Training requirements for gun ownership.


PDA






BallistiCal
April 7, 2012, 09:45 PM
I have watched anti-gunners claim many times that things like standard capacity magazines, short barreled rifles and shotguns, full auto firearms, and the like can't be entrusted to "mere civilians". Whenever somebody points out that police are allowed all these things and more, the rationale becomes that it's okay for police to have them because they have a genuine occupational need for them and have been trained to use them.

This, to me, is tacit admission that the guns, magazines, bullets, whatever aren't inherently any more dangerous than any other inanimate object. What makes the difference is the training and the need. While I strongly believe that nobody should have to justify "needing" a gun to some bureaucrat, I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun. Many might be against it, but the way I see it, if you wouldn't let someone drive a car without a license, why give them a gun without one?

The only philosophical argument against it that I've ever heard is that you shouldn't need a license to exercise a constitutional right. While I agree with that in principle, I don't think requiring a license violates the 2A. "A well regulated militia" in the parlance of the 18th century meant "a well trained and equipped militia". That's why members of standing armies at the time were known as regulars. If a well trained and equipped militia is necessary, then is it so much to ask that a person be required to get BOTH?

I'm not so naive as to think that a law requiring training for prospective gun buyers can't be easily abused by anti-gun politicians. It would be crucially important to legally mandate that a gun license be made no harder to get than a driver's license. But I for one am sick of anti-gunners dusting off the "Cops have training, you don't." routine to justify their bans. Maybe something like this is worth doing if only to give them one less excuse to turn to.

And just thinking WAY outside the box here, what if the license was good in all 50 states? A cardholder could walk into any gun store in the country, regardless of their state of residence, and walk out 10 minutes later with whatever they wanted, and carry it anywhere. I don't ever see that happening, but I can dream can't I? :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Training requirements for gun ownership." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tipro
April 7, 2012, 09:54 PM
Don't know how I feel about licensing, but mandatory training is okay with me.

North Carolina General STatute 127A-91 gives the Adjutant General of the State the authority to "promote rifle marksmanship among the unorganized militia." According to NCGS 127A-7, the unorganized militia is "all other able bodied citizens [i.e., those not in the "organized" militia] who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony" or dishonorably discharged from military service.

I have no problems whatsoever with these provisions actually being utilized.

BallistiCal
April 7, 2012, 09:58 PM
All the license would mean is that you completed the training, and have been instructed on all the important things that every gun owner should know anyway.

jeffmack
April 7, 2012, 10:03 PM
It's a great idea until somebody who hates guns gets to decide what "trained" is.

"If you can't hit this nickel at 1000 yards with open sights, you aren't safe!"

BallistiCal
April 7, 2012, 10:08 PM
"If you can't hit this nickel at 1000 yards with open sights, you aren't safe!"

I we can license people to drive a car without requiring they win the Indy 500, then I think there's a way around this.

22-rimfire
April 7, 2012, 10:08 PM
I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun.

So, why don't you get some training if it makes you feel better. I support no requirement for training of any kind to qualify you to own a firearm. The Constitution says nothing about training in order to own a firearm.

As far as licensing someone to qualify them to own a firearm, I am TOTALLY against that line of thinking. If a license were required and was issued say last year, why couldn't that person trying to purchase a firearm from a FFL dealer have committed a felony since then?

Tipro
April 7, 2012, 10:13 PM
So, why don't you get some training if it makes you feel better. I support no requirement for training of any kind to qualify you to own a firearm. The Constitution says nothing about training in order to own a firearm.

As far as licensing someone to qualify them to own a firearm, I am TOTALLY against that line of thinking. If a license were required and was issued say last year, why couldn't that person trying to purchase a firearm from a FFL dealer have committed a felony since then?
Don't know who you were responding too, but in my post (#2) the mandatory training has nothing to do with being allowed to buy a firearm; it would just be fortuitous coincidence that anyone legally buying a firearm would have undergone the mandatory State training :) But when buying a firearm, one would not need to present evidence of their having been trained.

BallistiCal
April 7, 2012, 10:13 PM
They might have committed a felony since then, but a background check, (which I'm also not against) should catch it.

