Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

[farronwolf]

At the risk of starting a whole new argument. Oh, you're doing that and since you're the OP I guess we can go along.

Vehicles don't need to be insured, registered or require any license to be driven, unless you do that on public roadways which are paid for by taxpayer dollars of some form. Forget the tax issue though. If I want to let my 10 yr old drive my Jeep at home or deer camp or whereever, I can without any legal responsibility, barring child endangerment, being an issue.

By driving the auto on the road, you are using that "dangerous" piece of machinery in public on roadways which are used by other individuals. The use of the vehicle is what is prohibited without the proper paperwork, and insurance to cover any damages that may result from its use.

The firearm isn't being used in public, it is simply being transported on ones person or in some states in the automobile. There are a number of laws which prohibit the "use" of firearms in public. By not allowing the "use" of the firearm, they are greatly restricting the ability for it to cause damage to someone else or their property. Therefore no need for insurance.

If the "use" of firearms in public was as common as the "use" of automobiles it may be required. The state minimum requirements on insurance serves to keep the courts from being bottled up with liability cases which would result from the volume of accidents that happen daily.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

At the risk of starting a whole new argument. Oh, you're doing that and since you're the OP I guess we can go along.

Vehicles don't need to be insured, registered or require any license to be driven, unless you do that on public roadways which are paid for by taxpayer dollars of some form. Forget the tax issue though. If I want to let my 10 yr old drive my Jeep at home or deer camp or whereever, I can without any legal responsibility, barring child endangerment, being an issue.

By driving the auto on the road, you are using that "dangerous" piece of machinery in public on roadways which are used by other individuals. The use of the vehicle is what is prohibited without the proper paperwork, and insurance to cover any damages that may result from its use.

The firearm isn't being used in public, it is simply being transported on ones person or in some states in the automobile. There are a number of laws which prohibit the "use" of firearms in public. By not allowing the "use" of the firearm, they are greatly restricting the ability for it to cause damage to someone else or their property. Therefore no need for insurance.

Didn't know I needed training to transport a weapon that is not going to be used in public LOL.........

If I am not allowed the use of a firearm why am I carrying it? If used improperly it can definitly cause damage.

Yes, I am being sarcastic. But when you require liscening, training, backround checks, you start really getting into the realm of regulation. And you think that mandatory insurance isn't too far off.

[Jemsaal]

lol

What's so funny about historicity?

[dldeuce]

If you guys are supporting mandatory training and testing because the darn thing is so dangerous and folks need to be liscensed why aren;t you also advocating you need liability insurance?

They are advocating that. They are because their arguments are indistinguishable from the anti-gun crusade going on in this country.

[38special]

They are advocating that. They are because their arguments are indistinguishable from the anti-gun crusade going on in this country.

The arguments are distinguishable. Carrying a gun for self defense has more concerns associated with it than simply owning or shooting a gun. We are arguing for mandatory training because PEOPLE are often unsafe and uneducated when it comes to firearms and firearm carry. The "anti-gun crowd" argues than GUNS are dangerous in and of themselves. They argue that guns should be banned because they don't like them, use them, or see the need for them. I haven't gotten that sentiment from anyone in this discussion.

[suntzu]

The arguments are distinguishable. Carrying a gun for self defense has more concerns associated with it than simply owning or shooting a gun. We are arguing for mandatory training because PEOPLE are often unsafe and uneducated when it comes to firearms and firearm carry. The "anti-gun crowd" argues than GUNS are dangerous in and of themselves. They argue that guns should be banned because they don't like them, use them, or see the need for them. I haven't gotten that sentiment from anyone in this discussion.

Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.

[Ghost1958]

As my last post I would point you to the situation of the highly trained LAPD shooting two innocent civilians and possibly two others who offered no threat at all except being in the same color of truck as the person they are running eeer huntning for.
I think that pretty much covers the issue of mandatory training next subject?

