training as a constitutional requirement


PDA






dogbaloo
January 7, 2011, 11:10 AM
I'm a rabid pro-2A guy. Over the years, I've slowly become the neighborhood "go to guy" on questions regarding training and responsible gun ownership, including CC issues. It's not a responsibility that I take lightly.

Having said all of that...I believe strongly that mandatory training should absolutely be in place in order to recieve a CC permit. No, 2A makes no mention of mandatory training...or wait a minute...does it? "A well regulated militia..." The word "regulated" is defined as this:

1a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

It seems as if maybe training and education may indeed be called out in the constitution for training uniformity. It's not a stretch, at least to me.

When I first got my CHL, and my subsequent renewals, I've been dismayed at the lack of "gun apptitude" by MANY of the folks in the class with me. These people are armed and walking around in public. I have very, very little confidence that many of these folks will be able to correctly and accurately apply deadly force should the need arise. I don't want to get shot by a CHL holder who, due to lack of training, is a serious risk to me.

Having said all of this, I'm not lost on the fact that mandatory training could be used to close the noose on responsible people intent on carrying legally. That is a bridge that must be crossed if and when it arises. To me though, knowledge is power. Lack of knowledge is potentially deadly.

If you enjoyed reading about "training as a constitutional requirement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
esquare
January 7, 2011, 11:28 AM
It seems as if maybe training and education may indeed be called out in the constitution for training uniformity. It's not a stretch, at least to me.

That is a bit of a stretch - so much so that it almost is like you are ascribing to the failed historical idea that gun ownership is tied only to militia service.

Training is a good thing, everyone should get some. But, mandatory training, while good in concept, is not good in practice as that is the only training most people will then get. When government sets a minimum standard for licensing, that's what people train to. When was the last time you took a driving refresher course (where someone actually went driving with you)?

I urge you to look into Arizona and it's recent passage of constitutional carry. There has not been a crazy increase in negligent use of firearms, and the training community is now reorganizing around a free market model. They are having success and they are doing everything they can to make QUALITY training as accessible and affordable to as many as possible. The grass roots gun rights organizations are banding together to buy billboards to promote responsible gun ownership and training.

Arizona isn't the first. Vermont has never had any CCW requirement, and no training. Alaska has not CCW requirement and no training. Many of the southern states have no training requirement even if they have a CCW permit. Why are there rates of negligent use of firearms not insanely different than say, Texas?

Well, who knows, but it may be because most people tend to be a little more responsible than we think.

esquare
January 7, 2011, 11:42 AM
For those that want to hear more about about the people in AZ are doing about training, look at this podcast:

http://proarmspodcast.com/feed/podcast/

Episode:

Gun Rights Policy Conference 2010 – 08

Starting at 18:00m, the guy talks for about 10 minutes.

dogbaloo
January 7, 2011, 12:11 PM
Gun ownership IS tied to the militia...but...we are the militia...free people over the age of 18, so that about covers everyone!

It's difficult however to ignore words as it's written. You can't tell me that "milita", "regulated" have less meaning than "shall not be infringed".

As to your question about safety training...actually...that's what I do, nearly every weekend, which is probably why I posted what I originally posted: it's scary to see the people who are in for mandatory training...even scarier to think that in some places it's not mandatory!

I dissagree with the assertation that people will only ascribe to the "minimum" standard. Again, you can't argue that people are basically responsible AND argue that they'll only take a written test and get finger printed. Clearly, as gun enthusiast, most here don't that responsible.

I could go on as well...give me an example of just one professional who's job affects your everyday life that you DO NOT think needs mandatory training; your doctor? your attorney? your dentist? how about your CPA?

I think the reason why we don't read about negligence with CHL holders is quite simple; the chances of being in an armed conflict are hugely remote...so much so that we just don't read about them...

But, ask yourself yet another question; how many gun tote'rs are actually capable of drawing a concealed weapon and discharging it effectively? I know here, you can't even find a range to do live fire practicing from presentation...and to that end, our test only involves standing still and shooting at paper. Awesome.:scrutiny:

esquare
January 7, 2011, 01:00 PM
I could go on as well...give me an example of just one professional who's job affects your everyday life that you DO NOT think needs mandatory training; your doctor? your attorney? your dentist? how about your CPA?

Carrying a gun is not complex like the professions you mention, but there are plenty of professions just as complex that require no standard training to practice is are governed solely by the free market. Software development is one.