The Constitution may not say anything about training, but I don't think it's against the spirit of the 2A. Just having a gun doesn't make you a threat to state tyranny. If you can't hit anything with it, clear it, maintain it, fix a malfunction, etc, then you're just a target for those who do know what they're doing.

And on a practical note, we haven't had a truly unfettered RKBA for a long time. We have decided as a society that you can't have a gun if you've committed a felony, or are mentally ill, etc. So denying someone the the protections of the 2A is acceptable under certain circumstances. Why can't one of those circumstances be having no idea what they hell you're doing when it comes to firearms?

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 10:14 PM
"If you can't hit this nickel at 1000 yards with open sights, you aren't safe!"

I we can license people to drive a car without requiring they win the Indy 500, then I think there's a way around this.

I doubt there are too many people who think you're a murderer simply because you own a car.

davewil37
April 7, 2012, 10:15 PM
On the other hand. You do not need a license to drive a vehicle on private property. You do not have to have a license on the vehicle as well on private property. Why would a license be needed for a gun?

DaveUSAF

jeffmack
April 7, 2012, 10:16 PM
It's like voting. [Nearly] Any idiot can vote. It's our duty as citizens to be as informed as possible so we can make the best decision possible. Currently we don't usually have required training for firearms, but if you own a firearm and you are smart you will try to learn to use it safely.

The same abuses that occurred with Jim Crow laws and voting could also happen with required training and firearms.

RM
April 7, 2012, 10:17 PM
We are dealing with this basic problem in Maryland at this time. Judge Legg has ruled Maryland's unreasonable "good and substantial" reasons required for a handgun permit null and void. I don't think gun owners are opposed to training requirement similar to what is required for a Florida permit: show you have firearms experience or training. But anti-gun legislators are trying to pass unspecified requirements that will likely be similar to hurdles faced by Washington, D. C. residents. Training courses become an expensive and arduous barrier to obtaining a handgun permit, completely undermining citizen's rights and the law.

hogshead
April 7, 2012, 10:18 PM
Then when the anti's get the majority again they will only have to raise the fee on your license till the average man cant aford to own a gun. Give them an inch and they will take 10 miles.

22-rimfire
April 7, 2012, 10:22 PM
If you are still going to run a NICs check, why on earth do you think a LICENSE is necessary?

Our President would love you. You talk the same language. Training would cost money.... not everyone can afford to pay a fee to get trained. It is a form of GUN CONTROL.

A license is a form of GUN CONTROL. Same as buying a fishing or hunting license, the state or government is controlling your behavior by requiring you to purchase a license for the privelege of hunting or fishing. But unfortunately.... hunting or fishing are not rights as is the right to keep and bear arms.

12gaugeTim
April 7, 2012, 10:22 PM
So, why don't you get some training if it makes you feel better. I support no requirement for training of any kind to qualify you to own a firearm. The Constitution says nothing about training in order to own a firearm.

As far as licensing someone to qualify them to own a firearm, I am TOTALLY against that line of thinking. If a license were required and was issued say last year, why couldn't that person trying to purchase a firearm from a FFL dealer have committed a felony since then?
He's not worried about himself. He wants to discard the arguments of anti gunners who say that only military/LEO should own firearms because they are trained.
One would not be able to do that because his license would be revoked, obviously. If this system was put into effect the FFL would probably have to verify your license number via online database.

BallistiCal
April 7, 2012, 10:23 PM
He's not worried about himself. He wants to discard the arguments of anti gunners who say that only military/LEO should own firearms because they are trained.
One would not be able to do that because his license would be revoked, obviously. If this system was put into effect the FFL would probably have to verify your license number via online database.
Thank you!

22-rimfire
April 7, 2012, 10:39 PM
You are seldom going to be able to argue with a confirmed anti-gun person and change their attitudues. They believe that the police can protect them.

