Training to own a firearm?

I cannot contest the excellent reply by Frank, especially his reply to my quote. Very true.

But I wont support a minimum amount of training to exercise your 2A right for self defense. I believe that the anti's must not win the argument against further carry infringments based on a training level argument.
 
Perhaps I am missing something, but these three pages of getting training before being allowed to have a gun all seems centered around those of you for whom gun ownership only means SD/HD.

While I do have a few guns for that, the majority of my guns are for hunting and target shooting. Telling me I NEED training before I am allowed to buy a gun is just what the antis want us to do - divide and conquer ourselves.

While I understand that it is a good idea, making it mandatory is not; otherwise, let's ban stores from selling kitchen knives until you have passed a safety course - and the same for ladders - as those two items are responsible for more accidental injuries than any other items in the house.

Should responsible folks get training when getting into guns for the first time? Obviously.....making it some form of law and requirement seems to violate the 2A as I read it, no different than poll taxes

If I completely misread this thread's intent, my apologies, if I haven't, then some folks need a history lesson
 
I fully understand the benefits of training, especially for those who regulalry handle firearms and/or carry every day. However, as BigDinFL notes, requiring such training as a condition to own or carry (keep and bear) firearms is a an infringement on a protected right. Encouraging training is fine and is a good idea, but it seems to me that requiring it as precondition is a prohibited infringement and will remain so until the Constitution is amended.

It could be argued that is is within the enumerated powers of Congress to prescribe the level of training that the states are to provide for the militia, leaving it to the states to provide for the actual training. But requiring the training and requiring the states to provide such training would still be an infringement if it were a condition of ownership.

It seems to me that rather then being a condition of firearms ownership, it would need to be a separate requirement. Perhaps it would require Congress to declare that every legal resident (not just a citizen) who exercised his/her right to bear arms becomes, by that act, a member of the militia, and that all members of the militia must be trained by the State of residence in the handling and use of arms. Whether or not the right to keep and bear arms is exercised is strictly voluntary with no precondition except existing criminal or mental health related prohibitions. Keeping (owning) arms would not require training (though it would be encouraged) but bearing (carrying in public) would.

Just a thought.
 
the question to ask is not do we need to force training on everyone if they want to buy a weapon, but what does the training need to do?

there are many posts on this forum and others were it is felt that the training provided by the us army, navy, airforce, marines, national guard, at basic training is INSUFFICIENT to qualify them to have a concealed handgun permit.
so if that level of training, even that offered to the MPs is useless, how are we going to determine what constitutes a proper training? basic training for mps gives them far more training and skills then the standard 200 dollar 8 hour chl class.

or do you want to make it so that if i want to get a little singleshot 22 for my kid, i and my kid need to spend a weekend at gunsite?
 
how are we going to determine what constitutes a proper training?

just brainstorming here...

IF training is required, perhaps basic gun safety training to purchase, and the "weekend at Gunsite" to carry in public?

For the first, put the burden on the seller. to provide the safety training with every sale. Cost included in the price of the firearm. The buyer can take the course or not, but pays for it either way.

To carry in public carries greater responsibility and might require one to have a higher degree of training in both safety and tactics.
 
alright I have not read the entire thread so I apologize ahead of time but...
1. there should not be any set prerequisite training for buying a gun, that's just asking for someone to pitch in an effort to make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns.

2. no two people learn the same. I'm a kind of guy that learns best, hands on with an instructor. on the other hand I've seen people that bumble an fumble their way to a failing score in instructor led courses only to read a book and instantly pick up a set of principles.

3. gun buddies help a lot but everyone is biased and have yet to meet anyone that doesn't talk out their rears about something firearms related, depending on the person and their hind end topics, this can severely undermine a newbs progress.

I recommend a good combination of whatever you learn best with.
 
alright I have not read the entire thread so I apologize ahead of time but...
1. there should not be any set prerequisite training for buying a gun, that's just asking for someone to pitch in an effort to make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns.

