SIGforum
CHL/CCW Should training be a requirement?

This topic can be found at:
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/830601935/m/3140056954

August 05, 2019, 07:59 PM
Expat
CHL/CCW Should training be a requirement?
The CCW thread in What's Your Deal got me going; not everyone must demonstrate firearms proficiency to obtain a CHL. Here in Oregon there is no range training or any proficiency requirement; take a class for a couple three hours, get your certificate and present same with your CHL application. Oregon is a Shall Issue state.

I am conflicted. Knowing many who have no formalized weapons handling training other than dumping a box or three of ammo in the hills every other month in the summer and hold a CHL is a bit disconcerting to me. I understand it's on them them get the training they need however a part of me feels it should be a required component of any CHL issue. And a part of me believes this would be a further abridgement of my 2A rights.

We're all fully aware weapons skills are highly perishable and that's why WE train regularly; I know full well this is not the case for the vast majority of the people I encounter, and if training was a requirement it's very doubtful it would be maintained after issue. And maybe it's none of my business, the vast majority of firearms owners probably have no training whatsoever...just spitballing.
August 05, 2019, 08:00 PM
alreadydead
I think they (chl) should shoot the same standard as basic leo.


__________________________
Keep your rotor in the green
The aircraft in trim
Your time over target short
Make it count
August 05, 2019, 08:08 PM
ZSMICHAEL
Yes. Demonstrate safe gun handling and a qualifying course involving shooting at three, five and fifteen yards. Should take less time than a driving test. A gun can be as dangerous as a car. LOL
August 05, 2019, 08:10 PM
DaBigBR
I used to fall into the mandatory training camp, but seeing how watered down a lot of it is, I really have come to appreciate the constitutional carry states. If you can possess it, you can pack it.
August 05, 2019, 08:14 PM
henryarnaud
quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Yes. Demonstrate safe gun handling and a qualifying course involving shooting at three, five and fifteen yards. Should take less time than a driving test. A gun can be as dangerous as a car. LOL


Except one does not have a Constitutional right to a car.

I'm in the Constitutional Carry camp.



"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Sherlock Holmes
August 05, 2019, 08:15 PM
smschulz
If you are of the mind that there should be any requirements (I prefer Constitutional Carry) then NO there should not be any training required but proficiency YES.
IF you have to have a license - must know the laws and be able to shoot.
Ultimately you have to be responsible for your actions.
August 05, 2019, 08:18 PM
Skins2881
quote:
Originally posted by alreadydead:
I think they (chl) should shoot the same standard as basic leo.


Isn't that like only 50-100 rounds a year?

To answer OP. No, while I don't like to say that, I realize that, that is a major infringement of Rights. First it's a right, do you have a classroom continuing education requirement to practice your religion or right to assemble? Summer courses on speech? No matter your skill level, you have a RTKBA period. Second it creates two classes, those that can afford to pay for their rights, and those that can't.

A rigorous 20 hour training course taught by ex military/security/police is expensive, annual qualifying even more so. Who would this hurt worst? A young father in the inner city with no choice but to live there, a grandma living on SS in a house in a neighborhood that has deteriorated over the years but can't move.

There are idiots on the road that passed a basic proficiency test. Do you trust your fellow drivers, always? A government administered testing agency would do nothing, but check boxes and be cover at a ridiculously expensive cost.



Jesse

A couple SIGs and a few others
August 05, 2019, 08:22 PM
KMitch200
quote:
Originally posted by DaBigBR:
If you can possess it, you can pack it.

This.
Constitutional carry all the way. I have a CCW permit but it should never be required.
Everyone is responsible for what they do. A permit doesn’t change that.


--------
After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.
August 05, 2019, 08:25 PM
bigmule
Yes and twice on Sunday.


...sleeping under the shade tree, out back of the tree house....
August 05, 2019, 08:26 PM
Strambo
I'm both a huge advocate of "Constitutional Carry" and training!

It shouldn't be required, but every/any responsible gun owner should get it.