I don't even try anymore. If I like them, I'll invite them to go shooting with me.

aeriedad
April 7, 2012, 10:39 PM
Does the government license or train individual citizens to read their Bibles or share their opinions on Internet forums? Why should I need government permission to keep and bear arms?

csa77
April 7, 2012, 10:41 PM
this is gun control through and through, I dont like it one bit.

the government says driving a car is not a right but a privillage to explain the license . if we are required to be licensed to own a gun then we relegate our right to own a gun to a privilage as well. IMO this would be the biggest anti gun move our country has ever made. it flies in the face of everything the 2nd amendment stands for.


you can never make the antis happy, they will always hate private gun ownership. its better to fight them then to appease them.

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 10:49 PM
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. ;)

Gimmered
April 7, 2012, 10:53 PM
What does "Shall not be infringed" mean in your world?

I'm all for training and promoting gun safety but wouldn't want any part of the State telling me I had to complete it before buying a gun.

tyeo098
April 7, 2012, 10:54 PM
Training to own a handgun/rifle/shotgun? No thanks.
(Inexpensive) Training to own a Post-86 Non-sample MG (or any other police-only fun toy)? Sign me up!

Training to own a standard cap mag (and thank you for using that term)? NO WAY.

We should work to unlimit ourselves, not limit ourselves. This could be used to inch our way back.

BallistiCal
April 7, 2012, 11:45 PM
Perhaps I didn't make my motives clear.

I'm not proposing this as a way to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary civilians. Quite the opposite. I want civilians to be able to own any type of gun they want. I want people to be allowed to carry in all 50 states. I'm not in favor of restrictions on magazine capacity, suppressors, shoulder things that go up, or any other firearms feature. But lets be honest here. In today's world, you don't get something for nothing. You can make the case that licensing would be a big victory for the anti-gun crowd, and you'd be right. But such a victory pales in comparison to what we would gain. I picture a gun license as a nationwide license to go nuts. Think about it. The ability to walk into any gun store, anywhere, and buy whatever you want regardless of where you live. The ability to carry a handgun in any city in any state without having to worry about local restrictions or reciprocity. There are a lot of places in this country where you can't do that now, under any circumstances. I can see I'm on the alone side here, but if spending one weekend of my life proving that I know how to clear a gun, use it legally, hit what I'm aiming at, and getting a piece of laminated paper that says as much means I can do all that, then I wouldn't complain.

N003k
April 8, 2012, 12:39 AM
The problem is that it becomes easy to change the requirements to GET the license. You say that it hasn't made things difficult when it comes to car, but there'd be a lot more hardship and outrage if drivers licenses became significantly harder to impossible to obtain, once we allow firearms ownership to require licensing, we're already a setting ourselves up for more difficulties, not less.

Even using the car licensing concept, in at least CT it's become harder for new drivers to get their license. I had to pay $120 to a private company to take an 8 hour course to watch videos on why I shouldn't drink and drive, or get stoned and drive, and then pay $40 to do the testing, and then $77 for my license. I got mine after I turned 18, for those under 18, there's additional classes (and additional cost) required.

On top of that, licensing requires licensing offices and bureaucrats to manage it. That means additional costs, either imposed through licensing fees, or some type of new tax, most likely additional taxes on firearms or ammos, or a combination of both.

Basically, all it would do is either A. increase costs of owning guns, or B. used as a tool to reduce gun ownership.

A final thing to consider, what if the license costs $1000 to get initially but lasts a lifetime? What if they change that a few years later to $500? A few years later they change it to only lasting 5 years...and adjust the cost for inflation. Now increase the cost and reduce the time it lasts?

Not every restriction has to be via difficulty in the requirements to GET the license, it could just be pricing it out of the common persons reach.


I'm not sure if your motives are pure, but you haven't thought it through far enough, or if you've thought it through and are a troll, but, either way, the idea is NOT good for gun owners in the long run.

General Geoff
April 8, 2012, 12:47 AM
While I strongly believe that nobody should have to justify "needing" a gun to some bureaucrat, I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun. Many might be against it, but the way I see it, if you wouldn't let someone drive a car without a license, why give them a gun without one?

