quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
are there any other constitutionally guaranteed rights that you have to be trained and qualify to use?

No, and none are subject to having to be trained before they kick in, but they are all better if you learn how to use them.

Maybe the concealed handgun permit process should set up some incentive for proficiency. The more proficiency shown, the longer your concealed carry permit is good for, or the lower the fee?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
No arguing but: training costs money. Should only those who can afford training be licensed to carry? Poor people, well, tough luck, call 911.

Meh. People seem to afford everything they want within their realm. We have the fattest poor people on the planet.

I do not think you should have to have a government permission slip to exercise your Rights.

But,

Your argument ranks right up there with "for the children" in my book. This isn't the Dust Bowl. "Poor" people all seem to be able to afford new iPhones with little or no effort. And why wouldn't they? It is important to them. To make the claim that "poor people" have to be denied a Right for the basis of being "poor" is pretty silly. This isn't West Africa, and the needs of the "poor" get trotted out at any photo op for any number of lefty reasons. They always drag out little Timmy who, thanks to their government hand out, they get to eat every day. And if the mean old republicans had their way, little Timmy would starve. Republicans hate Timmy. Republicans hate poor people. So, it must be natural to drag out being "poor" on the topic, when in fact, the "poor" seem to afford the things that are important to them in this country. And if nothing else, at least they would have a skin in the game this way.

I wish Constitutional Carry would pass in more places.

"But"

Oh give me break. There are indeed legitimate "poor people" out there who budget necessities, and believe me, firearm training probably doesn't fit in the budget. I don't even get the point of your post. Of course people should get as much training as possible, but just because someone decides to buy a PlayStation for his child instead of getting a private firearm instruction doesn't mean he should be denied any right whatsoever.

For the children my ass.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
are there any other constitutionally guaranteed rights that you have to be trained and qualify to use?

No, and none are subject to having to be trained before they kick in, but they are all better if you learn how to use them.

Maybe the concealed handgun permit process should set up some incentive for proficiency. The more proficiency shown, the longer your concealed carry permit is good for, or the lower the fee?

My carry license is good for my lifetime. I don't need to show proficiency nor am I required to do so, which is as it should be. However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't have some proficiency, and I do.

This whole thread is ridiculous. My right to self defense has no predication on my training or proficiency. “WOLVERINES!”

As a NRA basic pistol instructor concentrating on CCW instruction, I am seeing no problem with those folks who carry despite not being competent shooters.

What I do see is generally the not competent shooters do not carry.

the NRA should have income based fee for training or the gun manufacturers could provide free courses what better way to get your product in the hands of new shooters

I'm guessing you haven't driven the back roads of Arkansas, Louisiana or Mississippi .

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
I'm guessing you haven't driven the back roads of Arkansas, Louisiana or Mississippi .

That's exactly where I am talking about. Kentucky,Tennessee, rural Southern Illinois, or the Missouri bootheel is no different that any of the other more rural states.

The idea that we have "poor people" that just can't afford this or that, isn't grounded in reality, once you remove the emotion and the "for the children" and "OMG defend his children" crap. People that want to claim this have to find a way to polarize the conversation, because the argument won't stand on its own. Or, they have a strong opinion on the matter, but they really don't know any poor people besides the ones that Pelosi trots out when they need a political prop.
We in this nation can afford the things we choose within the realm of where we are. Can everyone afford a Ferrari? Of course not. But, this issue is no different than any other soft bigotry of low expectations that people can afford similarly priced items such as XBOXs, or iPhones, but they can't afford to defend themselves. The same false argument is made of inner city blacks and voting, that some how they are too poor, or too stupid to vote. Which is also not true.

You should not have to have a government permission slip to have or carry a gun. But, the idea that the "poor" can't afford this or that is pretty silly and isn't grounded in reality in 2018.

As a matter of fact, in rural Eastern Kentucky where people are the most "poor", they seem to have multiple guns in every household, and they carry guns everyplace they go. Perhaps someone from here needs to pay them a visit to tell them they are WAY TOO POOR to be exercising their Rights? Those folks seem to still find the money to do what is important to them. Strange, how that works?

Although the thread drifted a bit I want to thank everyone who took the time to read and comment here.

The issues I raised in the original post are real and are often the topic of conversation among firearms instructors. Plus I assure you these issues are in the minds of the people who write licensing laws. For example, you cannot have a conversation about reciprocity between states without it including a discussion of what training is required for the "other" state's license. One of the reasons I am apprehensive about a national concealed carry reciprocity act is that it would almost certainly include a training standard. I don't think I want the Federal government that far into my business relating to firearms.

The diverse opinions expressed by you folks pretty much reflect what I have heard from friends and associates. We'll see what happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:

The problem that nags me is that there are thousands of people walking around with a CWFL carrying concealed handguns that they are not competent with. In general this does not create a problem because the people who have CWFL's are law abiding and responsible adults. Bottom line is, having a CWFL does not equate to competence.

Who are you or anyone else to decide what standards one should have to be able to exercise a God given right? I'll tell you what the standard should be...you are a law-abiding individual born on this planet. Period.

quote:

...at the same time I often wish there was a more stringent training requirement for the license.

Words can't describe just how much I disagree with this notion.

quote:

For the time being we still have to rely on the individual's sense of responsibility to attain competence, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Right answer.

Perfect response from Balze, I agree with him 100% on this.