Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Training requirements for gun ownership.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by BallistiCal, Apr 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BallistiCal

    BallistiCal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    OC, CA
    I have watched anti-gunners claim many times that things like standard capacity magazines, short barreled rifles and shotguns, full auto firearms, and the like can't be entrusted to "mere civilians". Whenever somebody points out that police are allowed all these things and more, the rationale becomes that it's okay for police to have them because they have a genuine occupational need for them and have been trained to use them.

    This, to me, is tacit admission that the guns, magazines, bullets, whatever aren't inherently any more dangerous than any other inanimate object. What makes the difference is the training and the need. While I strongly believe that nobody should have to justify "needing" a gun to some bureaucrat, I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun. Many might be against it, but the way I see it, if you wouldn't let someone drive a car without a license, why give them a gun without one?

    The only philosophical argument against it that I've ever heard is that you shouldn't need a license to exercise a constitutional right. While I agree with that in principle, I don't think requiring a license violates the 2A. "A well regulated militia" in the parlance of the 18th century meant "a well trained and equipped militia". That's why members of standing armies at the time were known as regulars. If a well trained and equipped militia is necessary, then is it so much to ask that a person be required to get BOTH?

    I'm not so naive as to think that a law requiring training for prospective gun buyers can't be easily abused by anti-gun politicians. It would be crucially important to legally mandate that a gun license be made no harder to get than a driver's license. But I for one am sick of anti-gunners dusting off the "Cops have training, you don't." routine to justify their bans. Maybe something like this is worth doing if only to give them one less excuse to turn to.

    And just thinking WAY outside the box here, what if the license was good in all 50 states? A cardholder could walk into any gun store in the country, regardless of their state of residence, and walk out 10 minutes later with whatever they wanted, and carry it anywhere. I don't ever see that happening, but I can dream can't I? :)
     
  2. Tipro

    Tipro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    NC
    Don't know how I feel about licensing, but mandatory training is okay with me.

    North Carolina General STatute 127A-91 gives the Adjutant General of the State the authority to "promote rifle marksmanship among the unorganized militia." According to NCGS 127A-7, the unorganized militia is "all other able bodied citizens [i.e., those not in the "organized" militia] who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony" or dishonorably discharged from military service.

    I have no problems whatsoever with these provisions actually being utilized.
     
  3. BallistiCal

    BallistiCal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    OC, CA
    All the license would mean is that you completed the training, and have been instructed on all the important things that every gun owner should know anyway.
     
  4. jeffmack

    jeffmack Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    It's a great idea until somebody who hates guns gets to decide what "trained" is.

    "If you can't hit this nickel at 1000 yards with open sights, you aren't safe!"
     
  5. BallistiCal

    BallistiCal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    OC, CA
    "If you can't hit this nickel at 1000 yards with open sights, you aren't safe!"

    I we can license people to drive a car without requiring they win the Indy 500, then I think there's a way around this.
     
  6. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,380
    Location:
    TN
    So, why don't you get some training if it makes you feel better. I support no requirement for training of any kind to qualify you to own a firearm. The Constitution says nothing about training in order to own a firearm.

    As far as licensing someone to qualify them to own a firearm, I am TOTALLY against that line of thinking. If a license were required and was issued say last year, why couldn't that person trying to purchase a firearm from a FFL dealer have committed a felony since then?
     
  7. Tipro

    Tipro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    NC
    Don't know who you were responding too, but in my post (#2) the mandatory training has nothing to do with being allowed to buy a firearm; it would just be fortuitous coincidence that anyone legally buying a firearm would have undergone the mandatory State training :) But when buying a firearm, one would not need to present evidence of their having been trained.
     
  8. BallistiCal

    BallistiCal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    OC, CA
    They might have committed a felony since then, but a background check, (which I'm also not against) should catch it.

    The Constitution may not say anything about training, but I don't think it's against the spirit of the 2A. Just having a gun doesn't make you a threat to state tyranny. If you can't hit anything with it, clear it, maintain it, fix a malfunction, etc, then you're just a target for those who do know what they're doing.

    And on a practical note, we haven't had a truly unfettered RKBA for a long time. We have decided as a society that you can't have a gun if you've committed a felony, or are mentally ill, etc. So denying someone the the protections of the 2A is acceptable under certain circumstances. Why can't one of those circumstances be having no idea what they hell you're doing when it comes to firearms?
     
  9. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    I doubt there are too many people who think you're a murderer simply because you own a car.
     
  10. davewil37

    davewil37 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    13
    On the other hand. You do not need a license to drive a vehicle on private property. You do not have to have a license on the vehicle as well on private property. Why would a license be needed for a gun?

    DaveUSAF
     
  11. jeffmack

    jeffmack Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    It's like voting. [Nearly] Any idiot can vote. It's our duty as citizens to be as informed as possible so we can make the best decision possible. Currently we don't usually have required training for firearms, but if you own a firearm and you are smart you will try to learn to use it safely.

    The same abuses that occurred with Jim Crow laws and voting could also happen with required training and firearms.
     
  12. RM

    RM Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    596
    Location:
    Maryland
    We are dealing with this basic problem in Maryland at this time. Judge Legg has ruled Maryland's unreasonable "good and substantial" reasons required for a handgun permit null and void. I don't think gun owners are opposed to training requirement similar to what is required for a Florida permit: show you have firearms experience or training. But anti-gun legislators are trying to pass unspecified requirements that will likely be similar to hurdles faced by Washington, D. C. residents. Training courses become an expensive and arduous barrier to obtaining a handgun permit, completely undermining citizen's rights and the law.
     