I would let someone drive a car without a license (if it was legal). Getting a driver's license in most states is a joke anyway.

armoredman
April 8, 2012, 01:01 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 01:34 AM
Long story short: don't infringe on the rights of other because you think you know whats better for them.

azyogi
April 8, 2012, 01:50 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 01:56 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 03:14 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 03:57 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 04:09 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 04:11 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 04:14 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 04:27 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 04:52 AM
Gun ownership licensing would be a slippery slope that would not be good for the cohesiveness of the USA.... Eventually people would rebel.

beatledog7
April 8, 2012, 06:53 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 08:12 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 08:19 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:12 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:15 AM
NO. Any questions?

Apple a Day
April 8, 2012, 09:26 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:38 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:38 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:46 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:49 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 09:53 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 10:03 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 10:10 AM
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
April 8, 2012, 10:13 AM
A simple "No" says it all.

marksman13
April 8, 2012, 10:57 AM
Interjecting the government into anything involving our RIGHTS is a bad idea, period! I don't care how you spin it.

Mike J
April 8, 2012, 11:05 AM
I am with the majority on this one. This is a really bad idea.

Nushif
April 8, 2012, 11:07 AM
The crux of the problem her doesn't lie in the word training.

It lies in the word requirement. And I don't like having requirements for enumerated rights.

MrDig
April 8, 2012, 11:42 AM
In Minnesota all persons who wish to hunt, and are born after December 31st 1979 must take a firearms safety course to purchase a hunting license. Exceptions are persons who have served and or are serving in the United States Military. Minimum age requirement is 11 years of age.
Why should purchasing a firearm be any different? How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights? This to me is the "well regulated" part of the amendment. While I will agree the "well regulated" clause is where we have our rights diminished the amendment none the less allows for some government oversite. I am not a constitutional lawyer but this seems like the type of legislation we as gun owners should in fact support.

happygeek
April 8, 2012, 11:53 AM
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).


Glad someone pointed that out.

Not only do you not need a license to own a car, you don't need a license to transport a car on a trailer on public roads [even while it's "loaded" with gas in the tank].

The license to operate a car on public roads is "shall issue", in most states it's under $100, and it's good in all 50 states.

A hunting license is actually a better comparison to a driving license. Since it's assumed that a hunter will at some point shoot at an animal and they're hunting on state land, it's essentially a license to operate a gun on public land.

Ironically average joes like myself who aren't in a gang or involved in The War on Drugs are far, far more likely to be killed by a reckless and/or drunk driver than to be murdered with a gun. Yet there's virtually no restrictions on the mere possession of a motor vehicle and really just an age requirement on the purchase of alcohol. They don't even do background checks on would be alcohol buyers to insure they don't have a history of DUIs! :what:

Old krow
April 8, 2012, 11:56 AM
I think that Apple a Day's response says it fairly well, but I will add a little bit to it.

And just thinking WAY outside the box here, what if the license was good in all 50 states?

I don't mean any offense, so I hope that you do not take any, but, that is not out of the box. That line of thinking is well within the box. Freedom is a messy business and there are few easy answers out there.

It is a Right an not a privilege. Being that, it means that the Gov should not be able to "infringe" upon it as they see fit, however, it also means that there should be a level personal responsibility. With Rights also come responsibilities. If the Gov isn't/shouldn't be the ones to go around meddling with individual liberties, then those that exercise those liberties should be responsible for them.

As an alternative to initiating a Gov program that is certain to drive up taxes and make it harder to get training, why not take a different route?

Get yourself in a position to train people and then start doing so. If you really want to be a philanthropist, do it for little to no cost. If you want the Feds to do it, it's going to cost money anyway.

Become an activists and encourage others to do the same thing. Perhaps training isn't your thing, there are still plenty of ways to contribute. Host a web site for other to offer training services on. Bring people that need training together with people that are willing to do it for a minimal charge. In some cases it isn't even a money issue, it might be a time issue or a matter of finding a training class that they are comfortable with. Start an "Angie's list" for firearms training.

Get involved with Appleseed. I've never been able to attend one, but I've always heard good things about them.

If those don't tickle your fancy, start your own Not-for-profit organization that is specifically designed to subsidize training for those that want it.

How many gun owners have NOT been trained and how many have been? There's little merit in that argument at all because an "anti" isn't likely to know one way or the other, they're speculating. I'm sure if you take a poll here you will find it slightly skewed, but, you might be surprised just how many folks have had training.