You can teach someone safe operation of a revolver and how to fire it in about 1 hr. Most new shooters I have seen could hit someone at 3 yards no problem with a handgun. It's just not rocket science. I encourage everyone to get proper training, but not mandatory because it's something that the state should not be involved in - it's our own responsibility, not the state's.

I think the reason why we don't read about negligence with CHL holders is quite simple; the chances of being in an armed conflict are hugely remote...so much so that we just don't read about them...

thearmedcitizen.com

People seem to actually be using their firearms effectively. People handle their firearms every day, and while we have hundreds, if not thousands of documented cases of effective self defense from local news all over the country, they never make national news because they happen to frequently to be interesting to most - to the media, they are yawn stories. But, the three dumb idiots that manage to shoot the toilet out from under them while they are fiddling with their gun get national prime time coverage immediately and every time because they end up being the exception. (It also may have something to do with national media bias, but I digress).

Could are free to form an opinion you want, but if you want to persuade, you need factual data, and so far no one has been able to confirm that more state mandated training results in fewer CCW misuses. In fact, in Lott's latest edition of his book, he has drawn a correlation to less mandatory training results in less violent crime because it lowers the barrier to entry for many more people to carry concealed.

Edmond
January 7, 2011, 01:55 PM
you apparently don't live in IL, but those that do and who have been following know that there are grumblings going around. People are organizing meetings to talk about guns and concealed carry. The grass roots are growing, and when WI passes their version (hopefully constitutional carry) I believe the residents in IL will have had enough.

You're right, I don't live in IL anymore, I got out and now live in free America. Lived in Crook County for too long. I love your optimism and I really hope you guys the best but you have to be realistic. The machine runs the state. Do you think it matters that Daley is leaving? His replacement is different only in their physical appearance, their politics will be the same. If they weren't, he wouldn't be da next mayor.

dogbaloo
January 7, 2011, 01:56 PM
esquare, I'm not neccesarily suggesting that mandatory would cure CC mis-uses. I'm not suggesting that primarily because I'm unsure we could quantify it frankly. Logic tells me a couple of things however:

1) Knowledge is absolutely power; the more we know the better we are.

2) Carrying a gun is as easy as carry wallet, a cell phone or a purse; using a gun is much more complex AND consequential than the other three.

3) People CAN be VERY BASICALLY trained to fire a revolver in an hour. I agree with you...in fact, I'm guessing using advanced techniques, that one could be trained in 30 minutes. Now all that's left teaching them how to handle stress, proper target aquisition and priority, weapon retention, weapon presentation, trigger disipline...stuff that takes LOT'S of training and practice.

4) Poor software development and application is a hastle. Poor firearm application is deadly.


Couple of thoughts; I'm an MSF instructor and I teach people how to ride a motorcycle. I can take a person who has literally never even seen a motorcycle to riding one in two days..well enough to get a license and ride on the road. A rhetorical question; do you think they are really ready for the road after a day and half in a parking lot on a 125cc?

Second thought; we've got a "mini" crime wave happening in my neighborhood, and a friend and new father is concerned enough to decide he wants to get his CHL and a proper carry gun. He is a current gun owner. I went to his house with a collection of my pistols for a quick education on safety and the differences between the many different guns on the market. After that we went to the range. He shot the floor in front of the 15 yard target. Five times. Didn't know where it was going. Now, I didn't start him there...he ran his own target out, but my point is; he had no clue other than pull the trigger.

Truely, I understand where you're coming from. I simply fail to see the logic in any arena that denies a standardized and mandatory training for carrying a gun as deterimental. We simply are not born with gun skills. If you were to read any of these headlines in your paper: "Untrained Pilots roaming the skies" or "State no longer requires training for school bus drivers" or "Surgeons no longer required to graduate from med school to practice" my guess that you're reaction would be :eek:!

Mandatory training can only HELP our cause.

Respectfully submitted...

esquare
January 7, 2011, 03:33 PM
Truely, I understand where you're coming from. I simply fail to see the logic in any arena that denies a standardized and mandatory training for carrying a gun as deterimental. We simply are not born with gun skills. If you were to read any of these headlines in your paper: "Untrained Pilots roaming the skies" or "State no longer requires training for school bus drivers" or "Surgeons no longer required to graduate from med school to practice" my guess that you're reaction would be !

