No

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

And no concern of abridgement of 2A rights? Not trying to change minds, just trying to reconcile/affirm my own.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

If states that require little or zero training had epidemics of mishaps, then I'd give more weight to your argument.

This hasn't happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Expat:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

And no concern of abridgement of 2A rights? Not trying to change minds, just trying to reconcile/affirm my own.

Ignoring the obvious Constitutional argument, my problem is that you are leaving the decision of what constitutes training to a bunch of guys who can at best say that the screwed up state of affairs of government is “not their fault”.

If left to their own devices, CCW permits would cost thousands of dollars and only people trained like delta operators would be allowed to carry. And they would make money off of it some how.

No thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

Said someone who has never been to CHL/CCW training.
“If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure”

We shot a barn door size target from 7 feet to demonstrate skill under pressure.
Seriously the only skill I demonstrated was my ability to sit in a chair for 8 hours and shoot a huge target.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

In other words, you believe it is not a right to own and carry a weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Expat:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

And no concern of abridgement of 2A rights? Not trying to change minds, just trying to reconcile/affirm my own.

Ignoring the obvious Constitutional argument, my problem is that you are leaving the decision of what constitutes training to a bunch of guys who can at best say that the screwed up state of affairs of government is “not their fault”.

If left to their own devices, CCW permits would cost thousands of dollars and only people trained like delta operators would be allowed to carry. And they would make money off of it some how.

No thank you.

The thousands of dollars argument is a tired one that isn't supported in any jurisdiction I'm aware of and likely you too.

Currently a number of locations require a basic proficiency class before you can receive your permit. Can you give me a single example of 1. A state or county that has these thousands of dollars cost to obtain a permit and 2. An example of a proficiency requirement that you thinking is designed so that people can't ever qualify? I think your task will be a fruitless one.

There is absolutely nothing infringing on your right to own a firearm by requiring those who want to CCW to decide some competant ability to use the gun before they carry in public.

How to do a reload, clear a weapon, basic safe handling, a bit of proficiency at say 3, 5 and 7 yards with 75% COM hits. The essentials and not at SWAT levels. I did not say required ongoing training butsome classroom to cover the laws and when deadly force is justified.

None of this compromises the ability of someone to apply for and receive a CCW. Having training is far better than just leaving the LGS with something in your IWB holster that you have no idea how to use.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
No.

quote:

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

^^^This. And make no mistake, every layer of training, qualifying, licensing, etc comes with a cost that many lower income folks would have difficulty affording. Constitutional Carry should be the national rule.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I'm firmly in the mandatory training camp and nothing that I've read here in years past and present will change my mind.

You carry a deadly device. At least know what you're doing and do it competently. If you can't demonstrate skill under pressure you are not a competent shooter. You are a gun owner but not ready to carry.

In other words, you believe it is not a right to own and carry a weapon.

The analysis of any of the amendments is not complete unless you look at all the constraints and yet the rights still exist.

1st A has checks on your speech. 2d has restricts that I guess you find unreasonable or unconstitutional on your "carry concealed anywhere" belief.

I'm just going to wait here for you to carry into acourybouse, airplane, passed TSA or similar while you successfully defend the charges on constitutional grounds. Private property owners will have your ass if you insist on carrying, open or otherwise, on their property.

4th A has their own restraints too and we can go on.

Let me be clear - Buy your gun but if you want to CCW in public, the public can insist that you know how to use the gun and know something about when deadly force is justified. Such a requirement does not run afoul of constitutional impermissibilities.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
No.

quote:

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

^^^This. And make no mistake, every layer of training, qualifying, licensing, etc comes with a cost that many lower income folks would have difficulty affording. Constitutional Carry should be the national rule.

But there's that damn Constitution getting in the way. Policing is local in terms of laws and policy. There's nothing enumerated in it says the feds can dictate local gun policies.

No one has successfully challenged the requirement of training and there are obvious reasons. This isn't a Heller or the pending NYC lawsuit which are not sending to this discussion.

Even if Congress passed constitutional carry, it would fail in court, just like a national reciprocity law would too.

Flashlightboy, have you been to a CHL/CCW training class?

If you have can you share with us what you learned, what impressed you the most?

No! Also to add to the other comments in the "no" camp, all that most mandatory training provides is a cash cow for the government and it's cronies.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Let me be clear - Buy your gun but if you want to CCW in public, the public can insist that you know how to use the gun and know something about when deadly force is justified. Such a requirement does not run afoul of constitutional impermissibilities.

Then riddle me this. Reconcile "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" with "yeah you can buy a gun but you have to pay for a background check, and you can carry it only after buying an annual licence and paying for required training on a regular basis". So the guy making $150k/year has no issue swinging those fees and requirements, but the inner city guy who makes $25k/year and really needs a gun for protection can't without suffering a hardship. I would argue that to be totally disproportionate treatment under the law, and a complete violation of the 2A.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
But there's that damn Constitution getting in the way. Policing is local in terms of laws and policy. There's nothing enumerated in it says the feds can dictate local gun policies.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal government, not enumerate them. Additionally, the only place in the entire Constitution where the words "shall not be infringed" are included is in the 2A. I personally think the founders meant to make a very clear point as to why those specific words were used in only this one instance.

DRs and nurses require licenses, there are over 100k people dying each year due to medical malpractice. Cars you say? 40k deaths on the road.

And what praytell is the bodycount each year racked up by CCW holders carrying in public? It must be enormous, hundreds of thousands of deadly firearms carried in public in every state by citizens with no licenses or training.

Please put me in the "constitutional carry" camp.

Thank you

I shoot just about every week. I try to take at least one or two training classes a year.

I believe training is important and everyone should do it. And everyone should be familiar with the laws regarding self defense.

But it shouldn't be mandated/required by the state or federal government.

I am close to a public range that is run by club volunteers. Range Masters have training and some are even RSO trained.
Some public shooters coming to the range are downright dangerous. Totally ignorant of gun safety. With and without a CHL. Even members make me nervous sometimes. The club's insurance level, and rules requirements are huge.
So yes, I think training should be required.

Nope

Actually I have a different take other than yes or no for a permit to carry.... I think everyone should be trained, firearm safety and training should be mandatory though out a young person's schooling. I think that would solve a lot of our gun violence problems.

I’m solidly in the “NO” camp. It should definitely be encouraged and the individual should take it upon himself to seek training, but in no way should it be a requirement.

I’ve sat through my state mandated CHP courses and although I’ve learned a couple things in the classroom portion and qualified without issues on the practical portions, never did I feel that it made me a safer or more competent handlers of firearms. It’s an expensive waste of time.

I am a big believer that anyone who decides to carry a firearm daily in public should go out and get training. They should also practice regularly.

I do not believe in government mandated training to exercise a right!