The Government hasn't touched very many programs that they haven't killed. Even if we did follow this rabbit down the hole, how long before it turned out like Social Security, Medicare, or.... No Child Left Behind?

Why should purchasing a firearm be any different? How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights?

How does hunting fit into "keep and bear arms?" The "negative affects" are littered throughout this thread and they are numerous. Far too many to re-post, but posts #24, #37, #40 and #46 should sum it up pretty well.

mnrivrat
April 8, 2012, 06:44 PM
the man is entitled to his opinion, whether you agree with it or not...

No argument there . As long as his opinion doesn't act against my rights, we got no problem.

chucknbach
April 8, 2012, 07:34 PM
Really? I hear of alot of trying to appease anti's. I'm hear to tell you there is no appeasing or trying to look the good guy.

Anything other than saying every man woman or child has the right to have fully silenced automatic flame throwing Howitzer with a 1000 round magazine in their front yard is giving away yours and my freedom.

Someone else already said it but. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to everyone? Nobody but nobody is going to judge if I am capable or experienced enough or what ever and I don't consider my self a civilian but a citizen. I'll take responsibility for myself and my household, thank you very much!

OP thinks he knows what's best for his fellow country man. Might make us all safer Maybe just a little more secure? hmmm?

Left or right doesn't concern me as much as authoritarian vs libertarian. Support any kind of licensing and you fall into the authoritarian side of thing.

Liberty may not be the safest or securest road but it's the way I want to live.

txgunsuscg
April 8, 2012, 08:36 PM
I like the idea of mandatory training, but not the idea of it being a requirement for owning a gun. I know in some states, gun/hunter safety is a phys-ed type requirement in high school. This seems to be a simple requirement that does not inhibit gun ownership in any way, as it is not a requirement to own a gun, just to make it out of high school....

marksman13
April 8, 2012, 09:36 PM
This argument should be met with the same response as terrorism. The gun control crowd wants fun ownership abolished, much the way that terrorists want the American way of life destroyed. There can be no compromise with an enemy which wants nothing but your complete annihilation. There can only be defeat.

Is there some part of this that you are not understanding? The politicians in this country have proven that they can not be trusted to protect our rights. They do not care about the safety of your family. Their votes change according to whichever direction the political winds are blowing. People like that can not be trusted to protect your rights. The less say they have in the matter the better.

Leanwolf
April 8, 2012, 11:19 PM
Suppose, just suppose that Ballistical got his desire, Mandatory Firearms Training, by a gigantic Federal govt bureaucracy run by by thousands and thousands of unelected, faceless, nameless Federal Govt. bureaucrats.

Would the law be retroactive, meaning the present 81,000,000 gunowners of America, were required by Federal law to go trooping down to their local Federal bureaucratic gun licensing office and take and pass the govt mandated tests?? Or turn in their firearms?

If they did not do so, would they then be adjudged as criminals and subject to be arrested by Federal Gun Confiscation Police, all bearing guns?

Or, would the new Federal law merely apply to anyone buying a gun after the law went into effect?

How would private, face-to-face sales of private property (firearms) be handled by the Federal Government?

What about gifts and bequeaths??

As usual, those do-right-daddies and do-right-mommas who always have the "best intentions," have not the faintest clue about "beginning, middle, and end," and "unintended consequences."

L.W.

hey.moe
April 9, 2012, 10:19 PM
By 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.

Hear, hear. Historically, the damage done by irresponsible voters has far outweighed the damage done by irresponsible gun owners. Let's fix the real problem first.

-Stan-

splattergun
April 9, 2012, 10:41 PM
A license is the grant by government of a privelege, which is just as easily ungranted.
We are born with the right to protect ourselves. Our government's duty is to protect that right.
Rights are inalienable. They can not be removed. Even when unjust laws infringe upon the right, the right still exists.

medalguy
April 10, 2012, 12:44 AM
In the first post, the OP mentioned the old claim that only the police are properly trained to handle firearms.

How many have seen the video of the DHS guy teaching a class where he shoots himself in the foot?

