Mandatory Training for CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wa,
It's not acceptable to me nor, I suspect, the majority of rational thinkers on this forum. I'm totally in favor of mandatory training for CCW. The CC course in Texas focuses primarily on the laws governing CC. In other words, it prepares you to pass the written test. There is very little on firearm safety, and zip on situational awareness etc. Unfortunately, the whole CCW process has become a perfunctory, profit centered exercise for most licensed instructors.
I would take this discussion a step further and suggest that in addition to mandatory training, that firearm ownership itself require a level of intelligence testing.
For example, went to the local gun shop today. There was a guy, with his wife and two year old son. The guy just completed a legal purchase of a Kel- Tec 380. Before, he finished paying, he handed it to his wife who swept the room with it, while dry firing several times! Then the mother handed it to the 3 YEAR OLD SON. Then like his "Mother", he swept the room, dry firing the whole time. To the shop owners credit, he immediately retreived the gun, and refused to complete the transaction.
How do we keep guns out of the hands of idiots, without mandatory training and minimum IQ requirements?
 
You asked "Why?" so here are my reasons why:

1. If you need a permission slip, it's a privilege, not a right. I know you don't want to deal with the constitution, but, in reality, all said document does is to RECOGNIZE rights that already exist. Do you believe we have a right to own a firearm, or, in your mind, is it a privilege?

2. Because I think freedom is a good thing. I also fully understand that freedom and safety are often at odds with each other. That said, any asshat that is going to get a gun and carry it with no training, then go do something dangerous, stupid, or both, is likely going to do it anyhow whether or not your proposed mandatory training is implemented.

3. History has shown me that governments have an alarming tendency to prohibit weapons from private, civilian ownership. I can point to several modern nations that used to be ripe with the shooting sports and freedom, and now that freedom is gone. I would ask you WHY I should believe the US would be any different than the UK or Australia one we start the journey down the slippery slope??? What reason is there for me to believe power given to the government to regulate my ability to own a firearm through mandatory training would not be abused?
 
What about protection for the innocent folks who are confronted daily with those folks armed with a dangerous weapon who " lack the moral fortitude and common sense" we all agree are the hallmarks of the responsible gun owner.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see an example of what right to protection they have. I know it's difficult to understand how I could be against mandated training, but for training in general. But, I don't believe I can explain it any more clear than I already have.


There be the horns of the dilemma you have hoisted your flagpole on (nice mixed metaphors, huh)....you admit that UNTRAINED folks lack moral fortitude and "common sense", but have no problems with letting those folks willy nilly carry a deadly weapon, when they are primae facie unqualified to.
Click to expand...

Much like there are untrained drivers on the road, who can't read the signs, talk on their cell phones, read the newspaper, do their make up, and dance all while going blissfully 20mph over the speed limit. If the govt can't manage that program and they can see it. I see no need for them to mange a program for something that they can't see.
 
Wa,
It's not acceptable to me nor, I suspect, the majority of rational thinkers on this forum. I'm totally in favor of mandatory training for CCW. The CC course in Texas focuses primarily on the laws governing CC. In other words, it prepares you to pass the written test. There is very little on firearm safety, and zip on situational awareness etc. Unfortunately, the whole CCW process has become a perfunctory, profit centered exercise for most licensed instructors.
I would take this discussion a step further and suggest that in addition to mandatory training, that firearm ownership itself require a level of intelligence testing.
For example, went to the local gun shop today. There was a guy, with his wife and two year old son. The guy just completed a legal purchase of a Kel- Tec 380. Before, he finished paying, he handed it to his wife who swept the room with it, while dry firing several times! Then the mother handed it to the 3 YEAR OLD SON. Then like his "Mother", he swept the room, dry firing the whole time. To the shop owners credit, he immediately retreived the gun, and refused to complete the transaction.
How do we keep guns out of the hands of idiots, without mandatory training and minimum IQ requirements?
Click to expand...

Since we are talking about rational thinking now. Step back and re-read your post. There are already laws in place to cover the scene you witnessed.
Also, since we're veering back into the legal side of it. The 2A doesn't say you need an IQ test. And the constitution doesn't guarantee a safety bubble around you.
 
