Should Mandatory Skills Training Be Part of the Curriculum of Receiving a CWP?

I tend to come down on the not so popular side of these types of questions....

I voted yes, with the caveat that its a simple minimum skills test, I guess I am of the opinion that someone who hasn't a clue how their guns works probably shouldn't be carrying one...

Well I haven't seen this poll question for a couple years. I guess it's that time again.

There should've been a fourth option: "NONBHN!"

I voted no.

Its your responsibility as a citizen, to obtain the necessary skills to be reasonably proficient with your weapons. If you screw up, especially if you didnt bother, its all on you.

The second you involve a "test" of any sort, the state now turns your right, into a privilege, and can revoke that at any time. Once you agree to that, youre accepting their rules. Whos to say at some point, the test doesnt become impossible to pass?

You have a right to carry your gun (the permit privilege aside), its your responsibility, and you accept the liability if you arent safe and proficient with it, not the states.

No. I believe the person carrying a gun show know how to use it but draw the line at Mandatory training.

CCW training should be focused on the laws regarding use of force and carrying a weapon in your state. Self defense and weapons proficiency are a separate item.

Of course not.

When the Gov decides the "required" amount of skills eventually only Tom Knapp and Annie Oakley will met the skill requirements. And that's only after a 3 week class that costs 3k and still loses money.


Then there's the whole "shal not be infringed" thing, which apparently means nothing now days.

Terrible idea.

Yes, just like it states in the constitution.

Errr......


Larry

My state requires a live-fire test. As with most if not all of them, it's so rudimentary as to be essentially worthless, but I guess it makes some people feel good. I'd rather do away with the permit system entirely and go to Constitutional carry, myself.

No. On the surface I think yes. The problem is who decides what is required?

Laws seem more and more, made by people who either don't follow them or don't enforce them equally across the board.

Mandatory= NO

I do however suggest voluntary brochure (produced by one of the pro gun organizations) given out to all those who open and conceal carry that lists the latest rules on carrying in their state, reciprocity with the states they might visit, and what states to avoid. Make this available for at LGS and Pawn Stores. One of those things that you throw in your glove compartment and read from time to time.

We heard quite a bit of gun owners going into the wrong state and getting jammed up. Even people who didn't have a gun on themselves got harassed, like that person from Florida going through Maryland. Maybe a brochure might prevent that, maybe not.

Another thing I would want to see is the cost of conceal carry permit equal that of a drivers license. I just read something about it costs $300 in Kansas for a conceal carry permit, that is obscene. Naturally I would prefer Constitutional Carry, but that is not going to happen in all the states no matter what I hope for. But at least make it affordable.
.

I shouldn't need a "permit" to exercise a right.

I like the idea of an informational brochure on carry laws. Make it something that has to be provided with each gun sold, like the child safety brochures.

I voted no. Mandatory skills training can open up way too much ambiguity, interpretation, and most likely government interference as to what constitutes adequate performance.

Firearms training about the time candidates for public office have to take a good Civics class.

There should be an option for Constitutional Carry.

The government , local, state, of federal, should not be able to determine who is skilled enough to posess a firearm.
We are talking about a right, not a privilege.

No. A person who needs basic skills can get them without the government.

No. I believe that the majority of folks who wish to take on the responsibility of owning a gun will train on their own....for the rest,well, you can't fix stupid.

mandatory drivers training doesn't make better drivers

If you do not have to be a citizen to become POTUS, be a citizen or read/speak English to vote, and can be a felon to own a gun, vote and run for office, why should there be requirements to exercise your right?

I'd be OK with mandatory minimal training if:

1. Free
2. Universally accepted (all states)
3. Not revocable, short of a felony
4. Good for life
5. Allowed NFA purchases w/out stamp/trust

I could go for that. But seriously, we shouldn't give *anything* for *nothing*

I struggle with the Constitutional aspects of this one but I also regularly stand behind students during the qualifying portion of our State's mandatory CWP class. I voted yes.

I would like to see our State reduce the distance to the target and simultaneously increase the accuracy requirement.

There isn't a curriculum in my neck of the woods for CCW. There is a 4 hour gun class which covers some aspects of general handgun features and operation, safety rules for gun handling, off-color cracks about the administration, and issues of liability if you are ever involved in a defensive use (or ND) of your firearm. I think a little bit on holsters. And safe storage was thrown in there too, to get us to realize what could happen if your unsecured firearm is found by a child or a thief.

I vote no, because all preliminary instruction just scratches the surface anyway.

I've been lucky, because I immersed myself in friendships and talking and reading and training about firearms over the last 8 years. I made it a hobby. A serious, mid-life hobby.

Firearm ownership is a right and a responsibility. There are already incentives to becoming a knowledgeable and responsible gun owner. People who are adults, property owners, with family and/or career, social, religious, and business ties to the community are stake holders and have a lot to lose if they use their firearm in a negligent way. There are huge legal liabilities (disincentives) for not taking gun ownership seriously or doing it wrong.

The Bill of Rights was written to make, enshrine and guarantee that citizenship be an active, stakeholder responsibility of free men engaged in, and retaining the power to, govern themselves in a democracy. Rights and responsibilities. Two sides of the same coin.

Plan2Live said:

I struggle with the Constitutional aspects of this one but I also regularly stand behind students during the qualifying portion of our State's mandatory CWP class. I voted yes.

I would like to see our State reduce the distance to the target and simultaneously increase the accuracy requirement.

Click to expand...

skills training, if done right, has no constitutional problem.

As I understand it, the "well regulated" part of the 2A, in modern vernacular, means well trained, or in regular order. Training is mandated in the 2A, but as it pertains to the militia (the whole of the people), the onus is on the militia and the people themselves to be well regulated, not the fed.gov, or state.gov.

I voted No.