[38special]

"THE Solution" is simply to not allow anyone who infringes on our rights to remain in office, they work for US (not the other way around) this is a fact an no need to bring up assassination teams etc. Instead of so many threats to impeach the POTUS, here is a novel idea DO IT......... his abuse of power and disregard of the COTUS is clearly evident. IF the Congress members want to stay in office , they need to (and should be required by us) to uphold the COTUS as well....

It is your choice to "support some " , if you want to, however there is NO basis in it for you to do so and IF you're an elected official in ANY way, you should be removed from office or resign . Anyone who would violate their own oath is not much of a public servant IMHO

The USA is the last free country on Earth, we lose it here there is no place to go, anyone who is not happy with OUR COTUS, is always free to go elsewhere, where it doesn't exist, they're not however free to disregard any parts they don't happen to like or even agree with.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one post you say the 2nd Amendment is in place to fight a tyrannical government, foreign invaders, and to protect our other rights. This implies that you support using our weapons to fight those "in power" when we feel they are encroaching. In the next post you say we should attack our government through voting and other legal avenues and that I don't need to bring up assassination teams. Is our current administration tyrannical or not? Which is it?

[38special]

Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.

No, I don't think there should be liability insurance to carry a firearm. I think it's quite obvious that the number of self defense firearm discharges are significantly lower than the number of automobile collisions. I would venture to say that there are more wrecks in a day than shootings in a year. Additionally, vehicle insurance primarily exists to protect banks and loan organizations, not for medical care.

[Jemsaal]

Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.

I know you weren't asking me, and that you're on the side of the argument that doesn't support any kind of mandatory training, but let me answer this question. There is quite the distinction between the two. Even if mandatory training happens, it should be provided at little to no charge. The same is not true for insurance. The rate that insurance would charge on something like this make it prohibitive for certain parts of the public to own weapons. In short, it's restricting the Right to Bear Arms to only those that can afford it - making you pay for using your 2A right. That, IMO, is the exact same thing as a Poll-tax and as such, it has been struck down by SCOTUS.

Anyone fighting against this kind of legislation (see California) should link the two together - paying for using rights is wrong, whether it's a poll tax or carrying a weapon.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one post you say the 2nd Amendment is in place to fight a tyrannical government, foreign invaders, and to protect our other rights. This implies that you support using our weapons to fight those "in power" when we feel they are encroaching. In the next post you say we should attack our government through voting and other legal avenues and that I don't need to bring up assassination teams. Is our current administration tyrannical or not? Which is it?

You've created a false dilemma here. There are many other choices than answering "yes" or "no." For instance, I'd answer that it is heading in that direction, and has been for a number of years. The question however, is "what is tyrannical?" One person's tyranny is another person's typical politics. Until the President moves against the people (and no, he hasn't done that yet. He's won elections and rammed things through congress, but he hasn't moved against the people as of yet), talk of tyranny is much like the Christians in America that claim persecution because something didn't go their way, while in Iran, China, and other countries, Pastors and Christians are still being martyred for their faith.

[Ogre]

Just for giggles, I thought I would post this idea that came to me:

Not so much mandatory training for CCW, but a free class (required) before purchase of a firearm(from a store) on SAFETY. You buy a gun, you get a 30 min (more or less) class on the safe handling of said firearm. If possible, the store could also provide cheapo ammo for a test fireing of the weapon. NOW, if you have your CCW, and documentation stating that you have attended a safety class (with in the past 5 years or so) you do not have to participate, you walk in, show your ID, pay your money and leave.

I will say that I have NEVER been a proponent of mandatory training on marksmanship, laws or what have you-that is a responsiblity issue that I feel people who get a CCW ought to look into on their own. I HAVE been a proponent of mandatory SAFETY training-even if most of the trainees ignore it or forget it when they walk out the door, if even one person is saved from an accident or ND because of said training it is worth the inconvenience to the rest of us (IMHO)

[Hopyard]

Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.

I don't think any company would want to get into that business, but if they did you can bet
somehow the legislature would become convinced that mandatory CC insurance was
an absolute necessity to go with your CHL; especially if the company guys were friends of
friends of the governor.

In point of fact, many have posted here about various forms of CC insurance, most appear
to be not worth the money. Good solid insurance that wasn't full of weasel terms and gotchyas
would perhaps be worth having if the price reflected the actual low risk to the underwriter.