Completely agree, which is why I opened with that big IF ;)
 
Telling me I NEED training before I am allowed to buy a gun

For hunting, you do need a hunter safety class before you can buy the required permit for the game you wish to hunt unless you are old like me :) but I will take the class when my son is 12 just to keep up. It dont hurt....


Seriously, some of us were born with a hog leg in hand, many I know did not and ask for advise. I let them look and handle my guns, show them how each is loaded and unloaded and the way to carry it. Then they go off and get one that they like and understand.

Is like a car, you get a license to drive after you pass the test. But in the gun world who will pick the questions? or decide what is needed to pass the test?

That is what most folks will not agree upon.
 
Oh, there's more to it than that.

I don't care who picks the questions or decides what the answers should be. It's irrelevant, because self defense is a basic human right. It is not negotiable. It is not open to bureaucratic bafflegab. It is not acceptable to nibble away at the edges of this right.

In fact, that's kind of what our Constitution says. It says that our founders thought this basic human right to own and carry weapons was so important, so critical to the security of a free country, that they forbade forever anything that would nibble away at the edges of that broad right.

Just because it has been infringed already, does not mean it should be infringed a little more. That's stupid and wrong.

Also, I'm no elitist. Elitists want rules to prevent those people from getting more guns. You know those people. They're the ones who live in the crappy ghetto neighborhoods, who don't talk right, who dress different than "we" do. They're the ones who don't have spare cash for extra fees, people to whom a "low" fee of $50 is a serious hardship, people who work low-status retail jobs that prevent them from taking weekend classes because, you know, they're working and will get fired if they take the day off.

These are people who truly don't have time to wait for a class, like the woman who just managed to ditch the psycho ex who threatened to kill her if she ever left. She left him and now what should she do? Wait for the next class (two weeks away) and then another six weeks after that for the paperwork to arrive in the mail -- if she's lucky? The danger in that situation is highest right now, not two months from now, and who has the right to tell her that her life or her children's lives aren't worth defending? Or do you just want to send her down to city hall to fill out yet another piece of paperwork, to "expedite" her permission to exercise this basic human right -- and incidentally take another day off work, another day of paying for babysitting, another extra fee?

Did you know there are some counties in New York where the wait is literally one and a half years -- simply to get permission purchase a gun? I'm not talking about carrying it, I'm talking about buying one in the first place. With a wait like that, that woman is dead and so are her children, and the bureaucrats Don't. Care.

But I do. I despise any law that stops poor people, busy people, threatened people, frantic people, from buying the simple tools to protect their lives. A right delayed is a right denied.

What about hunting, what about target shooting, what about gun games? Look, I don't care what use you're going to put your firearm to. The firearm is, at its heart, a weapon. It should be protected and enshrined in law on that basis. Anything else you do with it is up to you, but the right to own and carry it goes back to its status as a weapon. (If they could outlaw lawn darts as 'too dangerous,' your 'sport rifle' isn't immune to that kind of nonsense either. But the right to protect your own life ... that's sacred.)

***​

And I still think that if you have the resources to do it, you're a fool if you don't go get some professional training.

pax
 
pax said:
. . . .The firearm is, at its heart, a weapon. It should be protected and enshrined in law on that basis. Anything else you do with it is up to you, but the right to own and carry it goes back to its status as a weapon. . . .
Outstanding post, pax. Let me add one note to this particular point. We hear lots of talk about hunting and shooting sports, "sporting purposes" and the like. I have seen lots of posts by gun owners about how "a gun is a tool," and I'm sure I've said the same thing. The 2A isn't about those. Let's take a quick peek at the text we all know and love:
Founding Fathers said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. U.S. Const, Amend. II
The 2A doesn't protect "shooting sports." It doesn't protect "hunting." It doesn't protect "tools." It protects arms.
 
pax said:
I don't care who picks the questions or decides what the answers should be. It's irrelevant, because self defense is a basic human right. It is not negotiable. It is not open to bureaucratic bafflegab. It is not acceptable to nibble away at the edges of this right.

