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

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


  • Total voters
    260
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I interpret the phrase to mean well armed. "Regulated" had quite a bit different meaning back in the 1700's. From the dictionaries I've seen from back then, this is how I interpret the phrase.
 
I would like to see our State reduce the distance to the target and simultaneously increase the accuracy requirement.
(emphasis mine)

And therein lies the problem. What if your state increased the accuracy requirement to an unobtainable level? You know the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Let's not be so quick to help build that road.
 
I voted yes because I feel folks should show some proficiency in safe handling of a firearm.

I am concerned that without some check on safe handling will be a recipe for disaster and a sharp rise in accidents and unintentional discharges.

The problem is, I am not sure how to implement it.

Maybe some alternate certificates could qualify besides a "test" at the course.Things like a hunter's safety course, competition ranking, military service, and so forth.
 
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.
I like that idea, especailly since it's partial justification for the fees associated with the permit.
 
I voted yes because I feel folks should show some proficiency in safe handling of a firearm.

I am concerned that without some check on safe handling will be a recipe for disaster and a sharp rise in accidents and unintentional discharges.

The problem is, I am not sure how to implement it.

Maybe some alternate certificates could qualify besides a "test" at the course.Things like a hunter's safety course, competition ranking, military service, and so forth.
And yet there hasn't been in any of the Constitutional Carry states.
 
Should Mandatory Skills Training Be Part of the Cirriculum of Receiving a CWP?

You shouldn't even need a permit

Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas Vermont, Wyoming, (Coming soon) Kansas, South Dakota
 
If you want to mandate training for exercising a civil liberty, I want you to show me that not mandating training, which is the norm, is causing a real problem.

At present 5 states permit "Constitutional Carry" (no permit required to carry a firearm period.) Several states issue permits with no training requirement at all and several others allow permitless open carry (Again no training requirement).

According to the CDC accidental firearms deaths are at an all time low while firearms ownership is at historic highs.

There are already a whole bunch of people out there carrying guns with no mandated training at all where are all the firearms related accidents
 
I guess I am an odd ball but I voted yes. Frankly I think the more training one can have the better. Basic gun handling and safety should absolutely be part of the skill set and also should be able to show minimum proficiency.
 
I've been present in gun shops where ladies were buying a pistol for protection.

They had no idea where the safety was, no idea how to load it, no idea how to aim it.

Did they need some instruction????????????????????????????????????????????????

Maybe?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Did they get a license to carry?????????????????????????????

One I saw once already had one.

Sorry state of affairs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, here in Indiana there is no requirement to carry concealed, we have a license not a permit.
 
No. It's not a right if someone can demand proficiency before exercising it. What's next, naming each state senator and Congressman before voting in a national election?
 
I'm undecided.

On the one hand, I don't like the state mandating stuff.

On the other, I've seen and heard terrifying things at the range coming from people who are practicing to qualify for permits - "So this is where I load the bullets?" and the like. Managing to hit the absolute bare minimum for qualification. And if they do that poorly under perfectly controlled conditions, what are they going to do if they actually have to draw and fire? You can try to talk them into going to the range, getting practice time in, getting better with the gun, but you can't force it.

Mandatory driver's training and examination may not make one a better driver, but it does establish a basic minimum standard of skill.
 
Don't some States require some time of proficiency test?

Here in Florida it'just a bunch of paper work, here are the rules how to fill out the forms and get your prints. You do have to fire one (1) shot which can be a blank to show you do not freak out or something stupid:rolleyes:

I voted yes, I hate more regulation and rules but I have worked in a gun shop and sold handguns to some folks who have no ability to hold the gun correctly, can not pull a slide back, will never practice, probably go into shock hearing the blast if the actually fire the thing. Sad but very true. Those just 21 years old of course know everything and are probably more reckless in some cases.

Off topic but related in a way:

Now how about a mandatory SKILLS training for drivers over a certain age?

A DL is good for what 5 years?, pass the eye test pay your money an your good to plow down the road in a land yacht or mini van!:eek:

Some youngsters should also be tested!

We require Motorcycle endorsements so whats the difference?
 
Last edited:
The LEGALITY of a defensive shooting and it's ramifications should be a mandatory class. Too many have no grasp of shoot/no shoot situations and the legal mess in the courts afterwards.

A basic weapon proficiency test is not a bad idea, but should be a standardized test, best developed by the NRA and it's instructors. Shooting skills should be up to the individual to develop, not a mandatory training class. If I have years and thousands of rounds of pistol shooting, I would not benefit from an afternoon beginners pistol course.
 
You shouldn't even need a permit

Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas Vermont, Wyoming, (Coming soon) Kansas, South Dakota

We've got a decent rate of injurious or lethal NDs up here in AK, though all the ones I can think of occur in the privacy of people's homes and not while carrying concealed outside the home. Most of those are either cleaning accidents or "think a little, drink a little, play with guns" type incidents, and I'm not sure how much correlation there is between firearms training and their occurrence (though drunk GIs skew the stats locally).

I voted no. I can see a very logical argument that CCW in public could be regulated like a drivers license regulates operation of motor vehicles. However, without requirement for permits up here it doesn't seem to produce any actual problems.

In places that do still require permits, I think I'd vote for some deal where, say, proof of attendance for an approved firearms training course covers the cost of your permit or at least reduces it or something, to encourage people to take training.
 
You mean like:

- Manditory reading/writing skills training should be required to exercise one's freedom of press right?

- Manditory religious skills training should be required to exercise one's freedom of religion right?

- Manditory demonstration skills should be required to exercise one's right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances?

- Manditory testing requirements should be required to exercise one's right to vote?


No.

A right is not a right if it is conditional. Conditional rights are "priviliges" which are selectively applied to a few and not equally applicable to all.
 
Field Tester said:
Trunk,
Interesting thought. Why do you think that is?

Because they gave you a knee jerk "we have to do something" reaction and when asked to backed up with facts they got nothing
 
To those who voted 'yes':

I propose the minimum, common sense training that's required be about 200 hours, with the final exam including a draw and hit, from the holster, at 3 yards in under one second. That's my definition of a 'good' shooter/gun handler.

Of course, I meet that requirement-just as I'm sure you all met YOUR requirements. (Everyone who proposes to mandate things always mandates things they know they will qualify for.)

See how that works?


Larry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top