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

[Akita1]

There's also an "is what it is" angle here; hate the idea because I know from where my rights originate, but the supremacy clause appears to be something of a selective and fluid thing of late.

 

[Akita1]

What about a knife? That's a weapon, and you'd be surprised what a blind person can learn.

Blind or not, they still have the right to keep and bear arms(of any kind) and government can't infringe upon that right.

Woody

NEVER surprised at what a blind person cannot learn!

 

[tacxted]

Sad when 25% of thr members belive in or don't care about mandatory training. Its been said before and will be said again.

We are our own worst enemy.

Just like with OC of rifles thread.

 

[jcwit]

What about a knife? That's a weapon, and you'd be surprised what a blind person can learn.

Blind or not, they still have the right to keep and bear arms(of any kind) and government can't infringe upon that right.

That is just about the dumbest thing I have ever seen as a reply here on THR.

Those that actually learn to handle a firearm are without a doubt the exception and not the norm.

 

[George Dickel]

For those of you who voted yes, do you really think that anti-gun groups and politicians wouldn't use mandatory training to the disadvantage of gun owners? Are you really that gullible????? Do you know what the Jim Crowe laws were? They were qualification that black people had to meet in order to vote. They were so difficult that blacks weren't able to qualify and therefore unable to vote. The same will happen to any requirement on training in order to obtain a CCW and would eventually would be mandatory just to own a firearm. The courts eventually ruled the Jim Crowe laws unconstitutional but don't hold your breath waiting for courts to find that overly difficult training and weapon handling ability requirements to be unconstitutional. Those of you yes voters are really demonstrating the liberal Democrat elitist mindset that you know what is best for all of us.

 

[oneounceload]

^^^ Someone else gets it.........+1

 

[GBExpat]

Those that actually learn to handle a firearm are without a doubt the exception and not the norm.

wow

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

For those of you who voted yes, do you really think that anti-gun groups and politicians wouldn't use mandatory training to the disadvantage of gun owners? Are you really that gullible????? Do you know what the Jim Crowe laws were? They were qualification that black people had to meet in order to vote. They were so difficult that blacks weren't able to qualify and therefore unable to vote. The same will happen to any requirement on training in order to obtain a CCW and would eventually would be mandatory just to own a firearm. The courts eventually ruled the Jim Crowe laws unconstitutional but don't hold your breath waiting for courts to find that overly difficult training and weapon handling ability requirements to be unconstitutional. Those of you yes voters are really demonstrating the liberal Democrat elitist mindset that you know what is best for all of us.

Actually...Jim Crowe laws were about more than qualifications black people had to meet to vote. They were laws which were fully intended to segregate black people from the rest of society on all levels and INCLUDED gun control laws. In fact, the first serious gun control laws in this country have their roots in Jim Crowe laws.

As for all the "what if" circumstances...those are red herrings or straw man arguments at best. The key word in RKBA is RIGHT, not PRIVILEGE. If people abuse that right, THEN the right may be revoked. Not before.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

I get the drill-down arguments on what minimum requirements would be but I voted yes. I practice a lot and want my fellow CC brethren (and sistren of course) to know the tool before they wield it.

So you're okay restricting a person's rights simply becausethey don't meet your standard of knowledge?

I know a lot about cyber security and I want my fellow computer using brethren (and sistren of course) to know how to the internet works before going online.
I know a lot about the internal workings of cars and want my fellow driving brethren (and sistren of course) to know how a car works before they drive it.
I study a lot about political issues and learn all about candidates in an election and I want my fellow voting brethren (and sistren of course) to know this information too before they cast a ballot.

Sounds pretty arrogant and dangerous doesn't it?

And BTW, if you truly feel that I should be required by the government to train before I can exercise my RKBA, you are not my brethren.

 

[George Dickel]

I get the drill-down arguments on what minimum requirements would be but I voted yes. I practice a lot and want my fellow CC brethren (and sistren of course) to know the tool before they wield it. Sure this sentiment has been orated better in previous posts, just my input.

Maybe I shoot more than you do, so by your logic I get to decide if you practice enough to suit my demands on your competence with a firearm.

 

[cfullgraf]

The key word in RKBA is RIGHT, not PRIVILEGE. If people abuse that right, THEN the right may be revoked. Not before.

I agree but standing around, thumping our chests, yelling that gun ownership is a right is not going to win friends and influence folks to our cause.

I feel we can be our own worst enemies posting you tube videos of exploding targets, bump fire stocks and "frightful to the average soccer mom" gun handling. Also, open carrying of rifles into a restaurant or store just to "prove a point". Maybe this is all safe and reasonable activities but to many folks against guns, gun owners are viewed like folks from the Far East, we all look alike.

