Would you support mandatory training if...

P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
Would you support more involved mandatory handgun training classes if this set system would mean that all 50 states followed the same criteria and therefore offered CCW permits and recipricocity to all other states?

What I mean by "more involved" is making all people seeking a CCW permit attend a thourough 3 day course. Day one day would be safety and handling training. Day two would be mechanics, maintainence, accident prevention and legal/storage training. Then, finally, day three would be actual range/shooting qualification with emphasis on handling (no requirements on real accuracy).

The clases would have to be offered at a variety of times and people would have to given options as to when to take the course and be given a certain period of time to attend all three classes.

Once completing the class and passing a background check (which is the norm now) you would be issued a DL type hard picture ID that was good nationwide.
 
Last edited:
I support most of your statements, but I do have an issue with the word mandatory.

Training to be a responsible firearm owner should be first on the mind of anyone looking to purchase a firearm, and it includes everything from care and maintenance, legal issues, live fire training, safe storage, ethics, and many other things.

Perhaps making it mandatory would allow more citizens the opportunity to get real training...but at the same time it sounds like it could be used as another 'hoop' to jump through just to exercise a constitutional right.
 
but at the same time it sounds like it could be used as another 'hoop' to jump through just to exercise a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
The classes would not be a requirement for purchasing or owning a handgun...only a requirement for a CCW permit.

If a stricter training course made it to where all 50 states allowed CCW permits, and honorered all other state's permits also, I would gladly jump through this "hoop."
 
No.

You cannot put a prior restraint on a fundamental right. The right in the 2A includes the right to BEAR (carry).

You have the right until you screw up and become a convicted felon, or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Lautenberg is blatently unconstitutional, IMO, taking the right away for misdemeanors and CIVIL, not criminal, domestic restraining orders.
 
NO!

I don't even support the notion that a person should need a permit to carry a weapon concealed in the first place.
In fact, it's nothing more than an anti-gun law.
It's soul purpose seems to be to make it more difficult for the average citizen to carry a weapon for personal protection.

Why should I, a law-abiding citizen without a criminal record, need to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

Why should anyone have the power to PERMIT me, or deny me, to exercise MY Constitutional Right?
 
Last edited:
We have drivers ed to get a drivers license but driving is an actual privilege, not a right.

The only mandatory I would like is for every school to teach a class on firearms
 
No!

Although I've had training and I think it would be a good thing for many, mandating it throws up road blocks to those that cannot afford it or do not want it.
I once spoke about this training requirement to an NRA regional representative for concealed carry permits. He told me that there was no evidence that states that required training for obtaining a CWP had any lower rate of accidents or unjustified shooting then those without the requirement. He made the point that many of these mandates merely throw up road blocks and effectively disarm those who either cannot afford or don't want to obtain the training. Licensing, gun owner registration cards, permits(all), and the associated fees for them are more about a tax to discourage gun ownership and use then about avoiding crime or reducing accidental or neglegent shootings.
2Seventy
 
No, the right to carry is just that: a right. I don't have to meet any pre-arranged requirements to exercise my right to speak freely, have a trial by jury, or practice my chosen religion. As long as I am a citizen and not a convicted felon then why should I have to take a class to exercise my right? Personally, I think Alaska and Vermont have the right idea in that no permit is required for a citizen with no felonies on their record.
 
NO,NO,NO ,NO The best answer to this is a Quote" The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Would you trust Chuchie Shummer,or Hitlery Clinton to run this agency to over see the training program? I can not trust any elected offical with my life or my families lives. Will you trust them?
 
Although that may be better and a bit more convenient than what we have now, I don't agree with it. I don't think there should be any requirement for someone to get a permit to carry a weapon. So that may be nice for people moving from State to state and such. I just disagree with the idea of carry permits in general. It would be nice to just transfer your CCW to another state but it's something I don't like to begin with.
 
No. I didn't mind a one day course (Kentucky) that covered legal and hands on, but I am afraid that mandating longer courses becomes a gateway to those wanting CCW permits.
 
