Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

[Mike1956]

You're right. The founding fathers did not think a mandatory class was required to bear a musket during militia duties. I'm quite sure, however, that the carry of a 1911 in an IWB holster at Walmart didn't cross their minds.

That 1911 in an IWB is much safer, more effective and more reliable than those late 18th-century flintlocks.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[KoolBreeze]

Thank you for the really clear, well reasoned and well written thoughts on this topic.

You make the case that you would not benefit from most, if not all, of the "mandatory training" required in some states to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Then you go on to support required mandatory training, leaving me a little confused (but I am, admittedly, easily confused).

What you don't do is address the OPs, Suntzu, question.

The question asked was: Can anyone show any data that supports mandatory training by showing that public safety is enhanced by such training in states that require it over states that don't?

Ken

p.s.; No one else has actually addressed the question either, making me start to think that, just maybe, there is NO justification as a boon to public safety in requiring training before issuing a permit.

Well, too clear things up, I don't support the standard variety of "mandatory" training because I feel it is of very little use. Having said that, if taking it means I'm qualified to carry the firearm some place where I would not otherwise be able to legally carry, then that is a good thing and I'll take the course because there is then something in it for me.

I don't think you'll find any statistics that show permit holders to be safer after completing the majority of those courses though. On the surface it sounds reasonable, but the reality is that an 8 or 16 hour course is going to do very little, if anything, to make you safe with a firearm.

[Aceoky]

What is your point ? Are you saying "under age" gang members do not carry arms now? How many young folks are killed by gangs NOW?

Seems there are plenty of anti 2nd laws that in reality punish law abiding folks and don't deter criminals in any way at all.

BTW the Constitution does not apply to non citizens- at what age does one become a legal citizen with RIGHTS??? ;)

Where in the Constitution does it place an age limit on carrying a gun or buying one for that matter? Isn't it an infringement to not allow teenagers to carry in school?
After all, many that age " beared arms" during the revolution.

[suntzu]

What is your point ? Are you saying "under age" gang members do not carry arms now? How many young folks are killed by gangs NOW?

Seems there are plenty of anti 2nd laws that in reality punish law abiding folks and don't deter criminals in any way at all.

BTW the Constitution does not apply to non citizens- at what age does one become a legal citizen with RIGHTS??? ;)

Actually non citizens are protected by certain parts of the COnstitution like free speach, due process for most crimes etc....

[farronwolf]

I don't think you'll find any statistics that show permit holders to be safer after completing the majority of those courses though. On the surface it sounds reasonable, but the reality is that an 8 or 16 hour course is going to do very little, if anything, to make you safe with a firearm.

But will that 8 or 16 hour course make you more knowledgable of the laws of your state? Will it make you less likely to violate a law, and let you continue to carry your firearm? Will that course make you think twice about "hiding" firearms around your home instead of securing them. Will it make you think twice about escalating a situation where it is better resolved by de escatlating it. Will it save you money by helping you pick a carry gun/holster or other gear that one might otherwise waste money on? Will it make you consider less lethal means?

If all the class required was simple gun safety and a few shots fired, I can't imagine it being much of a class.

[glockman10mm]

What is your point ? Are you saying "under age" gang members do not carry arms now? How many young folks are killed by gangs NOW?

Seems there are plenty of anti 2nd laws that in reality punish law abiding folks and don't deter criminals in any way at all.

BTW the Constitution does not apply to non citizens- at what age does one become a legal citizen with RIGHTS??? ;)

The point is that parameters were placed on eligibility for the exercise of carrying or purchasing arms according to age. So there are parameters for the 2A. As far as I know, the only place age is specified is for the office of POTUS.

And, you do not have to be a citizen to exercise your rights under the constitution. My wife has been a legal resident for years, and has a CCW.

[38special]

What is your point ? Are you saying "under age" gang members do not carry arms now? How many young folks are killed by gangs NOW?

Seems there are plenty of anti 2nd laws that in reality punish law abiding folks and don't deter criminals in any way at all.

BTW the Constitution does not apply to non citizens- at what age does one become a legal citizen with RIGHTS??? ;)

His point is that we have constitutional laws which "infringe" on the rights of criminals and children to own and bear arms. Since the constitution does not place an age limit on rights, then those laws should be unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court, however, firearm restrictions are not unconstitutional. Neither is mandatory training.

Edit: There are people in this discussion arguing about what constitutes infringement and what restrictions the government may enact. There are people arguing that the government can place no restrictions on the bearing of arms. That was the whole point of discussing felons, children, atomic bombs, jets, and grenades....to show how baseless their argument is.

[9MMare]

However, where should our constitutional rights end? That is my question. Are you comfortable with 10 year olds carrying at school? 15 year olds? 17? Confirmed gang members with multiple felonies? Are you comfortable with your neighbor owning chemical or atomic weapons? Are you comfortable with someone with a flame thrower, grenades, and c-4 sitting in the booth next to you at Applebees? Should the government have a say in any of this?

Minors already do not have the full Constitutional rights of adults. For many reasons. And neither do conviceted felons. So please dont muddy the waters unnecessarily.

As for the others you describe, they are usually classifed differently than 'arms' but those do present a less clear case. I dont have the answers for those.