I feel the gun community needs to work harder at looking responsible in gun ownership, handling and use. We should work hard at enacting programs, plans, and educations that do not limit/restrict gun rights but do take the wind out of the anti-gun advocates sails.

It is better to be proactive instead of playing catch-up.

While I voted "yes" to the poll, I did not advocate mandatory education. What i did advocate was some kind of demonstration of proficiency. That could be a live fire section of the carry permit application and course. But other things like a hunter's safety course, firearm competition rating, former military, and so forth could easily meet the proficiency qualifications.

Granted, one does not need a permit to own and operate a table saw, but there is a very high probability that the only person that would get injured by one is the clown operating it. Not so with a firearm and I would like some assurances that the holder of the firearm in public has some idea what safe handling of a firearm entails.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I agree but standing around, thumping our chests, yelling that gun ownership is a right is not going to win friends and influence folks to our cause.

I feel we can be our own worst enemies posting you tube videos of exploding targets, bump fire stocks and "frightful to the average soccer mom" gun handling. Also, open carrying of rifles into a restaurant or store just to "prove a point". Maybe this is all safe and reasonable activities but to many folks against guns, gun owners are viewed like folks from the Far East, we all look alike.

I feel the gun community needs to work harder at looking responsible in gun ownership, handling and use. We should work hard at enacting programs, plans, and educations that do not limit/restrict gun rights but do take the wind out of the anti-gun advocates sails.

It is better to be proactive instead of playing catch-up.

While I voted "yes" to the poll, I did not advocate mandatory education. What i did advocate was some kind of demonstration of proficiency. That could be a live fire section of the carry permit application and course. But other things like a hunter's safety course, firearm competition rating, former military, and so forth could easily meet the proficiency qualifications.

Granted, one does not need a permit to own and operate a table saw, but there is a very high probability that the only person that would get injured by one is the clown operating it. Not so with a firearm and I would like some assurances that the holder of the firearm in public has some idea what safe handling of a firearm entails.

We, as the "gun community", need to BE responsible in our ownership, handling, and use. We also need to do our part to pass that on.

But where it comes to exercising a "right", we have no business putting ourselves, or others, into positions where we must justify exercising that right to our government in any way, shape, or form.

Firearms today are no more inherently dangerous than firearms were at the time of the framing of the Bill of Rights. As 1911Tuner is fond of saying: "Is gun. Gun not safe."

I have no illusions about what it takes to "win friends and influence folks to our cause". I also have no illusions about the concept of "compromise" when it comes to this, either. I will not compromise with people over some namby-pamby red herring or straw man argument over the RKBA. As soon as people start talking about "mandatory training" when it comes to the RKBA, it ultimately leads to a government regulated concept. That's an INFRINGMENT, not a COMPROMISE.

People want to impose such restrictions themselves for their own private institutions and such...sure. "Want to use my gun range? Recite the Four Rules." "Want to hunt on my property? Tell me what the Four Rules mean."

People want to codify training and give the government pre-emptive authority to decide who may or may not exercise their RKBA without due process? Bugger that.

"Personal responsibility". If people prove they don't have the responsibility required, THEN they can lose their RKBA after due process.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

I feel the gun community needs to work harder at looking responsible in gun ownership, handling and use. We should work hard at enacting programs, plans, and educations that do not limit/restrict gun rights but do take the wind out of the anti-gun advocates sails.

Agreed. Just be aware that 'mandatory' and the above statement do not go together.

While I voted "yes" to the poll, I did not advocate mandatory education. What i did advocate was some kind of demonstration of proficiency. That could be a live fire section of the carry permit application and course. But other things like a hunter's safety course, firearm competition rating, former military, and so forth could easily meet the proficiency qualifications.

The question was " Should Mandatory Skills Training Be Part of the Cirriculum [sic] of Receiving a CWP?" You answered yes which means regardless of how you want to spin it, you advocated for mandatory training. I understand that you may have been answering with a greater vision of training in mind, but the visions of people with good intentions are rarely realized.

 

[kwguy]

The only thing 'mandatory' about that should be that an individual should take it upon themselves to get whatever training they feel personally responsible to get, and to train as often or as little as the feel they need to, according to their own 'mandatory' requirements.

Not some .gov entity or 'nanny' telling them what they should do.

 

[Hondo 60]

I voted No

AK103K in post #4 said it as well or better than I could.

I live in a state that was late in coming to the CCW party.
Now that I have a license, I've been carrying.
I will not go back to being unarmed.

The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to be armed "Shall Not Be Infringed"
Which to me means that the government doesn't have the right to say yes or no.
I believe that every citizen (who hasn't forfeited the right - felons etc) has the right to carry a weapon to keep themselves safe.
I also believe that every citizen has the duty, to him/her self & those around them, to be minimally proficient with the arm of their choice.

 

[RPRNY]

Yes. If nothing else, it's an excellent legal protection in the event of a shooting.

