Training requirements for gun ownership.

[armoredman]

Ballistical, look east of you. Down a little. See that wide expanse of desert and mountains known as Arizona? Hi. We've had open unlicensed unregistered un anything open carry for over 100 years. Seems to be working so far.
We had training requirements for CCW starting in '94, but cut that back to the bare minimum, and went Constitutional Carry Sep 2010. That seems to be working too. We have never ever mandated training of any kind to carry a firearm.
Now one thing we do have which I wish we could make as mandatory as Driver's Ed, ( an elective), would be the Arizona Gun Safety Program.
http://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00714-01.htm

Now if you give the government the authority to MANDATE training, yes, it will become onerous and oppressive, or does everyone think Chicago's requirements are OK? Does DC have a good program? That's where it would end up, if you let someone else dictate how the right is exercised. Want training? TAKE IT. Send your children, teach them yourself, family day at the range used to be a normal activity.
When anyone says mandatory anything needs to be attached to the exercise of a right, you just turned it into a privilege, by the simple act of saying "You can't, until..."

 

[tyeo098]

Long story short: don't infringe on the rights of other because you think you know whats better for them.

 

[azyogi]

I might approve of such if it were required to graduate high school, or if my Boy Scout merit badges in rifle or shotgun shooting were ample proof. All Honorably Discharged Veterans should also be considered as having passed. Renewal should be automatic and free. I do remain reluctant and fear the camels nose in this perticular tent.

 

[MountainBear]

Training shouldn't be required to exercise a right, but it certainly should be common sense. Guns are tools, especially ccw pieces. One should get the best training possible with any tool. If you don't you aren't a criminal, you're just an idiot.

 

[mljdeckard]

This is a good line of thinking.

Before you are allowed to run an newspaper, you need to go to journalism school. It's only the exposure and networking that you get while being accepted by the popular news sources that makes you a good journalist. No one else ever reports any relevant news. It's a bad idea to just let normal untrained people report the news.

Before you are allowed to teach or practice a religion, you need to go to an accredited school of theology. Normal, uneducated masses aren't capable of taking on the serious implications of delving into deep emotional subjects of faith.

If you can't articulate what difference it makes at a graduate school level, you have to let troops live in your house.

If you are too dumb to ask to see the warrant, refuse a search at a traffic stop, or shut your piehole during an interrogation, you deserve whatever happens to you.

I have another great idea. When you go to the polls, before you are allowed to vote, you have to pass a test that says you know how to read. This is a great idea that will ensure that only the right people get to vote.

We should only have the rights we are formally educated about.

*sarcasm switch off* Of course we should train. But if we start letting the .gov tell us who is and isn't competent enough to carry, guess who will meet the standard?

 

[mnrivrat]

I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun.

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. Firearm ownership is a right .

The quickest way to take away that right is to make something manditory in order to exersize it.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. Firearm ownership is a right .

the man is entitled to his opinion, whether you agree with it or not...

 

[mljdeckard]

Of course everyone can have an opinion, but the rock that is my rights smashes the scissors that are someone else's opinion every time.

 

[T Bran]

How long do you think it would take before your approval of said licence would be linked to your credit score or some other such nonsence. It is a good concept but will soon be used against you. Any time you let the government get their foot in the door it is all over but the crying.
T

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Of course everyone can have an opinion, but the rock that is my rights smashes the scissors that are someone else's opinion every time.

if it makes you feel better to talk about your rights smashing things over the internet, go right ahead...but i don't think you're actually proving anything worthwhile...

 

[22-rimfire]

Gun ownership licensing would be a slippery slope that would not be good for the cohesiveness of the USA.... Eventually people would rebel.

 

[beatledog7]

The notion that gov't mandated training and licensure will keep people safer or cause gun owners to make smarter decisions is fallacious. It comes from the same attitude that brought about no-gun signs.

Wherever it is mandatory it will be cursory at best, just as the training and testing required to get a driving license. What proportion of legally licensed drivers can actually handle an emergency situation properly on the day they get their license?

Training is essential, but when you make it mandatory, it becomes a means of control.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Government mandated training is guaranteed to teach that the only safe gun is the gun that is unloaded and locked up with ammo locked in a separate container. Then it will only get worse from there. No thank you.

We let ourselves get into the current gun control mess by allowing compromise, disguised as "reasonable regulation".

You want to live in a country where you can walk into a gun store anywhere and buy any type of gun you want to...so do I. But the road to getting there is not paved with compromise. It's paid with winning our rights back, as little a time as we have to, without compromise. Heller. McDonald. The court ruling against Mass. That is the way we get our rights back.

 

[22-rimfire]

From time to time, you hear about bills being introduced that would require an annual ownership fee of like $10/gun. That also is a means of gun control.

Taxing ammuntion with a very high sin tax like tobacco products would be another means of gun control just like causing the price of gasoline to increase to force people to buy smaller more efficient cars.

