'Loosening' of KY gun law I'm not sure I support

[Elkins45]

Somebody here, with the best of intentions I'm sure, has submitted a bill to allow an NRA gun safety course that includes a live fire component to substitute for the state-designed CCDW class. Normally I'm all for loosening up the firearms laws but I'm a bit on the fence about this one just because I know the content of the KY course. One of the best things about it is that it very specifically discusses the letter and meaning of KY's self-defense laws. More to the point it explicitly instructs students that they may not use deadly force to protect property except under very specific circumstances (most notably arson of a dwelling).

Having spent a bit of time at the gun shop and shooting range I can assure you there are scores of people who think they have a 'right' to shoot a guy if he's stealing their power tools. The KY course explicitly tells them they are wrong and I'm not certain an NRA gun safety class even touches on the legalities of deadly force.

I think they author should get an A for effort, but I kinda hope this bill doesn't pass because I don't want some of these guys who don't understand the law to slip thru the cracks.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

I am in western Ky and am thinking the same thing. I mean there are people I know who have a CCW that REALLY shouldn't be allowed to drive, much less carry a firearm, but they went through the course and with a lot of help from the instructor who was a friend of theirs, they passed and now carry a handgun. The last thing they need is someone to give them even a hint that they are justified to use deadly force if someone is stealing their wheels or stereo.

 

[dogmush]

I'm continually amazed at the human propensity to decide that others shouldn't be allowed to do things.

 

[Browning Guy]

I am not familiar with which NRA course you are looking to adopt, but the one we take in Michigan is a "basic package" put together by NRA and given by approved instructors. It includes instruction pertaining to the Michigan laws that is also taught by instructors who are versed in Mi. law, often lawyers or in my case by a former sheriff arms instructor. We had a 100 round live fire session as well as "from the street" stories to illustrate the points.

 

[Art Eatman]

I'd be surprised if an NRA course did NOT address the appropriate state laws. Is it known as fact that the course does not?

 

[Sam1911]

Just as a point of alternate view: there are a lot of states which require no training class to obtain a carry license or permit, and several states which require no carry license or permit at all.

And we, in those states, don't have a widespread problem with folks using force inappropriately in any sort of statistically significant numbers -- in instances where a training class would have helped.

So I see your point that these are good things to learn, but I wouldn't get too nervous that people aren't required to take a certain part of that training.

 

[pintler]

I don't object to training requirements - I'd think that sensible people would want training.

But just FWIW, Washington State has had shall issue CCW since the early 1960's with no training requirement at all, and Vermont has had permitless carry forever, and AFAICT there isn't any parade of horribles where people do bad things that training would have prevented. Mostly, permit holders just don't cause problems at all.

I can think of a couple of exceptions - a few years ago in WA a fraternity president turned 21 and got a permit, and a couple of days later engaged in a drunken driveby of a rival frat house. But I don't think training would have helped there.

So, in theory, training is good, but in practice, I'm not sure it matters.

 

[danez71]

So, in theory, training is good, but in practice, I'm not sure it matters.

That's about sums it up with respect to the law.

The NRA safety course is the safety training.

And if you think about it, most people are only pulling the trigger on someone that is going to kill them if they dont; regardless of whether or not they know what the letter of the law says.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'd be surprised if an NRA course did NOT address the appropriate state laws. Is it known as fact that the course does not?

The NRA Basic Handgun class is intended for people who have absolutely no prior experience or knowledge. It covers safety, attitude and the most basic skills.

The law component is also very basic. We cover laws relating to buying, owning, storing and transporting firearms. We touch only ever so briefly on use of force.

In the NRA classes Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home we deal in depth with the laws relating to the use of force.

 

[Elkins45]

From the proposed bill: the underlined portion indicates the new language.

(i)​Demonstrates competence with a firearm by successful completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course that includes a component of live-fire training or a firearms safety course offered or approved by the Department of Criminal Justice Training.

The proposal indicates that participants must be given a copy of the laws relating to self defense, but that's not the same as actual instruction.

There are some very good points made above regarding all of those states with no training requirements. Maybe my gut reaction was a bit reactionary.

 

[kwguy]

Just as a point of alternate view: there are a lot of states which require no training class to obtain a carry license or permit, and several states which require no carry license or permit at all.

