Too Easy To Get?

R

roy reali

New member
In order to obtain a driver's license tests must be passed. There is a written test and a behind-the-wheel test. Makes sense. It is for our safety that the state must make sure that a driver can safely operate a car and obey traffic regulations. Driving is dangerous enough, but imagine the carnage if driver licenses were passed out without any testing.

Licenses are required to fly airplanes, rewire houses, cut hair, and just about everything that requires safety consideration. Most of these licenses require some sort of test, either written, practical, or both.

Hunting requires a license too. Most states have some sort of hunter safety requirement that includes classroom instruction and a safety quiz. To be honest, I like this concept. After all, the tools of hunters are deadly and I really hope that others that I may share the forest or field with don't put a bullet in my gut.

I know that in Nevada and California there is no mandate for any hands-on shooting test to get a hunting license. A marksman's test if you will. If any state requires such a test, please let me know. Some other countries do require a pratical, marksman's test to get a hunting license.

http://www.nordichunters.org/?id=391

Finland is one such country. It makes sense to me. If you can't hit what you are aiming at, you shouldn't be hunting. It would be like a driver that can't tell the difference between the gas pedal and the brake pedal. Until that driver learns, no driving. A hunter that can't hit the side of a barn likewise. But I also think this would have another benefit.

We all can admit there are many slob hunters out there. Unfortunately we all run into them. I think a shooting test might weed these folks out. If you are a serious hunter you take marksmanship seriously too. If your hunting goal is to shoot up the country side with your buddies, you probably don't take the time to practice your craft.

So, what do you all think? Is getting a hunting license too easy? Should it be tougher? Should a marksmanship test be part of the requirement?
 
Same here in Missouri no shooting skills test, but a comprehensive text,(all day class). The Missouri certification is accepted nationwide I believe.
 
Not sure if it has changed but PA did not require a shooting test. In class stuff only. I have been looking and trying to figure out when I can get my 12 year old to one. Wish I had her more than every other weekend. Now I am not too sure how into hunting she is any more.

We never even went out to learn how to track. I hear some do that now. I learned more reading books on my own than I did in the class. Of course that was 22 years ago.
 
We just had a HSC class show up at our shotgun club for live fire practice - not sure of marksmanship or just familiarization was required - as most of the kids were getting licenses for deer, not birds
 
re:troymclure

louisania requires live fire familiarization, but you use a pellet gun.
Click to expand...

At least that is something.

I think we even it owe to the animals that we make sure that hunter has the ability to put a bullet where it will do most good.
 
Boy is this a sword to swing. I would agree that it would make sense to do basic firearms training but why limit it to hunters? Then again looking at the list of occupations and the driving, these are all privileges, shooting (RTKABA) is a right. It makes a difference and I've always had a hard time with this myself. Many times I wish someone at the range or shooting area could be made to take a basic firearms course (mostly for safety). But its a right.... that shall not be infringed. This is a really tough one in my books, wish I had an answer.
 
Too Easy?

Thanks for sticking to hunting licenses - I was not sure if you were going to ask if guns were too easy to get, and if people should have to take a test to get one. (No test for ownership, I contend, based on the "right" vs. "privilege" argument - your Second Amendment Right, versus a privilege bestowed upon you and given to you by the government - which they then can regulate and even take away as easy as they gave it to you if they want to - such as your driver's license).

Of course, we all have heard the bad hunter stories about those who do not know the difference between this or that, cannot hit the broadside of a barn, thought the farmer's holstein was a deer, etc. Those are horrible.

However the call to regulate hunting to remove the "bad ones" could easily be applied to mere gun ownership - such as saying some people know so little about guns, they should have to pass tests to own one, etc., etc.

Hunter education may be great, but ever consider that it is maybe just another foot in the door to gun ownership regulation in general?

Our forefathers did not have to pass a test to hunt a deer, did they?

The slippery slope is sometimes difficult to see before it is too late to stop the fall!
 
Arizona requires those under 14 to complete a hunter's safety course before they can legally hunt big game.

There's no hunter safety requirement for those 14 years old and up.

Quite to the contrary, I see little need for more governmental intrusion into people's lives by further restricting such things.

I've taken the Az hunter's safety course twice; once in 1979, and once in 1994.

The last two hunting accidents I heard about in Az were several years ago, and they happened within a week of each other.

Both were on spring turkey hunts. One was caused by a law enforcement officer who definitely should have known better. The other was caused by a man who'd just completed the Az hunter safety course a week or so prior to the "accident". Both occurances ended in death for the person shot, IIRC.

Arizona has one of the lowest hunter "accident" rated in the country, but they do happen. To be honest, I'm not sure how much the HSC's help.

Common sense can't be taught, and I'm seeing more and more people without it.

Who knows?