Would you support more involved mandatory handgun training classes if this set system would mean that all 50 states followed the same criteria and therefore offered CCW permits and recipricocity to all other states?
Click to expand...
Yes and no

While I would participate and welcome the added level of disqualifyers for the antis rhetoric, along with the privilege of being allowed to pay a fee to exercise my rights I would do it with an attitude.

And D-Ric902
Driving is only considered a privilege because the citizens allowed it to degrade to that level

I made that comment once and a member here set me straight and sent me on a quest to find the origins of the Driving Privilege fallacy. It was eye opening.
 
In our great grandfather's day, THERE WAS MANDATORY FIREARMS TRAINING FOR EVERYBODY AND GREAT GRANDFATHER WAS THE INSTRUCTOR.

Today, most fathers and mothers DO NOT teach their offspring gun handling/safety. If the peo[ple who are SUPPOSED to do something don't do it, then someone else will need to. That's unfortunate! Damned unfortunate, but true.

We have mandatory training to drive a car, operate most machinery where you work, swim in the deep end of the pool and just about every other activity where you can easily put yourself or other people in danger though your ignorance or stupidity.

If the parents of this country shirk their responsibility to teach their children how to safely use a gun, there MUST be someone else there to fill the gap.

If ya wanna know whose fault it is, look in the mirror.
 
YES. If it would get all States on the same page I would definately support it. I have heard all the arguements that the 2A gives us the right to bear arms, which it does, but let's face reality. Every State has it's own laws on what is needed to CCW, and screaming it's unconstitutional doesn't change that. At least if we could get a national policy.......
 
You know, I wonder why it is so easy to say that under no circumstance should there be any control over our "right" to bear arms (which apparently means that you can walk around with a pistol without anybody knowing it) yet we all agree that a convicted felon should not be allowed to even own a firearm. I realize that committing crimes will limit our "rights" but if we are so adamant that no restrictions whatsoever should be placed on our 2nd amendment rights, then why are we so willing to let them be restricted on others?

In case that didn't make sense; I don't feel that in any way does a class restrict my constitutional rights. I think it is a good idea, and should be implemented as soon as possible.
 
MANDATORY means government-required, basically, in this argument, whether federal or state.
I wouldn't support mandatory anything when it comes to 2A rights, except the mandatory requirement of "de gubmint" to NOT INFRINGE on the RKBA!

Training;
Recommend, note as desirable, reward for having, yes.
Make mandatory (and by whose authority?)? No.
 
Although I've had training and I think it would be a good thing for many, mandating it throws up road blocks to those that cannot afford it or do not want it.
Click to expand...

If somebody doesn't want a permit badly enough to go through the classes, I'm not sure I want them to have one. But cost is an issue, which brings up my only qualifier...it should be paid for by the government. Otherwise it just throws up a financial roadblock to a permit, which is little different to me than a poll tax.

Except...

Why should I, a law-abiding citizen without a criminal record, need to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

Why should anyone have the power to PERMIT me, or deny me, to exercise MY Constitutional Right?
Click to expand...

The second amendment does not give you the right to carry a concealed weapon. It gives you the right to bear arms. Which can just as easily be done in the open. So assuming open carry (as well as carry in a vehicle, etc., etc.) is allowed, restricting concealed carry does not infringe on your right to bear arms.

Yes, I realize that this (open carry) is not the case everywhere. But we're already in hypothetical land, so whatever. Provided open carry is legal without a permit (as well as carry in a vehicle), I have no problem with mandatory permit classes...provided they cost no money and are offered on flexible schedules (and without limitations on enrollment).

Preferably "temporary" permits should be issued as well, good for a limited time (say, one month) until classes are completed. Because telling somebody who needs one for defense like yesterday (due to a current threat) that they can't carry for a month (or even a week) isn't exactly reasonable either.

Also, military service should qualify for a waiver, at least for the safety portion (if not the legal portion), because Lord knows I've had more than enough firearms training. I'm not going to learn anything new there.

Of course, we could flesh this idea out all day and it wouldn't matter anyway...because there's a big ol' state out west (and a couple more back east) that will never let it happen. Ever. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top