I think most (all you can hope for in any real scenario!) people who bother to get a CCW license are not idiots and are trying to do the right thing. The idiots/beegee's don't bother. How much Gun Control will you accept? I generally agree with you WilditsoundslikeguncontroltomeAlaska, but not on this.
That being said, I went through the Texas CHL class, which requires a 50 round proficiency test, but I don't consider that adequate for myself and fully intend to get more training. 54 years old and have owned/shot/hunted since I was 12, but never in a "tactical" situation. I do need training.
 
The rest of us are the IQ test. Eventually, that moron who is exercising his "God Given right" to bear arms will slip up and either get hemmed up by the Big Government or mowed down in a hail of bullets because he felt threatened somehow and pointed that willy nilly pistol of his at the wrong individual. I am "the wrong individual";) People in this country expect handouts and support in disaster and who knows what eles from the Government yet they Have an acid trip when a guidline is set forth to help protect them. I am not blind to the incrementalist bull**** being legislated on a daily basis but Barring any truly restrictive or unreasonable demands, I agree with a Standard of training. Someone said "Either we are equal or we are not" (yeah I know who said it):D
 
I would support it, as I support mandatory hunter training in Texas.

You can get up to a one year exemption for the hunting safety course, you must only take it once in your adult life if you are younger than 35 or some magic number.

Please keep in mind I am talking about mandatory training for CCW, not for firearms purchasing in general. Just like CCW training the only rule would be the state sets minimum standards and NRA Instructors must teach the course.

Nothing wrong with that.
 
I think some of y'all are confusing the concepts of training and testing, assuming that training comes with some sort of skill testing.

There was a Supreme Court decision several years ago on environmental impacts. A group was suing because a ski resort was going to be put in and it would have a negative environmental impact on the immediate area. The court ruled that the law said that the determination for approval to build was based on making informed decisions and not that the decisions had "correct" or "proper."

I personally think people should be exposed to some safety and proficiency training. They may opt not to follow the training after receiving it, but at least they would be provided with some of the critical insights needed.

I am fairly shocked by the number of folks who show up for concealed carry classes (here in Texas that I have attended) and who not only don't know the 4 rules of gun handling, don't even have the concepts as part of their common sense regimes. The actual firing qualifications are so easy that many first time shooters manage to pass on their first try. Heck, if you shoot well enough at 3 and 7 yards, you can pass without even hitting the last set of shots at 15 yards. The result is that we have a goodly number of people that can shoot well enough to pass the test, but who do not really have much insight at all about handling, carrying, shooting, or applying in a defensive shooting situation, but they are legal.
 
The result is that we have a goodly number of people that can shoot well enough to pass the test, but who do not really have much insight at all about handling, carrying, shooting, or applying in a defensive shooting situation, but they are legal.
Click to expand...

Which IMO makes requiring that training nothing more than a feel good measure. By your own account the required training not very effective or informative. It's simply a feel good measure that was put in place to get the bill passed.

Unless people are serious about their training, it doesn't matter what training you make mandatory the majority will go into it with the attitude that it's a means to an end and could care less about the information being passed.
 
Does testing make training effective and informative? That seems to be what you have implied since I simply removed testing from training regimes.

By my account, the training may not be effective or informative if the shooter decides not to learn.

I understand your point of view. It would not matter what training was mandated, you would argue against it. So even if it was top notch free training and not "feel good" training, you would still be opposed to it because it was mandated. Based on your posts above, little of the training anyone is getting in law enforcement and the military is good enough anyway.
 
Not only mandatory training - must re-qualify each year that permit is carried.

Because of money, time restraints, personnel to hold such classes, it is unrealistic to believe this is possible.

But in my view, this type of training would be beneficial for those who ccw.

12-34hom.
 
As a florida resident I know the training required does little. As for an IQ test... Bring it on! Lets add a gun teardown test... once again I can do that! accuracy? Got it! Now why not add a live fire situational test, target comes rushing up flips around, momma and baby don't shoot!!!, next target is the BG, flips around with a scowling pistol wielding thug... BANG! But wait a few seconds and he will run... don't shoot him in the back!!!
I feel we already have too many regulations that are either ineffective or un-inforced!
Brent
 
Something I've noticed about just about every comment made on this topic is -- that folks are not making any distinction between "training" in the CCW laws of their jurisdiction and "training" in the tactical/practical sense.,

In order to get a driver's license you need to demonstrate a mimimum level of understanding of the motor vehicle laws, and a minimum proficiency in the handling of an automobile. As that relates to CCW, it sounds like being able to paraphrase the biggie issues like "when is use of lethal force justified?" and "name three places where X-state law prohibits CCW".