It may not be acceptable to you, me, or most members of this forum, but I can point you to quite a few people who find it both acceptable and desirable, including a sitting president, 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and at least 4 sitting Supreme Court Justices. So yes, I do care who picks the questions and decides what the answers should be. (But as I said earlier, only IF there are going to be questions and answers ;) )
 
remember the case a few years back of a florida company that was training people to meet the state requirements for a concealed handgun permit, and were simply using airsoft to do it?

not every person setting themselves up as an instructor is able to give anything close to adequate training. i know an instructor that has been teaching for 10 years, and doesnt know you can fire 38 special in a 357...


if you make gunsite mandatory, you eliminate most of the population simply from carrying a handgun outside of the house. go price ammo these days, whats the minimum amount of ammunition you need to take along? magazines, etc. then getting their is going to be problematic.
what, cant afford a 900 dollar round trip on the airplane? oops, sorry timmy, judy, jane, and jack. guess you cant get your cpl. or even get a gun.

i can see it now... "spaghetti fundraiser so tiny tim can go to gunsite, dont worry we only need to raise 10,000"
 
First off, I'm new to this forum but not this issue. And agreed the right to self-defense is a human right. Also agreed that criminals by definition break the law, but hopefully they're not reading this thread.

However I can see no harm coming from a requirement to pass some form of recognized handgun training program to be licensed to carry in public (not talking about ownership, just carrying). In MI, we are an open carry state, which means that I had to pass a course to legally carry concealed- but any yahoo can open carry as much as he wants. Why don't the same standards apply? And as one of the previous posts said, while a training course may not help save your life, a lack of training will probably help get you killed.

My $.02.
 
theres limitations on open carry in michigan, there are jurisdictions that are allowed to prohibit the carrying of open carry handguns, but they cant touch a legally concealed handgun, they merely make it a lossely defined "brandishing" charge.


yeah some people shouldnt have a weapon, some people shouldnt be allowed to have children, some people cant be trusted to feed themselves with a spoon and a sippy cup.
but none of those really are regulated. have proof you passed your government mandated " i can flush the toilet program"?

or what about that small scandal in california were a county sherriff was giving rich people, and bigger actors a cpl simply by making them official members of the sherriffs posse wich allowed them to carry handguns, when the general public cant?

restrictions dont work. look how many people go to jail with their third drunk driving charge? or better yet, 13 driving with out a liscense convictions.. yet they still can buy a car.

to many legal issues come up with mandatory training ideology. most of them will always boil down to race/religion problems.

"what, you cant buy a gun if you dont belong to a church?"
 
I believe that if the State is to require any training, including for a concealed carry, that they should bear the burden of providing that training.

I know of a 'range' used by the local Sheriffs. And it is closed off to the public, and its outdoors at a rock quarry.

They should be available to the public. All facilities, and all training.
 
While, I'm a strong proponent of actively seeking and engaging in meaningful training, I abhor the idea that said training should be a requirement to excercise a Constitutional right.

The ability to carry a concealed weapon should be subject to a background check, no more. And that's more a selfishness on my part, because it is a convient way to avoid having to go through NICS for every gun purchase I make.

Training to purchase is even more asinine.
 
"if a person is not getting training, they should not own a firearm." Sounds like something a Chicago Democratic politician would legislate and impose on Illinois citizens statewide - making sure that the training was next to impossible to get.
 
Is like a car, you get a license to drive after you pass the test. But in the gun world who will pick the questions? or decide what is needed to pass the test?

That is what most folks will not agree upon.

Incorrect - driving is a PRIVILEGE, gun ownership is a RIGHT. Besides a license is nothing more than another form of taxation- it means at one time you passed a test of sorts somewhere. My road test when I first got my license consisted of pulling out of the parking lot, making 4 left turns going around the block and pulling back in straight into a space - no parking, no passing, nothing worth damn. Most state CCW tests aren't much better
 
Back
Top