A paradox is defined as 'A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true'. A paradox is only a paradox because we do not have the knowledge to understand what is going on. It may be 'logical' to you that we all need mandatory training, but if rates of misuse do not show that mandatory training actually helps, then we should not have to put up with that infringement.

Does mandatory training actually increase public safety, or does it have no effect or does it decrease public safety? That's the question. I'm arguing that current mandatory training such as in TX does not increase public safety. If you can point me to a study that uses actual statewide data that shows that mandatory training has an effect on public safety, I'll change my mind. So far I have seen none.

dogbaloo
January 7, 2011, 05:37 PM
Does mandatory training actually increase public safety, or does it have no effect or does it decrease public safety? That's the question. I'm arguing that current mandatory training such as in TX does not increase public safety. If you can point me to a study that uses actual statewide data that shows that mandatory training has an effect on public safety, I'll change my mind. So far I have seen none.

There is no way that knowledge is bad for us. None. There is no such as "ignorance is bliss". That's only a saying!:confused:

The training in Texas consists only of classroom which is primarily centered around gun laws and an ever-so-light touch on situations that may be encountered. It couldn't pass for practical training even as a practical joke!

Let me put this a different way. Fill in the blank below with ANY activity, and see if it makes sense:

"Mandatory training in _____________ has no impact on neither safety nor competence of participants."

You know the stat that makes me believe mandatory training is at the very least a great idea? That would be the number of children who gain access to guns every year and shoot themselves or a friend accidently with a gun that was not secured. Aren't those "responsible people" who left a loaded gun laying around for a child to access in that same group of potential CHL holders? Not too brilliant, are they?

We can never know how many gun owners WERE NOT successful in protecting themselves, their families or their property because they did not possess the ability to proficiently use a firearm in that endeavor. The data that would be MOST interesting (and I doubt it exists) would be the number of CHL holders who were victims of person v. person crimes. Wanna bet that number is higher than you might think?

I'm sorry, but not legislating knowledge IS legislating ignorance. MOST people take the path of least resistance. The VAST majority of gun owners I know have had NO FORMAL GUN TRAINING WHATSOEVER! NONE! I run in fairly professional circles too where folks have nice, expensive collections, carry frequently...shoot little...train....never.

I'd suggest a poll here, but my belief is that people on this forum are not only responsible gun owners, but many if not most seek professional training and shoot on a regular basis. We are the minority, I assure you.

What is the argument AGAINST mandatory training?

esquare
January 7, 2011, 06:24 PM
You know the stat that makes me believe mandatory training is at the very least a great idea? That would be the number of children who gain access to guns every year and shoot themselves or a friend accidently with a gun that was not secured. Aren't those "responsible people" who left a loaded gun laying around for a child to access in that same group of potential CHL holders? Not too brilliant, are they?

How many would that be? As a number and a percentage of total number of people who own guns? You can find it at gunfacts.info if you want.

When congress mandated that medicine container be made childproof (you know, the lids that you have to press to open, etc) did percentage of accidental child poisoning go up, down or stay the same? It went up. Why?

Maybe you circle of friends in TX never got any training (formal or otherwise) because they thought that all they needed was what was in the CCW class. If they had to ask themselves, "hm, I'm going to get a gun, what type of training should I get so I don't accidentally shoot myself or do something stupid and go to jail?" maybe they would have gotten some real training by a real professional or someone they know who actually knows something. The mandatory training requirement essentially removes the (illusion of the) burden of responsibility from each person to the state.

I mean, if the state didn't mandate that I practice once a month, then apparently, I don't need to.

dogbaloo
January 7, 2011, 07:30 PM
Ok, I've got another angle to prove that mandatory training is not only a good idea, it's probably neccesary;

You and I are having this conversation, in English, utilizing proper grammar and spelling for the most part.

I'm guessing you didn't teach yourself to read, did you?

In fact, it's a safe bet that if a person doesn't go to school, then they are functionally illiterate. They never "teach themselves" or seek out training on how to read. Why?

You can have the last word...I understand that I'm not going to change your opinion, and that's ok. In my world, the best way to show people who do not subscribe to the things that I like to do (which often times are viewed as anti-social, i.e. motorcycling and guns) is to show them that I am responsible by being well read, articulate on the subject matter and constantly seek to improve my knowledge through training.

I know this will sound calloused; You know what I do when I open the paper and read about the squid who killed himself on a motorcycle the night before at 125mph? The same thing I do when I read about the drunken biker who couldn't negotiate a curve; I chuckle a bit, shake my head and just say "idiot".