Everything else is an issue of personal responsibility. If you want to carry without ever practicing different scenarios, OK. If you think that you are short on training if you do not shoot IPSIC/IDPA matches twice a week, OK.

If the time ever comes that your behavior when CCW-ing results in a criminal charge being placed against you, you will need to show that in fact you were compliant with the law. (I know, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but we know how the system really works.) How much training you did or did not have is not going to be an issue. Was it a "good shoot" or not is not going to be an issue. All that will matter is did you or did you not violate the law.

Because that is going to be the question to be answered, I say I support CCW applicants being required to know the basic laws.

I have problems with needing to pass any type of skill/ability test, if only because annecdotal reports suggest that "most" folks who CCW will never draw, let alone fire, their firearm. If that situation were to change, and folks with CCWs used their firearms on a daily basis as do most folks with a driver's license use an automobile, then I might support a practical demonstration requirement. But right now it's more like folks with a CCW have a car in the garage but never drive it. (Hope you understand the analogy.)

stay safe.

skidmark
 
CCW Training

I tried to stay out of this one but oh well. I teach the class here and I know for a fact that at least 85 to 90 percent of the people that take the class will never shoot their weapon again after they quailfy. Thats ten rounds folks! If you where to ask them they will tell you that they are now quailified to carry their gun and defend their lives or that of their loved ones. Thats horse pucky and you all know it.
If the SHTF happens to one of these folks I hope me and mine are as far away from it as possible. Cause it ani't gona be pretty. Most here have said they don't want any training made manditory well if this happens and it's your rear end that happens to be in the crowd and they just happen to hit and kill you or someone you love your next thing I'll sue their the hell out of them but will that bring back you or your? But what do I know I see and hear it all the time.
 
So you are perfectly happy with untrained folks willy nilly CCWing.?

You know, up here, someone who has never shot a gun can CCW...any ninja can come in, buy a gun, get a lesson on how to load it, and walk out and carry it concealed for self defense...

That acceptable in a modern society?
Click to expand...

New Hampshire is one of the oldest "Shall Issue" states and has never required training to CCW. This means untrained people who have never shot a gun are freely allowed to CCW for the low price of $10 for 4 years, and this has been the case for decades.

Untrained folks willy nilly CCWing has been a non-issue during that time. I'm sorry to inform you that reality simply hasn't shown there to be any truth behind whatever paranoid delusions you have about untrained gun carriers accidently mowing down innocent people with thier wreckless gun handling.

So, again, what's the point of making training mandatory other than to regulate for regulation's sake?
 
I teach the class here and I know for a fact that at least 85 to 90 percent of the people that take the class will never shoot their weapon again after they quailfy.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that 85 to 90 percent of the people probably won't be fulltime gun carriers, either. Those that do carry daily will likely be the ones who continue to go to the range and who might even seek out further training from professional instructors. It's a self-correcting problem that doesn't need to be regulated.
 
I understand your point of view. It would not matter what training was mandated, you would argue against it. So even if it was top notch free training and not "feel good" training, you would still be opposed to it because it was mandated. Based on your posts above, little of the training anyone is getting in law enforcement and the military is good enough anyway.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. As long as the government mandates training, permits and charges fees for the privilege of carrying those are infringements on our right to bear arms. I've just reached a point where I will no long "compromise" on gun rights. Feel free to give your rights away, but please stay away from mine.
 
I tried to stay out of this one but oh well. I teach the class here and I know for a fact that at least 85 to 90 percent of the people that take the class will never shoot their weapon again after they quailfy. Thats ten rounds folks! If you where to ask them they will tell you that they are now quailified to carry their gun and defend their lives or that of their loved ones. Thats horse pucky and you all know it.
If the SHTF happens to one of these folks I hope me and mine are as far away from it as possible. Cause it ani't gona be pretty. Most here have said they don't want any training made manditory well if this happens and it's your rear end that happens to be in the crowd and they just happen to hit and kill you or someone you love your next thing I'll sue their the hell out of them but will that bring back you or your? But what do I know I see and hear it all the time.
Click to expand...


One more example of why mandatory training is utter BS.
 
So you are perfectly happy with untrained folks willy nilly CCWing.?
Click to expand...

Yup! It's never been an issue in NH.

You see, the state trusts its citizens, and figures they might just be responsible enough to go take a class without a boot hovering above their head.

Possibly an alien concept, I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top