And we, in those states, don't have a widespread problem with folks using force inappropriately in any sort of statistically significant numbers -- in instances where a training class would have helped.

So I see your point that these are good things to learn, but I wouldn't get too nervous that people aren't required to take a certain part of that training.

Well said. This.

 

[WKY]

Decided my comment was too polarizing. I'll just stay quiet.

 

[MEHavey]

The 2-day Basic Pistol NRA course we have here in NoVirginia was very heavy
on both the specific Law and 'Judgement' elements in the use of deadly force
during the classroom phase. Even had two cops and a retired FBI agent as
part of the presentation.

Unless there are dramatic regional course differences, it was well done (and the most
important part)

 

[Yo Mama]

ccw courses do little to nothing to ensure someone is educated about the law or why/when they would use a firearm in defense.

What they do well is take your money and waste it in some fund that gets raided instead of what it was set up for.

Constitutional Carry is alive and well in many states, and is working.

Every hoop you set up that costs money and time prevents those really needing a gun for self defense to have and use one.

 

[Yo Mama]

The 2-day Basic Pistol NRA course we have here in NoVirginia was very heavy
on both the specific Law and 'Judgement' elements in the use of deadly force
during the classroom phase. Even had two cops and a retired FBI agent as
part of the presentation.

Unless there are dramatic regional course differences, it was well done (and the most
important part)

This is a better type of training, however as a requirement to carry a gun I'm not for it.

 

[Elkins45]

ccw courses do little to nothing to ensure someone is educated about the law or why/when they would use a firearm in defense.

What they do well is take your money and waste it in some fund that gets raided instead of what it was set up for.

Constitutional Carry is alive and well in many states, and is working.

Every hoop you set up that costs money and time prevents those really needing a gun for self defense to have and use one.

The Kentucky course did a great job in my opinion. I thought I discovered some gaps in my knowledge when I took it back in 1997.

EDIT: there's a bunch of stuff in this quote that I didn't see when I quoted it, but the nature of it makes me feel the need to clarify. I'm not implying we need some sort of new hoop to jump thru, or the relative merits of permits vs open carry, etc. The proposed revision of the law doesn't add or remove a 'hoop', it just changes what counts a meeting an existing requirement. My point was that it seemed like a good idea that the required course contained state-specific info on the law. If the bill were to eliminate the license requirement for CCW we would be having a different discussion.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Just as a point of alternate view: there are a lot of states which require no training class to obtain a carry license or permit, and several states which require no carry license or permit at all.

And we, in those states, don't have a widespread problem with folks using force inappropriately in any sort of statistically significant numbers -- in instances where a training class would have helped.

That's us in Alabama as well. If you are over 18 and pass the background check, pay the $20 fee....you get a pistol permit to carry concealed on property not your own(no permit needed to carry concealed on your own property). If you are over 18 you can carry openly without a permit. We don't have a rash of people being killed trying to steal car stereos or power tools or such.

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

We have a requirement of eight hours of training and a proficiency test in NC. Even after the course there seems to be confusion of the letter of the law. Moreover, all the instructors seem to inject their personal belief into the course instead of teaching NC state law as it is written. When I took my CCW training class the instructor did a great job of teaching the law and making sure all of his students could maintain the weapon they brought to qualify. The state proficiency requires students be tested at 7 yards. He tested us at 10 yards. Everyone qualified and he let you know up front you would be tested at 10 yards. But that shows that instructors have plenty of leeway to tailor the course to their personal beliefs. We have several instructors who dumb the course down to guarantee every student qualifies. The club where my wife shoots gives NRA basic pistol for $50 and CCW certification for $100. If you take basic pistol the $50 is applied to your CCW course.

Personally, I would rather see NRA standards in NC instead the hodgepodge of instruction we currently have.

 

[Art Eatman]

Check out Vermont for problems, whether homicide stats, accident stats, any other bad stuff. There, if you're upright and breathing and of age, no bad-guy record, tote what and how you want.

 

[WVsig]

I have taken both courses. The NRA basic over a decade ago and recently the KY class. IMHO the KY class is nothing more than a tax on KY residents who want to carry a concealed weapon. A huge % of the $$$ you pay for a course goes to the state for the video, course work and paper work. You then have the pay the local Sheriff and the State Police to get your lic.

