Maine right to carry law threatened

[Aguila Blanca]

I know this is gonna sound bad , but I think it's actually a GOOD idea that people should have some form of training before strapping up .

Well, at least you knew it was going to sound bad.

Kindly show me where in the 2nd Amendment there is any mention of training requirements as a prerequisite to the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. In fact, how would you reconcile your position with the following from the Maine State Constitution?

Maine State Constitution Article I, Section 16

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

 

[ryan in maine]

sigman4rt: There is a gentleman in So. Maine who puts on the NRA "personal protection in the home" class. He is now the only person in the entire state certified to teach the NRA "personal protection outside the home" classes. The inside the home class runs about 10 hours and costs $75. to $80. The outside the home class would run two to three days and cost between $150. to $250. He is in tight with the bills sponsors and as the only person certified to teach the class would have a lock on handgun training in Maine. It's strictly a matter of dollars and cents going into his pocket only.

He would be the only instructor for CCW's and for anyone wanting to get an instructors certification.

thanks for the info. and it was hard enough for me to find an NRA certified instructor up north here. now y'might have to book it to southern Maine annually and empty your checking account to carry?

ugh. time to start e-mailing.

 

[sigman4rt]

This isn't rocket science, it's comon sense. People with little or no training, who are uncomfortable carrying a firearm, should recieve some form of training. Whether it's from a friend or a professionalsource is irrelevent. It's the quality that's important. Should this training be mandatory and required by the state. No.

Do I need a training course before excercising my rights guaranteed in the 1st ammendment, the 3rd, or any of the other God given rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The goal here is to make a CCW prohibitivly expensive. With the cost of firearms, ammo and now training going through the roof, it prevents the people who need it the most from recieving a CCW.

 

[deadin]

How about requiring the State to provide the training as a public service, at no cost to the citizen? After all, the "argument" seems to be that training and testing is necessary for public safety.

 

[SSN Vet]

I got my initial Maine Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm in Spring 0f '06.

What's posted above looks essentially identicle to the stuff I read.

I qualified for the veteran waivor as I had shot Expert Pistol while in the navy (yea! my first veteran benefit).

If I'm reading this correctly, the only change is that people who were permitted without training or veterans waivor, will have to take a class.

How about requiring the State to provide the training as a public service, at no cost to the citizen? After all, the "argument" seems to be that training and testing is necessary for public safety.

Here's the key....

As an alternative way of fully satisfying this requirement, an applicant may personally demonstrate knowledge of handgun safety to an issuing authority, if the issuing authority is willing to evaluate an applicant's personal demonstration of such knowledge. The issuing authority is not required to offer this 2nd option.

The local PD or the State Police should be required to offer the 2nd option.....that would do away with the de facto means test.

 

[deadin]

The local PD or the State Police should be required to offer the 2nd option.....that would do away with the de facto means test.

+1 Agree 100%. Firearms are just too dangerous to hand out willy-nilly without some sort of checks and balances.
Of course we could just let Darwin sort them out, but unfortunately that sometimes involves someone other than the gun-wielder getting hurt or killed.

 

[Trip20]

How about requiring the State to provide the training as a public service, at no cost to the citizen? After all, the "argument" seems to be that training and testing is necessary for public safety.

The "argument" is weak. There is no public safety issue – at least no one has been able to prove as much as I requested many posts ago. If there were a public safety issue, states with out training requirements would have a track record in line with this assertion. Why would you suggest State intervention to satisfy those with a weak argument?

And how do you figure State provided anything is done at no cost to the citizen? Do you pay taxes? Do you understand the logistics and costs associated with the State creating a department to handle such a training and licensing outfit – especially one provided free of charge?

I don't understand how people can get on board with a State requirement so easily, especially when there is no definitive evidence that the claimed public safety issue is in fact a real tangible issue in need of State action.

I think it feels good for people to think there's an arbitrary requirement on behalf of public safety. It gives them a false sense of safety. It's like putting a bandaid on an undamaged patch of skin.

 

[ptmmatssc]

sigman4rt , you may want to bone up on maine law . the following is the "requirements" for "training" . My gun club does hunter safety etc and we actually asked local as well as state gov if it had to be an NRA course and they said , no . It's a fallacy that only NRA courses are accepted .

(5) Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety. The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraph.
As an alternative way of fully satisfying this requirement, an applicant may personally demonstrate knowledge of handgun safety to an issuing authority, if the issuing authority is willing to evaluate an applicant's personal demonstration of such knowledge. The issuing authority is not required to offer this 2nd option.
The demonstration of knowledge of handgun safety to the issuing authority may not be required of any applicant who holds a valid State permit to carry a concealed firearm as of April 15, 1990 or of any applicant who was or is in any of the Armed Forces of the United States and has received at least basic firearms training.

You can set up a training course , have your local PD ok it for content etc and give that course to CCW applicants . Personal protection class is one thing , firearms safety and familiarization is another . They are not requiring personal protection training , they want safety training.

 

[gezzer]

Ever wonder why the WA and PA permits are not recognized by as many States as some other State permits?

The question should be why aren't any states CCW permits good every where? Your freaking so called privileged drivers license is. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: