Mandatory Training for CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wildalaska

Moderator
I dont want to get into the legal questions on this, but the practical and moral questions...

This is prompted by a PM I got wherein this quote was derived:

"Most gun owners don't want mandatory instruction because it infringes on their personal freedoms (as per postings on the forums), but fail to see the potential benefits of such instruction in light of the fact that they often don't seek out instruction themselves."

In light of the tactical inanity we see day in and day out...why would responsible ccws or indeed any gun owner oppose mandatory traing.....

Take this scenario...X state passes a law that says (and lets not get in to the nitty gritty of all the different leagl nit pickies, its off the top of my head)

"In order to promote safety and responsible firearms ownership, all persons who own firearms shall take a complete a training course, which course shall be either sponsored by or certified bu the NRA..."

On Moral grounds, why would you object to that?

On practical grounds, why would you object to that?

Hopefully the tinfoil will be kept to a minimum

WildfaceitsomefolksarecluelessAlaska ™
 
I have but one objection and one objection only: that it be used by anti CCW politicians, judges, and LEO's as a means to take it away from people, either by making it either overly arduous, infrequent in opportunity, limited in number, in various fashions discriminatory, or prohibitively expensive. Resolve that and I agree to it. Make it by irrevocable law easily affordable to the average citizen, frequent in opportunity, openly known, and not subject to the whims of often hostile politics.
 
Practical grounds are good, we all need practice. But I have another reason.

In Wisconsin, you can automatically get your motorcycle license if you take classes at an approved training facility.

With that in mind, let's suppose you actually have to use your firearm to save your life.

It would be great to stand up in court and have your attorney say "This wildebeest of a man here in Girl Scout uniform may look like Alaskan panhandler, but he also possesses our states approved firearms training stamp and he is fully qualified."

Might be a "get out of jail free" card if we needed it.
 
As long as its not burdensome enough to deter firearms ownership, I do not oppose it before someone buys their first gun. Not before every gun after that though.

I suspect your concern, like mine, has been piqued by recent posts evidencing a desire to shoot first and think later.

I'm also a little put off by people who don't keep their guns in a safe and then have the nerve to complain when they are stolen and used in a felony, meaning they get kept in evidence inconveniencing the owner. I would be more than a little ticked off at the negligent owner if one of these guns hurt a member of my family.
 
Morally I object because you don't need government approved training before getting a permit to march for whatever your cause may be.

As a practical matter, I have no objections. It would be nice to see training become more available if there was a higher demand in my area. It would give me more options as to what I chose to seek out.
 
Practically yes, legally no except for safety training and instructions on how guns operate. NY State requires that. Other training, not a part of CCW. CCW is only a permit to carry a gun. It is not law on shooting it.
Nor does SD Law mention guns or shooting or any means of self-defense. So, legally you are permitted a waiver from law against carrying a concealed weapon. And that's it. So, further instruction beyond how to safely operate a gun falls outside of the subject of carry law and SD law. In other words, it's your affair.
 
I object to mandatory anything when it comes to firearms. The Constitution says nothing about the Government setting up criteria to allow one Citizen to own a gun, and prevent another from doing so.
We have the Second Amendment to insure Citizens the right to defend themselves from Government. To allow Government to set rules and pass legislation to curb or limit gun ownership is de facto, against the Constitution.
 
I get all the training that i can. I have taken several classes including the ccw, and I am saving money for more. Its only common sense to know as much as possible about such a powerful tool. But why bring the government into it? Have they done such a great job on their other programs like "public education" I agree there should be some mandatory training? but please not the government. It would be a small step from education to regulation.
So my vote is for practical-----yes
morally-------no

Good question though, any other candidates for training like the NRA, put them in charge of it. I am a member but don't really know enough about them but just throwing it out there.

And while I am talking to WildIgotthebestdealsAlaska how about a deal on some 5.56 m193?:D
 
Trainin

I think training is a great idea, HOWEVER Mannlicher said it best. There is nothing in the Constitution that says " you must have training" or anything else to insure our rights are secured.
 
I would question its utility. Some of the folks with the most ridiculous "tactical insanity" have had training. And lots of successful DGU incidents have involved those with little or no training. As an instructor, I like to think it matters, but I haven't seen much correlation between training and success in the field, until we get up to stuff like Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, DTI, etc.
 
Constitution says nothing about the Government setting up criteria to allow one Citizen to own a gun, and prevent another from doing so.
Click to expand...