And how many times have we heard of shootouts with police where the report goers something like "187 shots were fired at the criminal but no one was injured."

What's that again about training???

Shoobee
April 10, 2012, 01:47 AM
As the Bill Of Rights was originally written, everyone had the right to wear openly or concealed any firearm of their choice, anywhere.

Now however we have states (knows as "may issue") which violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. This is a problem that the US Supreme Court should solve, and I always wonder why the NRA is just sitting on their butz and not fixing it?

As the 2nd Amendment is currently drafted, no training requirement, criminal record, sanity issue, is appropriate, however the States continue to infringe while ignoring the plain language of the amendment.

I think you would need to further amend the Constitution if you wanted it to read any other way. Right now however it is being violated by most of not all of the States, as written.

jbrown50
April 10, 2012, 09:24 AM
BallistiCal,

The anti's believe that private citizens should not be able to own or possess firearms, period. They also believe the police should be unarmed as well except in special circumstances, much like how it's done it Great Britain.

The mandatory training and licensing aspect is just a temporary step towards a more permanent goal for them. They're wiling to allow the police to regularly carry firearms for now, not because of any special training that they get, but because the police are a government entity and therefore are under government control.

Firearms training is always a good thing to have. Making it mandatory though allows the antis a tool to regulate firearms possession out of existance. They've already used that tool as defacto gun prohibition in many places including Washington DC, Chicago and New York City. They'll continue to take advantage of it because they don't care about crime or your safety or your good intent to appease them. To them, guns are evil and the ends justify the means.

BSA1
April 10, 2012, 09:46 AM
MrDig,



Why should purchasing a firearm be any different?

You need to reread the O.P.s original post in which he is adovacating turning control over to owns a gun to himself and his buddies in Big Sis. he sates;

While I strongly believe that nobody should have to justify "needing" a gun to some bureaucrat, I must confess that I wouldn't mind TRAINING for civilians be a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO OWNING A GUN

The O.P. is lying about nobody having to justify "needing" a gun. He states in the very same sentence his belief that citizens should NOT OWN A GUN WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT. The O.P. is setting himself to be the judge on whether you should be allowed to own a gun and by extension what type of gun. Notice I said gun not guns as the O.P. and his buddies will decide what type and how many.

How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights?

Why does the idea of me owning firearms without your permission and the permission of Big Sis causing you so much discomfort?

Hunting licenses do not restrict firearm ownership in any fashion. A citizen can own all the shotguns, rifles and handguns for hunting they want. Hunting license are revenue driven. The money from licenses are used for wildlife and habitat conversation which are directly used by hunters. Notice I said wildlife and habitat conservation not for gun control. In fact the renevue is use to create MORE not less wildlife areas for hunters thus encouraging firearm ownership. Hunting licenses may not be required for hunting on your own land.

Odd Job
April 10, 2012, 10:08 AM
This topic has come up before here on THR. It seems to me that the main objection to mandatory training is that if the government holds the keys to that, then it is a potential gun control tool. I can follow the reasoning behind that.

Would people still have an objection if the training was mandated by law, but the trainer could be any person accredited by an independent body and there was no fixed fee like the $200 tax stamp?
In other words it would be similar to the mandatory training I have to go through before I can use certain X-ray equipment. The law says I have to do it, but the government isn't the one doing the courses, collecting fees for that and deciding whether I meet those mandatory requirements or not. It is either the employer or an agency or a private company that provides this training either to an individual directly or on behalf of an employer. The trainer or company has to meet certain basic standards, but we have examples of that already in other fields such as first aid training.

The issue then becomes obvious: the training has to be relevant and provide value but needs to be generic enough so that it applies to any kind of firearm. To me that means the four rules, a basic summary of where you can shoot and where you can't and maybe some other generic stuff can be thrown in, even if it is a small slide show of common accidents that have happened with firearms being incorrectly carried, for example. Or an array of negligent discharges and a brief summary of how they happened. Just things to get the new gun owner to think about.

