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.

I think they (chl) should shoot the same standard as basic leo.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes and twice on Sunday.

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.

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.)

quote:

CHL/CCW Should training be a requirement?

No.

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

I would much rather see automobile operators receive additional/remedial training !

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!

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.

No.

quote:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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

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?

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.

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.