The quality of the training is pretty equal. They both cover very basic handgun training. Both have a very simple test in order to pass but neither one constitutes "training" to carry a concealed handgun. There is no real skill development. It is basic nomenclature, safety rules, basic cleaning of your gun of choice etc....

There is a live fire component to the KY training which requires you to shoot 20 round into a body sized target at 7 yards hitting the target with 80% of the shots IIRC. Which IMHO everyone should be able to do. People in my class had not shot in years or never shot a handgun and scored 100%. So it is not really a test.

The instructor of the NRA class I took in VA knew that most people were taking it in order to get a concealed carry permit so he talked about VA use of force law. I am not sure that this is the norm.

The use of force info in the KY classes was nothing more than a video of KY State Attorneys reading the code to you. You could have handed me a piece of paper with the rules on it and I would have gotten the same info in a lot less time. Again IMHO the KY class in a tax and revenue generator.

The level of training of both of these classes set the bar so low IMHO that I would prefer that the requirement be removed entirely.

 

[MEHavey]

Several folks have stated that they believe a training reqm't for Concealed Carry is not warranted.

Asked another way:
Do these same folks believe a deadly weapon should be handed to someone for daily carry who
truly has no training of any type ?

 

[Elkins45]

There is a live fire component to the KY training which requires you to shoot 20 round into a body sized target at 7 yards hitting the target with 80% of the shots IIRC. Which IMHO everyone should be able to do. People in my class had not shot in years or never shot a handgun and scored 100%. So it is not really a test.

SNIP

The use of force info in the KY classes was nothing more than a video of KY State Attorneys reading the code to you.

It's actually only 55%, 11 of 20 anywhere on the black part of a full sized silhouette at 7 yards.

When I took the class I remember some discussion of shoot/don't shoot legalities, but I don't remember if it came from the video or the instructor. I think there were some questions on the test about it as well.

FWIW I don't disagree that the requirement is primarily a money thing now. I think it started out as a political necessity so Legislators could vote for the bill and not be accused of letting "just anybody" carry a gun.

 

[Sam1911]

Several folks have stated that they believe a training reqm't for Concealed Carry is not warranted.

Asked another way:
Do these same folks believe a deadly weapon should be handed to someone for daily carry who truly has no training of any type ?

That's not "asked another way." That's "asking a completely different question."

A person should absolutely get training. We all should. Everyone should. Some do. However, your right to bear arms (that's "BEAR" as in carry with you, not "own" or "possess") comes with no requirements. NONE, according to our US Constitution.

You have a responsibility not to break the law and/or harm someone else with your firearm. That's YOUR responsibility. Not the state's responsibility to control or limit or educate or impose. You have the same responsibility not to break the law or harm someone with your chainsaw, or your gallon of gas, or your 4-wheeler, or your knife, or any other potentially dangerous property. No one forces you to pay license fees or pay for training, or prove any other requirement before you're allowed to own, possess, and BEAR those items. This is no different. If you choose to be uneducated and reckless with them, that's your problem and your potential risk of injuring or killing someone else or yourself.

Life and freedom are not safe. They come with risk and responsibility. To have your freedom you in turn accept the risks of life among a society of others (and the world in general). In the end, any promise of relief from risk is an illusion anyway.

 

[Red Wind]

Check out Vermont for problems, whether homicide stats, accident stats, any other bad stuff. There, if you're upright and breathing and of age, no bad-guy record, tote what and how you want.

And the same can be said for Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming (for WY residents), and the latest Constitutional Carry state, Arkansas. No testing or permits required.

All seems to be going well .

 

[Leader]

Several folks have stated that they believe a training reqm't for Concealed Carry is not warranted.

Asked another way:
Do these same folks believe a deadly weapon should be handed to someone for daily carry who
truly has no training of any type ?

Do you have some proof that training actually does some good?
Statistics from states that require training as opposed to those that don't?

And in answer to your question, Yes I do think people with NO training should be allowed to carry firearms any way they want.
I also believe they should follow all local laws & that means not shooting anyone for no reason.