Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good?

Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good?

This is a discussion on Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I'd be interested in where the carry community weighs in on this question. It doesn't come up much, so unless I missed a thread around ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61

Thread: Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array JimmyC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    2,034

    Permit To Carry--Is A Training Requirement Good?

    I'd be interested in where the carry community weighs in on this question. It doesn't come up much, so unless I missed a thread around here, this will be my first exposure to discussion around this question.

    Is a requirement for training in order to get a permit to carry a good idea?

    Or, on the other hand is it unnecessary, and merely another hoop we should not have to jump through in order to exercise our Second Amendment rights?

    My opinion, which could change, is that training is a must in order to assure that those who carry can demonstrate elementary skill with a handgun. More importantly, I see that people must be schooled in the law regarding use of lethal force.

    Edited to add: In MN, there is a training requirement, classroom time and a simple range qualification. I had a great instructor who did a wonderful job of impressing upon me the immense responsibility of carrying. Plus, coverage of laws surrounding prohibited areas for carry, posted locations and use of lethal force was good. So, my experience was positive, which may be driving my opinion.

    This doesn't seem like too volatile an issue to casually discuss, so let me hear your opinion.
    Last edited by JimmyC4; October 24th, 2006 at 11:34 PM.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,353
    Or, on the other hand is it unnecessary, and merely another hoop we should not have to jump through in order to exercise our Second Amendment rights?

    Thats my opinion on it because if you set a base line where does it stop and how to keep it from getting to the point its unrealistic for the average person to be able to get what ever is mandated ..

    I'm sure it would start of reasonable but would end up being a way to do away with CCW in the End

    There was a discussion on this but it was a long time ago and we have a bunch of new members since then

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,577
    In Pennsylvania there is no training required and no oral or written testing or range qualification required in order to obtain a License To Carry and we have absolutely no problems resulting from that here.

    In PA you can get a license to carry a firearm without ever having held a gun in your hands. We just do not have a high accident or ND rate.
    Most of the folks here that get a license to carry are already into firearms or have somebody teach them privately AKA at least teach them the basics.
    Some voluntarily sign up for classes or firearm safety instruction.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array raysheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    793
    I don't think it shoud be necessary by law though I do think that anyone that carries should seriously consider training that includes both legal aspects and shooting skills.
    I've had permits in both types of states.
    I have a ME permit that I needed to have a class for and I have a NH permit where no class was needed.
    Painting with a broad brush most people who decide to get a permit and use it regularly practice somewhat often. Another problem with a training requirement is that it makes it harder for people to get a permit on short notice and I think that getting a permit on short notice shoud be available in more areas.
    just a couple of random thoughts...

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    I agree with Bud and have little else to add.

    Every year, the total number of firearms in private hands goes up by several milllion. Every year, the total number of people who have CCW permits across the nation goes up, too, probably by several hundred thousand, but I don't have a figure for that. And yet, every year since statistics have been kept, accidents involving firearms have gone DOWN.

    How can anyone see that as a mandate for safety training before people can have their right to carry a gun back from the government?

  6. #6
    Member Array cpmiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Pgh, PA
    Posts
    364
    Training is always a good thing but requirments are just a PITA. If I were a betting man I'd say that most people who get thier CCW have had experience with weapons. So a training requirement would be wasted time for most. Granted today's movies have made a joke of proper firearm safety but I figure Darwin can sort those types out for the rest of us.
    There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11? (Yuri Orlov [Nicolas Cage] Lord of War)

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    What I would favor, though, is using state funds, from tax dollars, for FREE PROGRAMS for new licensees, and refreshers upon renewal!

    We have schools giving out free condoms, hospitals giving out free hypodermic needles...
    Why the hell should we not offer free firearms training if what we as a society are so afeered of is gun accidents?!

    We should be making an effort to have this happen. I don't mean mandatory programs, I just mean that when you get your CCW license, they should notify you of places in your area where you can take a payment voucher from the state to take a weekend class that would teach legality of deadly force, and firearm practical training. The fact that it would be FREE would be an incentive for people to take it when they otherwise might decline if they had to pay for it themselves.

    What better way to stick it to antis than have them paying for us to be proficient CCWers?!

  8. #8
    Member Array LTPhoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Northeastern U.S.
    Posts
    244
    Well, let's see...Maine wants an attestation as to one's knowledge of handgun safety; Florida wants "proof of proficiency"; Utah makes you take instruction from an instructor certified by them and nobody else; New Hampshire and Pennsylvania could care less. My Utah guy explained that he was there to evaluate my basic demeanor around guns: was I an armed squirrel, did I have any clue as to how to behave around firearms, and the like. We passed a pleasant Saturday morning shooting up some WWB at a bunch of cookie tins, he signed me off, and that was that. So maybe sometimes less is more?

  9. #9
    Member Array katmandoo122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    326
    I have no problem with a training requirement as long as it is not overly burdensome. I'm not going to write my state senator about it, but I guess my feeling is that I wish they'd require more testing for the yokels that drive on the freeway every day, let alone the potentially stupid things people do with a firearm.

    Again, I'm not too animated about it either way, but I'm slightly in favor of the idea. For those of us into firearms anyway, it's just another chance for range time.

