training as a constitutional requirement

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 !

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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

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 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.

Not so rabid a 2A guy anymore.
The 2A doesn't say a thing about training.

AFS

The Lone Haranguer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen brother!

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.

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.

We the people

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