Daryl
 
I get all I need of the government everywhere I turn. Life is inherently dangerous. Some people will live and some won't. In the old days that was understood. You can't legislate common sense anymore than you can pass a law that everyone has to have an IQ of 140 or above. It used to be a Fathers job to teach hunter safety. Now it's the governments. I just don't get how many people agree with this more government mentality.:confused:
 
No. There should be NO requirements to have government mandated testing to excerise a basic right. Daryl has it right that AZ has had open carry ever since we became a territory, much less a state, and our current accidental shooting list is a bit shorter than others, TTBOMK. So, what to be done? Easy, look up Arizona Gun Safety course, a piece of current AZ law that gives an option to school districts around AZ to have a firearms safety course in school, following the state guideline. Students MUST safely discharge a firearm at a target on a live range to pass. Make this a mandatory class, (mandatory for schools, elective for students, like Drivers' Ed), and see if it helps. For those students who want to hunt or shoot, this would be a great thing, plus demystifying the firearms, maybe eliminating some of the Hollywood garbage currently festering between young ears.
As for requiring testing, other than what I just suggested, no, but every person applying for a hunting license should get pamphlets stapled to the application advertising local ranges/classes/etc.
Darly, I took my first NRA HSC in Tucson in 1977, loved it, ended on the range with live fire and a demonstration of big game rifle power plus a machine gun shoot.
 
Right or Privilege?

Is hunting a right or a privilege? If it was a right, then no license or regulations are needed. In fact, violating certain game laws can have your hunting privileges taken away.

Those of you worried about government intrusion have missed that boat a long time ago.

In Nevada, to get a CCW, a shooting test is required. It isn't difficult, but if you fail it, your right to carry concealed is gone. If someone draws to fire in a SD situation, you don't want the kid playing across the street in the park to be the one shot.

Again, I do think that some hunters need to be weeded out. Maybe a shooting test isn't the answer. Maybe someone will have a better idea.
 
Maybe someone will have a better idea.
Click to expand...

How bout a reading/ comprehension test.

Last two-three season's can't even enjoy an organized hunt on my own property without running into trespasser's. Posting property seems to mean nothing.

In the State of Ohio, it's law you have on your person, written permission to hunt private property you're on. It's the responsibility of the hunter to know boundary lines of property he/she has permission to hunt.

I've been stopped by ODNR on neighbors property(have written permision) and not once asked for proof of such. Why have laws on the books if they're not inforced:confused:.

As far as licensing goes, in Ohio, all 1st time hunters must pass a hunters' safety course. Taking my four children was a pleasure and I learned something every time I went. Guess we're never to old to learn:D.
 
Last edited:
I'd be all for it providing.

1.Tests include shooting with iron sights (no scopes for everything)

2. Some sort of PHYSICAL TEST unless your disabled or a minor. If your to corpulent or lazy to be able to drag a deers weight at least a hundred yards then you have no business hunting (weeds out those who wont even get off the quad to hunt, and makes helps to ensure less kills are abandoned).

But this aside what we all REALLY NEED is MORE HUNTERS, yes theres morons in every batch but those will never be avoided.

Less hunters you have, the less hunting there will be.

Think about it.
 
Last edited:
not here

I read that such things are done in Europe, but please...........not here.

Yeah, I have seen lots of moronic gun handling, and some notoriously poor shooting........but I want no more gov't than necessary in my hunting.

We have already heard how far some would take this in this very post!
Iron sights only, a fitness standard,....... etc, etc. And that is from fellow hunters and shooters! A proficiency test will be just another tool to be used against the sport by the anti's.

And what about the cost? Licenses will have to go up. There will likely have to be an "accuracy czar" and a staff of testers and overseers.

Fathers, grandfathers, men........teach your families to shoot and be good sports and woodsmen, don't ask or expect Big Brother to do it.
 
Utah requires a 50-shot qualification with a rimfire rifle (or did last time I checked), for a Hunters' Education Certificate. If you can't qualify with the rifle, you can't pass the course. ...If you can't pass the course, you don't get to hunt.

However... I liken that qualification to small arms qualification for support personnel in the Air Force. It's a complete joke. Only the worst shooters, that have no understanding of the concept, will fail to qualify.

In 2006, I met the "Expert Marksman" requirements for support personnel.... while shooting on 3-round burst. :barf:
(We had some "obsolete" targets, and ammunition to make "disappear".)
 
Last edited:
Back when the DCM was strong,my high school had an indoor range and a rifle team.When I was in junior high,the YMCA had a DCM/NRA indoor junior program.I shot there as a kid.
This thread may have a point.I think,since the 2nd is part of the Bill of Rights,and a whole lot of stupid things have been mandated on the public education system,firearms proficiency and marksmanship fundamentals should be a high school graduation requirement.Everybody gets a hunter safety card and a CCW.
We could call it "Civics 101"
When do we figure out what Washington and Jefferson knew about increasing the size and power of government?
Each "wouldn't it be nice...." step toward the wonderous utopia the more enlightened,brilliant amongst us envision has one serious problem.
THERE IS NO LIBERTY IN UTOPIA. All things not forbidden are mandatory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top