I think there is merit in having mandatory training, but agree that you don't want a situation where the only vessel from which said training is dispensed is in the clutches of the government.
There are other arguments, of course....such as how many times do you have to do this and whether you have to do it when you move from one State to another. I guess that depends on how much legal matter there is in the course, because a guy in Arizona might need to know a little less about legal matters than a guy in California, for example.

ForumSurfer
April 10, 2012, 10:09 AM
I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun.

Considering I've helped more than one friend with their pistol shooting so they could qualify, as a civilian feel that your statement is unfair and should apply to every gun owner...civilian or not. I'm thankful to those that serve, but many serve in a role where firearms aren't an important part of their job so they need training just like the rest of us.

I'd have to respectfully disagree about mandatory training. The right to bear arms is a right. If we're going to require training, we also need to limit free speech to those who are properly trained. After all, free speech is far more dangerous. :)

Shoobee
April 10, 2012, 11:36 AM
I would even take it one step further, and draft all young men after high school for 2 years of military, like the Israelis and South Koreans do.

In boot camp they should learn to shoot a rifle and a semi-auto pistol.

Plus how to take orders.

youngda9
April 10, 2012, 11:47 AM
Still want to know what "shall not be infringed" means on his planet.

BobTheTomato
April 10, 2012, 04:41 PM
I just love how people think that when someone gets "training" they will be safe. I see people do all kinds of stupid things on the highway eventhough they have had drivers ed. I know lets text and drive while shaving. I have seen people who have taken the hunters education class in PA do dumb things with high powered rifles eventhough they teach safety. Last I checked, most gun accidents could be avoided with simple common sense (see the 4 rules).

In the end all this does is add yet another infringement on peoples rights.

JohnBT
April 10, 2012, 04:53 PM
"This to me is the "well regulated" part of the amendment."

At the time it was written, "well regulated" meant "well equipped, or well armed".

Maybe we need some training requirements for folks wanting to use their 1st Amendment right. ;) You know, like how to do research before you speak. Glad to help you out this time though.

youngda9
April 10, 2012, 05:54 PM
That's correct JohnBT

To the OP: There are GOBS of quotes out there explaining EXACTLY what the founding fathers meant. Do a little research.

MountainBear
April 11, 2012, 12:01 AM
I repeat, it shouldn't be mandatory, but it should be common sense. Too many people decide to carry a firearm for defense with no real knowledge of the skills needed or ramifications of their actions. If you choose to carry and use guns without some sort of training (I'm not specifying minimums or anything like that, just some sort), then frankly your irresponsible.
The government shouldn't be involved in making you train, you should be smart enough to do it yourself.

armoredman
April 11, 2012, 12:57 AM
Only thing I'm wondering is where's the OP now?

Patriotme
April 11, 2012, 09:12 AM
I wish that everyone had mandatory training in firearms or at the very least firearms safety.
There is a problem with mandatory firearms training in order for someone to be able to own a gun. The requirements could be so strict and the standards of proficiency so high that most couldn't pass. Now some are probably saying that could never happen. Ok, how easy is it to own a gun in Washington, DC then? Read Emily Miller's series about getting a handgun and permit in The Washingon Times to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
So let's pretend that your new gov issued firearms training and certification certificate allows you to buy a gun anywhere and carry wherever you want. Ok, that's great.
If however I was an anti gunner an in charge of the program this is what I would do. First I would make the cost high but not so high that people would say I was pricing everyone out of the market. I would make it a few hundred dollars for the class.
Next I would make the paperwork required for the training a huge PITA. You would run around from gov building to gov building.
I would also make the paperwork a huge intrusion into your privacy and perhaps make the info accessable much like CCW information is in many states.
The marksmanship standards would be tough. Good luck with the 25 yd targets and CCW guns. If you want to carry concealed you must qualify with that gun and the standards would be the same for Ruger Blackhawks and Ruger LCR's.
There's a lot that an anti gun politician could do to prevent people from taking a training class.
As much as I would love to see a lot of gun owners get training I really worry about making anything else mandatory before being able to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.

armoredman
April 11, 2012, 09:58 AM
Like I said, it's a privilege, not a right, as long as they can say, "You can't, until..."

If you enjoyed reading about "Training requirements for gun ownership." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!