    And frankly, the legal portion of my class was very useful...saved me tons of time looking up rules on brandishing, castle doctrine, and other stuff.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Blackeagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,147
    Your question just asked about "training", but I think there are several very different types of training that are relevant to concealed carry: training about concealed carry laws, handgun safety training, marksmanship training, training on how to carry a concealed weapon (holsters, cover garments, etc.), training on using a handgun in self defense (distinct from marksmanship on the range), and that's just off the top of my head.

    I think that everyone who carries should seek out training covering all of these areas. However, the only one I think ought to be legally required is training about concealed carry laws. This is as much for the protection of the person getting the carry permit as anything else. If you're going to carry legally you need to know where you can and can't carry in your state, that laws vary from state to state, that some states may have reciprocity with yours, but some don't, etc. If a state is going to issue you a permit to carry a handgun, then they really have an obligation to tell you in what circumstances that permit actually applies (and in what circumstances carrying could get you arrested). Mandatory training isn't the only way to do this, of course. A state could go with a driver's license model where formal training is not required, but they quiz you on concealed carry laws before issuing a permit. Whatever they go with, I think the state needs to make sure that their citizens learn about the law before they get their carry permit, not when a cop is slapping the handcuffs on their wrists.

  11. #11
    VIP Member Array JimmyC4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    2,034
    What better way to stick it to antis than have them paying for us to be proficient CCWers?!
    That I like...
    "It's a big gun when I carry it, it is also a big gun when I take it out” – Clint Smith

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    This is a tricky one because most people here look at requirements for a license (or even requirement of a license at all) as a black or white issue... you're either for it or against it with very little ground in between. I can see an argument being made for both sides, with each having positive and negative points.

    I probably agree with peacefuljeffrey in general more than anyone else so far, though I see no problem requiring the training before a license is issued, as long as the classes are free to the public. Attend the class, then get your license unless there are other legal reasons preventing it.
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,359
    IMO, yes, covering minimal exposure to safety protocol, pertinent laws, basic handling and marksmanship.

    A person is liable and culpable for reckless endangerment and far worse, depending on how badly one operates and uses a firearm in a public setting. One would think that such ultimate bear traps (the penalties for crimes) are sufficient for people to ensure they achieve some minimum level of competency and ability. Anything more than a basic exposure requirement could get onerous and limiting to a large percentage of citizens, and that's simply counter to any conception of the right to bear arms for one's defense. Though, it must be balanced by the rights of others in public to be safe from gross misuse due to stupidity and carelessness.

    As suggested by others, I fear that anything more than minimal requirements for exposure to general safety, handling and legal aspects would ultimately turn into a mechanism for the ultimate banning of self-defense weapons in public.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by katmandoo122 View Post
    I have no problem with a training requirement as long as it is not overly burdensome. I'm not going to write my state senator about it, but I guess my feeling is that I wish they'd require more testing for the yokels that drive on the freeway every day, let alone the potentially stupid things people do with a firearm.

    Again, I'm not too animated about it either way, but I'm slightly in favor of the idea. For those of us into firearms anyway, it's just another chance for range time.
    If you want range time, you go and get range time.
    You need the government mandating it before you desire on your own to do it?

    The primary issue is exactly that there is a danger that requirements could be made "overly burdensome." The whole principle is to prevent the camel from getting its nose into the tent!

    And frankly, the legal portion of my class was very useful...saved me tons of time looking up rules on brandishing, castle doctrine, and other stuff.
    It's true that the legal portions of such classes have their usefulness. But anyone who wants to can get that kind of instruction; there is no need to mandate it. Those who want the knowledge are not prevented from getting the knowledge if training classes are not mandated, you know. And those who don't give a rat fart will either pay no attention in class, or will let the knowledge fall right outta their heads after leaving the class with the documentation.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Anything more than a basic exposure requirement could get onerous and limiting to a large percentage of citizens, and that's simply counter to any conception of the right to bear arms for one's defense. Though, it must be balanced by the rights of others in public to be safe from gross misuse due to stupidity and carelessness.

    As suggested by others, I fear that anything more than minimal requirements for exposure to general safety, handling and legal aspects would ultimately turn into a mechanism for the ultimate banning of self-defense weapons in public.
    The big mistake I see being made here is people believing that taking and passing a training class means that the licensee will not go right out and be stupid and careless!

    Sure, we can argue that the public has a right to be protected from people grossly misusing firearms in a careless and stupid manner, but why on earth do we automatically credit training classes with being able to prevent such negligence?

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Fire Mission: Poll - Should SC drop Concealed Weapons Permit Requirement?
    By JPCleary in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: February 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM
  2. Minnesota Carry Permit Training @ Burnsville Pistol Range?
    By fmcgraw in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2010, 07:06 PM
  3. AZ Bill - Does No Background check & no Training requirement lead to more CC.
    By hayzor in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 1st, 2010, 07:35 PM
  4. Can a training requirement be made reasonable?
    By kazzaerexys in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 03:00 PM
  5. Upcoming Training Course - Multi-State Permit
    By WAPS in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 21st, 2006, 08:06 AM

Search tags for this page

maine castle doctrine explained

Click on a term to search for related topics.