  13. hogshead

    hogshead Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Then when the anti's get the majority again they will only have to raise the fee on your license till the average man cant aford to own a gun. Give them an inch and they will take 10 miles.
     
  14. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,380
    Location:
    TN
    If you are still going to run a NICs check, why on earth do you think a LICENSE is necessary?

    Our President would love you. You talk the same language. Training would cost money.... not everyone can afford to pay a fee to get trained. It is a form of GUN CONTROL.

    A license is a form of GUN CONTROL. Same as buying a fishing or hunting license, the state or government is controlling your behavior by requiring you to purchase a license for the privelege of hunting or fishing. But unfortunately.... hunting or fishing are not rights as is the right to keep and bear arms.
     
  15. 12gaugeTim

    12gaugeTim Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    293
    He's not worried about himself. He wants to discard the arguments of anti gunners who say that only military/LEO should own firearms because they are trained.
    One would not be able to do that because his license would be revoked, obviously. If this system was put into effect the FFL would probably have to verify your license number via online database.
     
  16. BallistiCal

    BallistiCal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    OC, CA
    Thank you!
     
  17. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,380
    Location:
    TN
    You are seldom going to be able to argue with a confirmed anti-gun person and change their attitudues. They believe that the police can protect them.

    I don't even try anymore. If I like them, I'll invite them to go shooting with me.
     
  18. aeriedad

    aeriedad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    SC
    Does the government license or train individual citizens to read their Bibles or share their opinions on Internet forums? Why should I need government permission to keep and bear arms?
     
  19. csa77

    csa77 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    506
    Location:
    florida
    this is gun control through and through, I dont like it one bit.

    the government says driving a car is not a right but a privillage to explain the license . if we are required to be licensed to own a gun then we relegate our right to own a gun to a privilage as well. IMO this would be the biggest anti gun move our country has ever made. it flies in the face of everything the 2nd amendment stands for.


    you can never make the antis happy, they will always hate private gun ownership. its better to fight them then to appease them.
     
  20. brboyer

    brboyer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    956
    Location:
    Tampa Bay Florida
    Here's my solution:

    Mandatory education required in elementary school. IE, Eddie the Eagle

    Mandatory weapons handling and safety in middle schools.

    Mandatory marksmanship training in high school.

    All paid for by tax dollars. ;)
     
  21. Gimmered

    Gimmered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    46
    What does "Shall not be infringed" mean in your world?

    I'm all for training and promoting gun safety but wouldn't want any part of the State telling me I had to complete it before buying a gun.
     
  22. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Training to own a handgun/rifle/shotgun? No thanks.
    (Inexpensive) Training to own a Post-86 Non-sample MG (or any other police-only fun toy)? Sign me up!

    Training to own a standard cap mag (and thank you for using that term)? NO WAY.

    We should work to unlimit ourselves, not limit ourselves. This could be used to inch our way back.
     
  23. BallistiCal

    BallistiCal Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    OC, CA
    Perhaps I didn't make my motives clear.

    I'm not proposing this as a way to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary civilians. Quite the opposite. I want civilians to be able to own any type of gun they want. I want people to be allowed to carry in all 50 states. I'm not in favor of restrictions on magazine capacity, suppressors, shoulder things that go up, or any other firearms feature. But lets be honest here. In today's world, you don't get something for nothing. You can make the case that licensing would be a big victory for the anti-gun crowd, and you'd be right. But such a victory pales in comparison to what we would gain. I picture a gun license as a nationwide license to go nuts. Think about it. The ability to walk into any gun store, anywhere, and buy whatever you want regardless of where you live. The ability to carry a handgun in any city in any state without having to worry about local restrictions or reciprocity. There are a lot of places in this country where you can't do that now, under any circumstances. I can see I'm on the alone side here, but if spending one weekend of my life proving that I know how to clear a gun, use it legally, hit what I'm aiming at, and getting a piece of laminated paper that says as much means I can do all that, then I wouldn't complain.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2012
  24. N003k

    N003k Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Connecticut
    The problem is that it becomes easy to change the requirements to GET the license. You say that it hasn't made things difficult when it comes to car, but there'd be a lot more hardship and outrage if drivers licenses became significantly harder to impossible to obtain, once we allow firearms ownership to require licensing, we're already a setting ourselves up for more difficulties, not less.

    Even using the car licensing concept, in at least CT it's become harder for new drivers to get their license. I had to pay $120 to a private company to take an 8 hour course to watch videos on why I shouldn't drink and drive, or get stoned and drive, and then pay $40 to do the testing, and then $77 for my license. I got mine after I turned 18, for those under 18, there's additional classes (and additional cost) required.

    On top of that, licensing requires licensing offices and bureaucrats to manage it. That means additional costs, either imposed through licensing fees, or some type of new tax, most likely additional taxes on firearms or ammos, or a combination of both.

    Basically, all it would do is either A. increase costs of owning guns, or B. used as a tool to reduce gun ownership.

    A final thing to consider, what if the license costs $1000 to get initially but lasts a lifetime? What if they change that a few years later to $500? A few years later they change it to only lasting 5 years...and adjust the cost for inflation. Now increase the cost and reduce the time it lasts?

    Not every restriction has to be via difficulty in the requirements to GET the license, it could just be pricing it out of the common persons reach.


    I'm not sure if your motives are pure, but you haven't thought it through far enough, or if you've thought it through and are a troll, but, either way, the idea is NOT good for gun owners in the long run.
     
  25. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    I would let someone drive a car without a license (if it was legal). Getting a driver's license in most states is a joke anyway.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page