But he didn't say that. The title of the thread is mandatory training for CCW not gun owner ship. I understand the "The Constitution didn't say it" arguement but we have to take state mandated training to drive a car on the the streets our tax dollars built. IMHO I want to know that the person carrying a pistol A) knows the law and B) has taken some type of safety training. Hey we all talk about how better we are we firearms than the police let's prove it.
 
We have the Second Amendment to insure Citizens the right to defend themselves from Government. To allow Government to set rules and pass legislation to curb or limit gun ownership is de facto, against the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Woa woa wee woa I would argue the opposite (and win, legally) but thats not the point.

Suppose the 2nd had a clause in it stating "infringed, provided, that any law mandating training in the use of arms shall not be an infringement"...

Take the legal out of it and concentrate on the issue.


WildwhichispracticalandmoralAlaska ™
 
I think that if you are going to carry concealed you must have some training. They require classes here in Texas for initial CCW and renewal. Some of the folks I attended with were dangerous and were not allowed to pass. Their basic firearms handling endanged everyone on the range. besides this class taught me I can shoot someone tagging my building or one I am in control of.

:)

david
 
I don't oppose the mandatory training, in fact I'm in favor of it. It's how some of the states go about it and the corrupt ways they hand the training contracts out to their buddies. For example; I moved from Alabama to Tennessee in 1998 and had an Alabama CCL. I called about getting my Tenn. CCL and was told that I would have to go thru the Tenn training course before being issue one. I asked how long, what it entailed, etc. After I got that information I told the Tenn Hwy Patrol officer that I was talking to that I was a NRA certified Rifle and Pistol Instructor and Range Officer as well as a 21 year Air Force vet (Nam included) qualified as expert marksman in both rifle and pistol. I asked if I could pay the fee and just take their test and fire the course. He promptly told me that my NRA qualifications and military experience weren't good enough for their requirements.:mad: A that point I had to laugh (which didn't help my case any) and tell him that I probably taught some of the instructors that were doing their training. Needless to say I didn't get my permit. In fact I didn't establish residence, I just commuted.
 
The answer to that is uniform standards then.

I took my CCW training in NY in 1976 I think....Of course fast forward it to 1996 and I had to do it all over again to get a CCW in Alaska.....ce la vie


WildthatswhythefedscanbegoodAlaska ™
 
Arizona requires an applicant to pass a basic proficiency test, but it is just that: basic. Five rounds slow fire from five yards, and five rounds slow fire from ten yards. Applicants must keep 70% (seven hits) inside the outer scoring rings (14x16 inches) of a TQ-15 target. It is suggested, but not required that applicants draw from a holster suitable concealed carry. (Doh, it’s a concealed carry permit!)

As much as I believe in training, good training, let alone mandatory, is not going to happen. In fact, decent training may be opposed from an unlikely source...

Arizona used to have a great course that was 16-hours long, to be conducted over two consecutive days. Instructors, who wanted to, were able to provide students with a lot of TTPs and trigger time. The course my son and I taught under the old lesson plan went closer to 20 hours, included a night shoot and we made sure everyone had a method of drawing from concealment regardless of carry type. Then the NRA lobbied our state legislature and the course was reduced from 16 to 8 hours to make “getting a permit easier.”

Now, when people call about a class, we tell them we teach the required 8 hours, but also want them to “voluntarily” attend a second day to work on shooting fundamentals and drawing from concealment (without paying a dime more). There are few takers. The bottom line is that most folks, while they want the paper, don’t want to put in the time for training. IMO, their priories should be reversed.

Denny
 
It was far easier for me to get my CCW than my Driver's License.

The part of the class that involved actually firing a gun, we discharged one round; so the instructor could determine if we were careless.

While I did learn a bit about the law, etc., the class was a joke!

Some industries are not heavily regulated by government because they do a good job of policing and regulating themselves.

Regarding firearms, people should seek training and it should be the common expectation of a good and reasonable gun owner; but not mandated by the government.
 
BamaRifleman, but that draws to my mind what my stance is: it's your dad's job to train you in firearms usage. Mine did, his dad did, his dad before him did, etc. Every cousin of mine's did, etc.
 
I've lost count of the number of people I've sent to the NRA basic pistol class.
While I'd prefer that people do a lot of things, I can't justify MAKING them do so.
It's sort of like a question I asked awhile back where I wanted people to consider the full implications of mandatory gun ownership.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top