E.g., 500,000 license holder -- how many accidental shootings of a third party or damage to property
of a third party by a license holder each year? The premiums could probably be very low.

Any actuaries out there?

[Hopyard]

Just for giggles, I thought I would post this idea that came to me:

Not so much mandatory training for CCW, but a free class (required) before purchase of a firearm(from a store) on SAFETY. You buy a gun, you get a 30 min (more or less) class on the safe handling of said firearm. If possible, the store could also provide cheapo ammo for a test fireing of the weapon. NOW, if you have your CCW, and documentation stating that you have attended a safety class (with in the past 5 years or so) you do not have to participate, you walk in, show your ID, pay your money and leave.

I will say that I have NEVER been a proponent of mandatory training on marksmanship, laws or what have you-that is a responsiblity issue that I feel people who get a CCW ought to look into on their own. I HAVE been a proponent of mandatory SAFETY training-even if most of the trainees ignore it or forget it when they walk out the door, if even one person is saved from an accident or ND because of said training it is worth the inconvenience to the rest of us (IMHO)

Your idea is similar to the one I've posted here before, that the industry could readily develop the
equivalent of the SCUBA diver's C card. No card, no air. No card, no gun purchase or no
ammo purchase. It could all be done privately with absolutely no government inolvement.

[dldeuce]

The arguments are distinguishable. Carrying a gun for self defense has more concerns associated with it than simply owning or shooting a gun.

I just got through going through with someone else. They evaded any response. Let's see how you do.

Every gun can be used for self defense. Every gun can be involved in accidental discharges. Whether it's kept at home, at a business, kept in a glove box of a car, carried openly, carried concealed. Every gun owner can encounter the public wherever he is. Every gun owner can encounter complicated scenarios that may provoke them into firing their gun or threatening with their gun in self defense. Those scenarios involve exactly the same public safety issues and the same criminal laws almost irregardless of where the incident happens. The only exception being, for example, the prohibited places laws that many states have passed that apply only to public carry.

Why just mandatory training for CHL holders? Why not for all gun owners? When we get an answer from anyone on your side without any special pleading, we'll see how your arguments are exactly like the arguments unapologetic anti-gun crusaders are making all over the country.

We are arguing for mandatory training because PEOPLE are often unsafe and uneducated when it comes to firearms and firearm carry.

You just said mandatory training without any qualifiers for public carry or CHL, and you should. Your rationale demands it. You should admit that your arguments necessarily demand that every citizen in this country should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights in their entirety until they complete some mandatory training defined at the whim of the majority.

Now let's be honest. PEOPLE are often unsafe regardless of their training and experience with firearms. No amount of training is going to change that. This is exactly what the anti-gun crusaders are saying. It's what you're saying. They are just honest and outspoken about what they think the solution is. Same arguments, you just won't admit the conclusions your arguments necessarily lead to, ie PEOPLE just shouldn't have firearms.

The "anti-gun crowd" argues than GUNS are dangerous in and of themselves. They argue that guns should be banned because they don't like them, use them, or see the need for them. I haven't gotten that sentiment from anyone in this discussion.

Oh please. That's a complete strawman. You strawman their arguments and then claim yours are different. Whether they go after guns or people, the bottom line is they don't want us to have guns, and they're using your exact arguments. I referenced a Maryland bill that is demanding mandatory training and licensing for all gun owners, right along with all the popular gun and magazine bans. If we could get them to separate the gun bans from the training and licensing, you'd have to support the training bill. It's right up your alley.

[dldeuce]

As my last post I would point you to the situation of the highly trained LAPD shooting two innocent civilians and possibly two others who offered no threat at all except being in the same color of truck as the person they are running eeer huntning for.
I think that pretty much covers the issue of mandatory training next subject?

Or how about the cop who just left his gun at a school event, and an inmate on a work program turned the gun in before any of the kids surely would have picked it up and started running around the school shooting people with it? Oh wait, did he get training? Why ..... probably yes.