MANDATORY training?

[vantec08]

sorry if dupe . .. . http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mandato...tional-useful/

[six10]

My two cents: Mandatory "training" and pass/fail "testing" reminds me of the ridiculous manoeuvers used in the South to prevent African Americans from voting. And the fees? (DROS, HSC, etc.) Akin to the "Poll Tax" from the same era -all designed to shut out one group of people.

[winnre]

You need to learn from someone. Grandparents don't take an 8 year old out back with a .22 any more.

Here is an analogy: I have this stove that my ex used to cook fantastic meals on, but I can't get any where near her cooking ability. Same stove. yea, I need training.

If you have a firearm you should SEEK training, don't just ad lib it like me with a stove. Dangerous combo.

[Vtec44]

Here is an analogy: I have this stove that my ex used to cook fantastic meals on, but I can't get any where near her cooking ability. Same stove. yea, I need training.

If I'm cooking for myself, why the do I need training unless I want to? I know how to use the stove safely already right, CA HSC?

[craneman]

The way I look at it is this. I grew up with firearms. I have been shooting firearms since about 8 ys old. I think I know how to handle a firearm safely in about any situation that could arise. That being said, I have seen on many occations HORRIBLE safe handling practices at every range I have ever been to. It's not an everytime occurance, but enough that I stay pretty alert of my surroundings. Some people are just ignorant of what they are doing, and some people are just plain stupid. I am quite sure that most were not felons as they were toting thier own firearms. I am also sure they were very nice, well meaning people. I know this because I have intervened in a friendly way when I thought it was appropriate. I would be somewhat uncomfortable to be around someone with a CCW that has not had at least a minimum of safety training. I personaly don't think that it hurts to understand the laws and consequences that could arise in the event that the weapon needed to be deployed. I agree that a firarm cannot hurt you anymore than a car can. But if you combine a firearm or a car with a human being they BOTH can get a bit more dangerous. To deny that is not being honost. Now put both in the hands of ignorant or stupid people and the danger to an innocent bystander becomes greater. I don't hear alot of people getting all bent out of shape to get a drivers lic. ar the testing it takes to get one. Its a responsibility to operate a car in a safe manner. I believe it is with a firearm as well.

I grew up in South Dakota where the population is very small compared to California. Firearms were a normal thing for most people there. There were idiots, too. The difference was that you knew who they were and were able to avoid them pretty much. I think Alaska is very much the same way. They don't have alot of trouble with the CCW crowd that has little to no formal requirement for training.

I am eagerly awaiting Arizona's new CCW requirements to kick in. Quite a bit larger population in some very dense areas. I hope it works out as planned, but I must admit, I am a bit skeptical. I hope I am wrong.

[winnre]

If I'm cooking for myself, why the do I need training unless I want to? I know how to use the stove safely already right, CA HSC?

Yea the CA HSC is a joke. Thee ought to be advanced voluntary training readily available. You will find cooking classes before shooting classes.

[killmime1234]

I think that the reason non alcohol/hunting gun accidents are so low is because the proportionally select few of us that actually have firearms do have the correct respect for them. The moment it becomes both socially acceptable and legally allowable for everyone to concealed carry without training, more people, including those who don't have that correct respect, will significantly increase those numbers.

Think about it like cars. If the number of people who owned cars were the same as the number of people who own guns, there would probably be significantly less car accidents, even without mandatory training. When everyone can drive, however, those numbers increase exponentially based on logic, statistics, and the darwin factor. The same holds true for guns.

[AAShooter]

I think the question is what is contained in the training. Most CCW classes I have been to focus on legal issues than marksmanship or tactical issues. The shooting portion of many CCW testing is about as simple as they can make it. I am sure some states are more demanding.

The NRA has a Personal Protection Outside the Home class that I think was designed to help people understand the knowledge and skills for carrying a firearm outside the home for personal protection.

[vantec08]

I dont have a problem with safety training on firearms per se . . .got a helluva problem when government starts throwing around MANDATORY.

[winnre]

I dont have a problem with safety training on firearms per se . . .got a helluva problem when government starts throwing around MANDATORY.

We do not need training to conduct free speech, but it helps of you can write a complete sentence.

The AR Build Parties are probably the closest thing we have to intelligent organized voluntary education on firearms.

[Cokebottle]

You need to learn from someone. Grandparents don't take an 8 year old out back with a .22 any more.

If you have a firearm you should SEEK training, don't just ad lib it like me with a stove. Dangerous combo.

I agree that there is a NEED for training, but it is up to the gun owner to be a responsible adult and seek that training for themselves.

The RKTBA is an enumerated right. The government cannot Constitutionally impose fees or restrictions on an enumerated right.
Unless the government is willing to provide training for free, and to allow repeat admission until the training is passed, mandatory training is unconstitutional.


Should someone be forced to pass a college level debate class before being allowed to exercise their first amendment right?
No... anyone can stand on any street corner and make a fool out of themselves any time. If they incite a riot, they can be charged with a crime.

The same should be true of our 2A rights.
Carry freely.
Do something stupid and hurt someone/property?
You can be charged with a crime.

[RandyD]

Whenever you entrust the government with power, they will abuse it. If you entrust them with administering a course, test, ect. the politicians will abuse this power. Owning, using and possessing a firearm requires personal responsibility, and I can't think of a test, procedure or process that could assess personal responsibility that I would entrust to a government agency.

[Super Spy]

The constitution does say "Well Regulated Militia" to me that means well trained. If everyone that played with guns knew what the hell they were doing you'd have less accidents and incidents for the anti's to use to take away gun rights. If I was mandated to take a class to get my gun card and then I could own or carry whatever I liked without stupid rosters, capacity limits, AWB, etc I would happily do it.

My dad borrowed a .22 from my Grandpa and taught me to shoot tin cans when I was 8. I don't think I do anything unsafe when I'm handling guns. I'll take the class if it means everyone else has to as well as it might be my *** that gets saved by teaching some yahoo basic gun safety.

[Cokebottle]

The constitution does say "Well Regulated Militia" to me that means well trained.

On another thread, someone mentioned that in 1770, "regulated" was a term that meant "supplied"

[audiophil2]

30+ states, including CA, currently allow non-prohibited people to openly carry a gun without any training at all.

The article does not mention this fact.

What is the difference between carrying a gun in the open versus carrying a gun with a jacket covering it that makes training mandatory?

CCW permits, as another poster mentioned, are based on racism and not public safety concern.