. If you check with your local police, you will probably find that the age bracket of those they arrest for assaults, robberies, etc. is usually between 15-35 years old.

You may also find that there are enhanced penalties for those who attack senior citizens over age 60, because the seniors are perceived to be weaker than the average citizen. Therefore, I would seek an enhanced benefit for those over 60 to even things out.

 

[Vernal45]

I would seek an enhanced benefit for those over 60 to even things out.

WHY????

 

[WT]

Vernal - because I respect my elders.

The seniors I know have a lot more maturity (obviously) than a youngster. Their finances are also limited and they can't afford to spend much on training.

Then again, I know a lot of young men who want to go out and shoot somebody. Most will claim that they will only use a firearm in legitimate defense of themselves or family, but deep down, they really hope for the chance to shoot a BG, get a pat on the back, a medal from the mayor.

One has only to look at the various violent video game sales or the high 5's of the FBI agents at Waco.

 

[Vernal45]

While I agree with you on the "high 5's" of agents at Waco. I hesitate on creating a SPECIAL CLASS of folks, with regards to firearms. Its either for everyone, or its not a right.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Then again, I know a lot of young men who want to go out and shoot somebody. Most will claim that they will only use a firearm in legitimate defense of themselves or family, but deep down, they really hope for the chance to shoot a BG, get a pat on the back, a medal from the mayor.

Thats one of the most amazing things I have ever read.

Your statement says you think most young men want to shoot someone. Most? You sure about that?

Do you really know a lot of young men who really want to get into a gun fight? How many do you mean?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

what has the Constitution got to do with it?

Are you serious? Show me where in the Constitution the power is given to the federal government to make recommendations for suitable firearms training, and I will gladly retract my former statements.

 

[TxCajun]

Are you serious? Show me where in the Constitution the power is given to the federal government to make recommendations for suitable firearms training, and I will gladly retract my former statements.

I was being facetious and you missed my point. And, apparently, this link:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=142352

My point was, that in spite of the Constitution, there are a great many laws across this country that seriously impede, if not outright ban gun ownership, let alone the right to bear. Thus "what has the constitution got to do with it" was tongue-in-cheek.

Does requiring training for a CCW permit violate the 2nd Ammendment? Is such a requirement a good or bad thing?

 

[RealGun]

Quote:
There should be both male and female instructors for gender identification.


More PC

I was thinking that it shouldn't be presented as just a guy thing. I also could foresee the need for being physically close or even touching a student during gun handling instruction.