I'm way more worried about getting hit by the criminal trying to kill me and my family then an un-trained CCW holder trying to protect themselves even if incompetently so.




“People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik

The world's a dangerous place, we can help! http://portlandfirearmtraining.com/
August 05, 2019, 08:27 PM
slosig
quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
Ultimately you have to be responsible for your actions.


This times 1000.

I firmly believe everyone should get training far beyond any requirements I’ve see for any state’s CCW/CHL/LTC. I also believe that there should be no training / qualification requirement, at least for a basic permit/license.

If a state wants to go with the enhanced permit model like Idaho and some other states where that enhanced permit/license requires some training and allows carrying in additional places, okay. (Though I prefer the “You’re a big boy/girl, act like it because you will be held responsible for your actions.” model.)
August 05, 2019, 08:28 PM
Balzé Halzé
quote:
CHL/CCW Should training be a requirement?


No.

And I'm not conflicted in the least with that answer


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
Family, Guns, Country

"My guns are always loaded."
~R.G. Justified

What whiskey will not cure, there is no cure.
August 05, 2019, 08:31 PM
Graniteguy
I would much rather see automobile operators receive additional/remedial training ! Big Grin
August 05, 2019, 08:31 PM
Expat
quote:
Originally posted by Skins2881:
To answer OP. No, while I don't like to say that, I realize that, that is a major infringement of Rights. First it's a right, do you have a classroom continuing education requirement to practice your religion or right to assemble? Summer courses on speech? No matter your skill level, you have a RTKBA period. Second it creates two classes, those that can afford to pay for their rights, and those that can't.

A rigorous 20 hour training course taught by ex military/security/police is expensive, annual qualifying even more so. Who would this hurt worst? A young father in the inner city with no choice but to live there, a grandma living on SS in a house in a neighborhood that has deteriorated over the years but can't move.

There are idiots on the road that passed a basic proficiency test. Do you trust your fellow drivers, always? A government administered testing agency would do nothing, but check boxes and be cover at a ridiculously expensive cost.


My prevailing sentiment to a tee. Thanks everyone!
August 05, 2019, 08:34 PM
Outnumbered
Absolutely not. My God-given right to protect myself and loved ones shall not be infringed. I practice because I want to & should, but should never have to. I have more concern of being harmed by a criminal than any untrained fellow CCL holder.
August 05, 2019, 08:35 PM
12131
No.
quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Q


2016 MAGA ---> 2020 KAG
* P228 factoids *


August 05, 2019, 08:36 PM
ZSMICHAEL
I feel proficiency is important. We have licenses for physicians, psychologists, dentists, engineers, pilots, barbers and electricians. Why not for those who carry firearms? I do not feel that demonstrating proficiency diminishes the rights of the second amendment. Or if you prefer just eliminate ALL licensing requirements.

Again, I respect those who do not agree.JMHO
August 05, 2019, 08:43 PM
braillediver
I never compare anything 2nd Amendment oriented to a drivers license or automobiles.

Compare the 2nd to Free Speech or Religious Freedom. When is it appropriate to curtail those freedoms?


____________________________________________________

The butcher with the sharpest knife has the warmest heart.
August 05, 2019, 08:43 PM
slabsides45
quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
If you are of the mind that there should be any requirements (I prefer Constitutional Carry) then NO there should not be any training required but proficiency YES.
IF you have to have a license - must know the laws and be able to shoot.
Ultimately you have to be responsible for your actions.


For me this is a hard argument to overcome. Require (at least initial) proficiency, if they can't shoot then they're a danger and need training until proficient. Then turn 'em loose.


________________________________________________

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
-Dr. Adrian Rogers
August 05, 2019, 08:52 PM
Expat
quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
If you are of the mind that there should be any requirements (I prefer Constitutional Carry) then NO there should not be any training required but proficiency YES.
IF you have to have a license - must know the laws and be able to shoot.
Ultimately you have to be responsible for your actions.


I hate the comparison to the DL. But at least an initial demonstrated proficiency is where my conflict lies.