Yes, I do the same thing with idiots that shoot themselves or other accidently too. Must be that education they're seeking out.;)

Here's some evidence for you: Check this active thread ON OUR OWN SITE!!! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6980972#post6980972)

esquare
January 7, 2011, 10:13 PM
I can't think of a better example than our public schools to illustrate how state mandated minimum standards create an atmosphere that drive people to achieve only the diploma and not educate themselves further.

It's been fun debating with you - I wish all people could be as civilized and actually put this much thought into their arguments. Thanks

dogbaloo
January 7, 2011, 10:45 PM
Thank you esquare! I've enjoyed it too. There's good stuff here, for sure.

Good point on public schools by the way...

Quaamik
January 9, 2011, 11:11 AM
Training is a good thing, but a constitutional requireemnt is a little bit of a strech.

2A: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says that the militia should be well "regulated" (trained). It doesn't say that people have to be befroe exersizing thier right. to be armed.

However, if people want training to be required, why not have it required at the school age level.
- Basic firearms safety (the 4 rules), which could be taught and memorized without using actual firearms early in grade school.
- Slightly more advanced (how to check to see if it's unloaded, how to unload it if it is) in later grade school (5th grade).
- Basic shooting skills such as sight alignment, target shooting (prone with single shot .22s) in early middle school (6th - 7th grade).
- More advanced shooting such as skeet/trap, sitting/kneeling/standing with rifle, pistol target shooting in later middle school (8th-9th grade).
- Practical shooting including centerfire rifle against silhouettes, defensive pistol, action/reaction shooting (bowling pins / falling plates), defensive shotgun in high school.
- Requirement to pass the ARMY basic marksman course of fire in order to graduate high school - or in order to qualify for any financial aid for college (either is a possibility).

All you would need to do to buy or carry a gun is to have a card saying you completed this training (could be issued at the completion of the class).

To meet the liberal screams that this violates peoples rights who are moraly opposed to guns an exemption could be made for people who have a moral / religious stance against firearms with a requirement that they complete the equivalent of avdanced first aid / basic EMT training instead (that way they are still "usefull' in a militia situation). If a person with this exemption later wanted a gun, they would have to take the training on thier own.


Granted, it's a bit of a facist direction to take it, but it should give pause to liberals who want to "require" training........

The Lone Haranguer
January 9, 2011, 11:25 AM
The trouble with mandatory training is that the bar can be set so high that no one can pass it, as a means to deprive citizens of arms. Similarly, high cost will keep still more people out of the pool. For that matter, IMO any carry "permit" system is unconstitutional, but I tolerate the "shall issue" system as a compromise.

AirForceShooter
January 9, 2011, 12:23 PM
Not so rabid a 2A guy anymore.
The 2A doesn't say a thing about training.

AFS

wahsben
January 9, 2011, 02:11 PM
The trouble with mandatory training is that the bar can be set so high that no one can pass it, as a means to deprive citizens of arms. Similarly, high cost will keep still more people out of the pool. For that matter, IMO any carry "permit" system is unconstitutional, but I tolerate the "shall issue" system as a compromise.


This! Mandatory training can be used as a form of gun control and therefore it is an infringement.

Nicodemus38
January 9, 2011, 02:49 PM
mandatory training requirement is bull pucky in the highest degree.

for example a small sample of concealed liscence classes in my state is a typical 100-150 depending on the person. pluse the state set amount for the permit. so roughly 250-300 maximum. Not cheap, but not going to be super prohibitive if you know you can find an instructor that can work with someones physical impairments, ie cant crawl on ground,etc.

However they could write the stipulation that it be a NATIONALLY or INTERNATIONALLY accepted program, those programs are basically GUNSITE. I cant afford a week of hotel room at about 1000.00, 1000.0 for the course plus unknown ammo cost, plus airfare to it.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2011, 04:12 PM
Requiring training to keep and bear arms has no more legitimate purpose than requiring people to pass literacy tests to vote. It is a right. Not a right with an asterisk.

"Well-regulated" is just as subject to interpretation as the possibility that the intent of the Second Amendment reads that the people have the right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE OF the militia, rather than as a PART of it.

The new phase of right to carry is in place. Meaning, eliminating the requirements for permits entirely. There were those who sneered at permit holders for paying the state and asking for permission to exercise a right. But that process has now set the stage for states to take the next logical step in dropping permits entirely. It is not a step forward to THEN say that training should be mandatory. It is a step BACKWARD.