But, only if:

- There is no govt monopoly on the instruction and the govt fee for the course is nominal
- Gun rights advocacy groups may run the course
- The course takes no more time and preferably less than a hunter safety course
- full attendance is the only requirement to pass.

Attorney: And prior to this tragic event in which the perpetrator forced you to use your firearm to defend yourself and others, did you attend government mandated training on defensive firearms use?

Defendant: Yes, I did.

Attorney: No further questions, your honor.

 

[BSA1]

person is not required to have a concealed carry permit to have a firearm in their own home.

That said, it is impossible for a blind person to know their target and what is behind it. Even in their own home

Do you even know what the legal definition of being blind is? Based on your comment it sounds as though you don't.

So a woman with a man on top of trying to rape her can not know where the attacker is and, in such a attack, would any woman know or even care what is behind the attacker? And if he decides to kill her after raping her? Your comment includes your Grandmother.

 

[JSH1]

Do you even know what the legal definition of being blind is? Based on your comment it sounds as though you don't.

The legal definition of blind is corrected vision of 20/200 or less or a field of view less than 20 degrees. If someone with vision that impaired can hit a target, more power to them. If they can't then they shouldn't be issued a concealed carry permit.

So a woman with a man on top of trying to rape her can not know where the attacker is and, in such a attack, would any woman know or even care what is behind the attacker? And if he decides to kill her after raping her? Your comment includes your Grandmother.

Every person using a firearm should know what / who they are shooting. Period.

My grandmother was a good shot, and always had a loaded rifle behind the door ready to take care of pests on the farm. When she went blind she put the guns away on her own.

 

[coloradokevin]

Should mandatory skills training be part of the requirements for chainsaw ownership? Maybe for ladder use?

The end user has the most responsibility for their own training. No one is going to become proficient during a short skill class during a CCW course. True proficiency requires practice.

Safety?

There are four rules everyone around here should already know (though I'm sure many don't).

 

[Old Dog]

While we're at it ... I wish we could institute some mandatory skills training for parenting prior to allowing citizens to procreate.

My state has no training requirement whatsoever for obtaining a CPL. Seems to be working out fine up here. I still see stupid people doing stupid things with guns, but I worry more about the stupid drivers I encounter daily on our roadways ... they're a much bigger danger to me and mine ...

 

[CoalTrain49]

My state has no training requirement whatsoever for obtaining a CPL. Seems to be working out fine up here.

And it works fine everywhere there are no training requirements. Most of the opposition to no training requirements comes from class instructors/trainers who have a vested business interest in it. It's become an industry of sorts totally based and dependent on state legislation. The same loud objections would be coming from FFL dealers if the Brady Act was repealed. Another growing business based on a totally unnecessary fed law. If you live in WA you know what I'm talking about because it's now an enhanced state law. Everybody gets a NICS now.

 

[JFtheGR8]

The way you influence people on the fence about RKBA is to simply make the statement that the 2nd is in place to guarantee that the 1st stays in place. Just leave it at that and don't try to argue with anyone or try to persuade them with a bunch of dry facts. Plant the seed and let it grow on it's own. They'll start to notice where their other rights are being curtailed. Trust me that non gun owners side with the antis about restrictions such as training requirements and permitting because that's what the liberal media and leadership has brain washed the masses to believe. It is much more effective for them to have some self discovery about how they've been lied to and misled. You will never influence an anti though and arguing with them can make you appear as if you're a right wing nut because they are very good at throwing out anecdotal "facts" to try to bolster their position.

 

[oneounceload]

You will never influence an anti though and arguing with them

IIRC, the old saying goes something like this:
"Never argue with an idiot for he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"

 

[jrdolall]

I am all about minimal training for anything but I don't want any mandated training. If I were a certified instructor I would probably feel differently.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Yes. If nothing else, it's an excellent legal protection in the event of a shooting.

But, only if:

- There is no govt monopoly on the instruction and the govt fee for the course is nominal
- Gun rights advocacy groups may run the course
- The course takes no more time and preferably less than a hunter safety course
- full attendance is the only requirement to pass.

Even if your conditions are met initially, having a law on the books requiring mandatory training give the antis a mechanism to eventually erode those conditions.

Attorney: And prior to this tragic event in which the perpetrator forced you to use your firearm to defend yourself and others, did you attend government mandated training on defensive firearms use?

Defendant: Yes, I did.

Attorney: No further questions, your honor.

And that would be great except for the fact that the defendant's attorney isn't the only one asking questions...

Prosecutor: So, having had the mandated training, you must have been aware that your actions were not in concordance with said training, correct?

Defendant: Umm...

Prosecutor: You are aware that your failure to comply with the mandatory training directly led to the death of the victim?


Not so excellent legal protection when it can be used to show you acted improperly (in relation to the training).