[38special]

Minors already do not have the full Constitutional rights of adults. For many reasons. And neither do conviceted felons. So please dont muddy the waters unnecessarily.

As for the others you describe, they are usually classifed differently than 'arms' but those do present a less clear case. I dont have the answers for those.

I would disagree. Children and felons still have the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. According to some on here, "shall not infringe" is cut and dry and includes infringements of any kind to any citizen.

I think the second part is worthy of serious discussion and that's why I repeatedly bring it up. You're the only one who has even half attempted to address my questions. I would argue that an "arm" refers to any armament; otherwise the Constitution would specifically grant the right to bear firearms. Some are on here harping about Second Amendment this, Second Amendment that, shall not infringe this, shall not infringe that, but nobody will explain why atomic bombs, tanks, grenades, etc. don't apply. How does anyone expect to "protect ourselves from a tyrannical government" if we cannot own those things? Do you all really think you can fight the U.S. military with .45s and AR15s. And how does concealed and open carry even fit in to that discussion?

[Ogre]

You're right. The founding fathers did not think a mandatory class was required to bear a musket during militia duties. I'm quite sure, however, that the carry of a 1911 in an IWB holster at Walmart didn't cross their minds.

One reason for that was that by the time any child was big enough (not of a certain age), he (and rarely she) was taught to use and maintain firearms safely. Firearms were needed not only for protection, but to provide food for the table-there were no Winn Dixies where you could go get a pound of groud round for dinner. If you ate meat, you killed it. Many a young lad during those times was responsible for providing the meat for the evening meal. Not so now, which is why I lean toward mandatory training, we should educate for the lowest common denominator here, IMHO. It is possible for ANYONE to purchase, and carry a weapon-even someone with absolutely NO training in safety at all. As someone stated earlier, the government (which is charged with protecting ALL the citizens) deems that to better protect its citizens, it must ensure that all weapon carriers have at least a basic level of safety training.

If it saves even ONE life, the mandatory training (IMHO) is worth it. Ya never know, the life saved may be yours.

[9MMare]

I believe that training on the responsibilities of carrying a gun and the liability surrounding carry COULD prevent some hotheads from improperly using emir firearm during road rage incidents and/or arguments.

And these could have been prevented with training:

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania • July 13, 2004. Arabo “Raybo” Allen allegedly shot a bystander in the leg with a 9mm pistol during an altercation with another person. Allen was later arraigned on charges of aggravated assault, attempted homicide, and reckless endangerment. The charges were later dropped when a witness failed to appear in court.

Chartiers Valley School District, Pennsylvania • August 29, 2003. Charles Bolden, transportation director of the Chartiers Valley School District, carried a loaded Glock .40-caliber handgun onto school property in one of his motorcycle saddlebags. The School Board later suspended Bolden for four months without pay for incompetency, neglect of duty, unintentionally bringing a loaded firearm onto school property and hindering an investigation.

Chester County, Pennsylvania • November 14, 2001. A gun carried by 32-year-old Cesar Solis accidentally went off in a Chester County tavern, injuring three people including himself – one seriously. Solis was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of discharging a weapon in a building. Police said Solis, who had a license to carry the gun, was at the Birch Inn late Sunday night with his brother when Cesar Solis pulled the gun from his waistband. The gun discharged and hit his brother and Sandra Pierson, who was seated at a nearby table.

This is pointless when I've already listed 'accidents' that cops had. Professionals have accidents. Are careless.

Training didnt stop those accidents or make them more careful or responsible.

[9MMare]

I wouldn't mind a two-part federal law approach.

1. All CCL and OC participants MUST receive training.

2. Training is a required class for all seniors in high school nationwide.

3. Anyone born before 1997 is exempt from the law.

4. Public classes provided once a quarter by local LEO (for those who did not grow up here, those who skip out of high-school for a plethora of reasons, or home-schooled children). Private classes by certified teachers also accepted (as it is now).

5. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the constitution will be applied to CCLs.

That takes care of both training, and making sure pretty much every citizen has the ability to carry concealed or OC safely once they are old enough to handle a weapon.

And let me comment on the ubiquitous "I don't want the feds involved..." reaction up front. They already are. There's plenty of national laws regarding guns and restrictions already - no new law like the one I'm thinking about would create a precedent. The NICS is basically an approval list already.

I havent seen this much attempt at control over a Constitutional right since they had to explain how to pop out 'chads' for the Florida voters.

[9MMare]

Look, Im big on style alright? Function follows form.

Hmm, I wouldnt have guessed that.

I mean, in your pic you're wearing an elephant.

[9MMare]

I would disagree. Children and felons still have the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. According to some on here, "shall not infringe" is cut and dry and includes infringements of any kind to any citizen.

I

Children do NOT have full Constitutional rights to many of the things you listed in public schools, for instance. So no, they do not.

[38special]

This is pointless when I've already listed 'accidents' that cops had. Professionals have accidents. Are careless.

Training didnt stop those accidents or make them more careful or responsible.

Of course trained professionals have accidents. Trained pilots crash. Trained surgeons leave things inside patients. Presidents' get bjs in their office. So what? How many more professionals would have accidents if they weren't trained? How many more pilots would crash if they hadn't been trained? How many more malpractice suits would we have if surgeons had no training?