Training should be required. By the individuals who choose to arm themselves. They are free to be as well or poorly prepared to protect themselves as the choose to be.

DeepSouth
January 9, 2011, 05:02 PM
Horrible idea. The anti's would never have enough training. They would want you take a 52 week class for 100 dollars a week, then that wouldn't be enough. The more you have to do to get a permit the less people will have them, therefore to more people are defenseless. Bad idea, very bad idea.

Suggesting that the phrase "A well regulated militia" gives the Gov. power to require training is crazy.

wishin
January 12, 2011, 08:15 PM
Proper training and learning the handling and use of firearms is always a good dea. Something like a hunter's safety course without a pass/fail test might not be a bad idea if exceptions for former military, LEO's and others who use or have used firearms in their employment would be allowed. Just don't tie it to the Constitution.

jimmyraythomason
January 12, 2011, 09:13 PM
Requiring training to keep and bear arms has no more legitimate purpose than requiring people to pass literacy tests to vote. It is a right. Not a right with an asterisk.
Amen brother!

General Geoff
January 13, 2011, 03:28 AM
Basic firearms training should be considered as essential to life as basic literacy. It should be taught in public schools. That said, it should not, strictly speaking, be mandatory and proven to be learned before purchasing, owning, or carrying a gun, any more than passing a literacy test should be required before distributing literature.

leadcounsel
January 13, 2011, 07:16 PM
Training = privilege = something the Government can arbitrarily deny.

Just look at the CCW laws. I disagree with them and comply with the 'training' to play the game, but I think it's wrong. And the Gov't can, tomorrow, revoke it if the wrong political stars align. While unlikely, it's a possibility that I don't care for.

gatopardo
January 13, 2011, 07:57 PM
We the people are not animals! We are certainly endowed with basic rights including the right to pursue happiness, and that one is a bitch because that means a lot of things for a lot of people.

Along our history we the people had to be taught on how to respect others rights and liberties, we've had to learn why equality is so important at a base level, and why and how to respect life, ours and everyone else's life.

Why do we have to be taught often about it? because sometimes we forget the everyone has the same rights or think our rights to be more important than theirs, that is why.

The right to own and carry arms is no different, you and me and everyone has the right to know that the guy next door is a responsible gun owner and a basic 5 hour training as it is required in some states like Oklahoma is the bare minimum.

Legal implications explained by a lawyer expert in the matter are essential.
Things one should never attempt to do with a weapon unto other people are included here along with the fact that taking upon us to impart justice will land us in the slammer or get us killed.

An arms instructor then goes to explain gun safety as in what one should never attempt, like shooting one's foot and such along with basic safety practices.

The cost is about $60.00, well nothing is free, neither is our guns or the ammo we are going to purchase by the boatloads, after all like someone said in a movie we are not communists, so we have to pay or way.

That is what it is, is not meant to make anyone happy but safe, and if anyone has anything against it, honestly should move to Mexico where one ca shoot people just because is the popular to do.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that there is a lot of us guys which would have liked to be in the scene of the Arizona shooting or see a legit gun owner put one in the head of that idiot before he got away with hurting so many people.

If we want to defend our right to carry arms, that has to be our starting point, if there had been a responsible, well trained gun owner, that tragedy could have been averted. At the same time we should demand from state authorities, not the federal government, to carry the necessary checks to make it difficult for some idiot to do this again.

I'm ready to do what is necessary to protect the second amendment, and provide enough proof to whomever challenges it that I am a responsible citizen, as everyone should, because if there is something to prove that would be the thing IMO.

A clean record is a good start, to keep felons from purchasing guns is another, including Martha Stewart and Tom Delay:D

Shadow 7D
January 13, 2011, 08:07 PM
Interesting, I have a great way to solve this,

A uniform service requirement, every 18yo would go to basic, and receive 007b (soldier, Not otherwise specialized) training

we could do it like the Swiss do, now if I could only get a FA Sig for my closet and subsidized range time....

esquare
January 13, 2011, 08:08 PM
That is what it is, is not meant to make anyone happy but safe, and if anyone has anything against it, honestly should move to Mexico where one ca shoot people just because is the popular to do.


That pretty much says all we need to know about your post.

sniper5
January 14, 2011, 03:28 AM
No problem with requiring training AS LONG AS the NRA is put in charge of it. Otherwise, NO!!!