 

[BSA1]

Well let me see the problems with your liberal argument;

1. What are the licensing requirements?
2. Who is going to determine what the requirements are?
3. Different types of firearms require different skills. The revolver, semi-automatic pistol, pump shotgun, semiautomatic shotgun, bolt action rifle, semiautomatic rifle each have unique characterstics. Are you going to address these issues with different types of licensing?
4. Where is the list of approved licenses going to be kept?
5. WHO is going to KEEP this information?
6. What Federal agency is going to be enpowered to collect the revenue from licensing fees and how are the fees going to be used?
7. What is the problem you are trying to solve? You have not clearly stated the problem and have not provided any stats to support your position.
8. Why are you uncomfortable with me owning a gun?
9. WHY DO I NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO OWN A FIREARM?

Yep I see it now. The citizens are gathering to stop the approaching British soldiers. The militia commander conducts inspection of the volunteers. He walks up to the first one….gun check, ammo check, government issued firearms license no….sorry you aren’t qualified to handle a gun. You have to remain a subject.

This idea is nothing more than a back door liberal effort to register gun owners. Sadly it is people that accept this argument that will surrender their guns.

 

[flhtcuibyhd]

NO. Any questions?

 

[Apple a Day]

Beatledog7 has it right. The OP has it completely wrong.
Some people have a problem with civilians owning guns. Your solution is to hand the government the ability and an excuse to deny gun ownership to civilians? If that seems logical to you then you need to start over.
Handing the government a stick to hit you with is, to put it politely, counterproductive at the very least. If you want to encourage people to complete training you need a carrot to motivate. Notice I say 'YOU' not 'the government' because it comes down to personal responsibility not government madate

1) Are you an NRA certified instructor? Then WHY NOT?!You expect other people (oh, like the government) to do the work for you? Get off your butt and do it yourself. If you expect someone else to do it for you then you deserve the results you get.

2)Join a program that trains and certifies people. Get everyone you know to join and train. If there isn't one in your area then START ONE YOURSELF. Make your own friggin' Kony 2012 video and get people stirred up! Make your own logo, hold press conferences, set up counter-demonstrations at anti-gun rallies where your folks show up and wave their certificates. Push the training revolution! Viva!

3)Cough up some of YOUR $ to get other people to train and get certified. Don't try to stick your hand in my pocket to pay for your idea even if you're trying to distance yourself by making the "government" pay for it... because that's STILL MY MONEY, it just costs 4x as much since the beaurocrats take their cut first.

Rant done.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Where does it end? Are they going to make the training requirements so onerous that only a military or police "special operator" can pass them? How much will such licensing and training cost? What will prevent pricing it so high that only the rich can afford it? Newsflash: poor people have exactly the same rights to keep and bear arms as the rich. If you look at history, in the years before there were guns, there were laws designed to prevent mere peasantry from possessing weapons. A crossbow bolt was the "'cop-killer' bullet" of its day. The United States doesn't "roll" that way.

 

[Averageman]

These arguements are a wormhole you dont want or need to go down with a liberal.
A tacit responce would be "I agree with you, You Sir do not like my Second Ammendments Rights and would like to regulate and licence them, thats okay; but I think you abuse your first ammendment rights in childish arguements that will change nothing."
Guns are highly regulated in Mexico, how's that working out for them?
Other than that a hearty "Shut your Pie Hole Lefty." should be applied.

 

[armarsh]

If a training requirement is not infringement, then certainly requiring a drivers license or other identification to vote is not disenfranchisement.

By this same logic, we should have to prove we understand policy issues before we vote and should not object to a "common sense" poll tax in the form of a license. Please assume that the test and license fee would be administered by your most hated political opponent.

 

[Ramone]

The comparison to a Drivers License requiring training and/or demonstration of competence is a bad one-

You don't need a License to OWN a car- you need a License to operate it on public streets.

So a better analogy is some sort of training requirement to Carry a weapon (though, it does limp a little).

My issue, as others have said, is that once we say that a training or competency test is ok , we can lose control of what those standards and requirements are.

Downstate NY (Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island) will issue a concealed pistol permit (which is required to possess a handgun) with no requirement of training, or proof of competence- BUT- you may only carry concealed to and from the range, unless you can prove that you have good reason to need to carry for self defense.

I know NO ONE that has been able to meet their standard of need.

So Despite offering a permit freely (well, for about $200.00 and more than a years wait), their standards deny your right to carry for self defense purposes.

Permits and registration are Gun Control- and it's THEIR control, and they are NOT your friends, nor reasonable, nor do they have your best interests at heart.

 

[Tim the student]

I will never support licensing of any type, nor will I ever support mandatory training of any type. I want to end gun control, not support it.

 

[ball3006]

You guys from the "blue states" are really hot on this licensing and training aren't you? Do what you have to do and leave the rest of us out of it. Gun training should be a requirement of parents when they are raising their kids. You people are confusing a "right" with a privilage.............chris3

 

[84B20]

Here's my solution:

Mandatory education required in elementary school. IE, Eddie the Eagle

Mandatory weapons handling and safety in middle schools.

Mandatory marksmanship training in high school.

All paid for by tax dollars.

Licensing and government control is not the answer, IMO. This solution might just be. Something like this is already done in Switzerland.

 

[45Badger]

A simple "No" says it all.