I doubt that is ever likely to happen.

Davek1977
January 14, 2011, 05:50 AM
I don't agree with the mandatory training requirement, and would hope that, like many college courses, you could "test out" of the training by demonstrating that you are familiar with your firearm and how it works. A class on how to carry a gun seems rather redundant for those of us who grew up doing so.

Double Naught Spy
January 14, 2011, 10:06 AM
There is no way that knowledge is bad for us. None. There is no such as "ignorance is bliss". That's only a saying!

Look at the educational work done by the Brady and other anti-gun people. Depending on the spin you put on information, it can be bad or good.

I could go on as well...give me an example of just one professional who's job affects your everyday life that you DO NOT think needs mandatory training; your doctor? your attorney? your dentist? how about your CPA?

The guy who built all the cabinets in my home has no mandatory or formal training. Beautiful work, BTW.

I know musicians who have never had a music class.

My father grew up hunting for the family. He never had a day of training with firearms until he became a cop.

Like the OP, I have been dismayed by the folks who show up to renew their CHLs and unload the ammo from their guns that they loaded into their guns after qualifying 5 years before that, not having shot their guns, cleaning, lubed, or anything else in 5 years. They shoot, pass the quals, and load up the same defense ammo they unloaded and I am confident it will remain in their guns until they renew in the future.

So the folks are fairly ignorant about their guns. Their guns do not affect their everyday life. In fact, it seems the only things their guns really affect is one day every 5 years.

Yeah, a lot of professional who do things that affect our lives have had formal training. In no case is that training constitutionally required.

Oh and speaking of cops, they have had formal gun training, would you say they are all highly skilled shooters?

Education may give people some knowledge, but it doesn't necessarily make them smarter.

Kenneth
February 23, 2011, 12:40 PM
2A makes no mention of mandatory training...or wait a minute...does it?

NO!!!

To say that the right to keep and bear arms exists in the context of a "well regulated militia" is just flat out wrong. The first clause can in no way be construed as a limit to, or a qualification of the second clause. The two clauses are separate, and not dependent on one another.
In US v Cruikshank (1876) the court found: "The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Since the use of the term “shall not be infringed” in the second clause presumes that our right to keep and bear arms pre exists the constitution, our right to keep and bear arms must also pre exist a "well regulated militia".
The second clause contains the explicit prohibition against infringement. Setting some arbitrary standard of competence not only infringes the rights of those who are able to meet some onerous requirements, it absolutely denies rights to those who fail to meet the requirements. Even the most incompetent boob in the world was born with the unalienable human right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state, and to assemble together with other incompetent boobs for their common defense.



"Our wrongs we must right if we can through the Ballot Box, and if this fails us, through the Cartridge Box."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote;

Linda
February 27, 2011, 05:53 PM
Do I "believe" someone should get voluntary training.., absolutely!
Do I believe it should be mandatory to own a firearm..., ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!
Mandatory training is a win for the Brady bunch. They would be dancing in the streets over that one.
"Shall not be infringed..." is pretty clear and that is clearly an infringement upon our god given right to self defense.

What if we were required to get permission to exercise our First Amendment? Wouldn't go over so well, would it?

leadcounsel
February 27, 2011, 06:16 PM
The 2A is about rights, NOT obligations. Nowhere else is a right defined by an obligation.
Why would the 2A be different?

VERY VERY dark and dangerous to go down the path requiring permission and such to exercise the 2A. In fact, we have danced with the devil on that song and seen the consequences... background checks, which create "loopholes" that must be closed in the eyes of the anti-gunners... States like Illinois which subscribes to "shall not be infringed" ignore it and trample on gun rights wholesale. FOID cards are requred for guns and ammo, mandatory gun locks, blah blah blah... the list is never long enough nor good enough for the anti-gunners...

Magazine of 9mm are too large. Ban hi-cap mags. Now killers are using 10 round mags of larger .45 cop killer bullets. Ban .45 calibers. Now they are using hunting rifles from afar... ban hunting rifles. Now they use shotguns with buckshot that are hard to track ballistics. Ban shotguns. And on and on and on...

NEVER give an INCH to the antis because they will take a mile and another mile until we are disarmed.

NO - the 2A does not require training. Our week governments have succumb to the antis and required checks and training and such for guns and concealed permits. But the tide is turning in many states... :) Keep up the fight!

If you enjoyed reading about "training as a constitutional requirement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!