Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

[farronwolf]

I am sitting here picturing Hopyard feverishly googling away looking for stats to support mandatory training
j/k Hop......join the fun

I am wondering if you are able to find any evidence that states that don't require training fair as well as states that do. Or are you guessing they do?

If the "facts" aren't readily available, and I am sure they are not. Everyone is simply guessing on both sides.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

I am wondering if you are able to find any evidence that states that don't require training fair as well as states that do. Or are you guessing they do?

If the "facts" aren't readily available, and I am sure they are not. Everyone is simply guessing on both sides.

Exactly! You don't make laws on guesses. That is the whole point! Theses laws which are not founded on fact cost people money and delay them from exercising a right.

BTW: Thank you sir for your common sense answer which supports the opinion that mandatory training should not be law unless it can be based on facts, not to make money for the state and not money for the instructors(not talking about you)

[farronwolf]

Laws are made by legislatures which are elected by the people. There is nothing that says they have to make sense. If the people don't like them, they can elect new folks to change them.

Been that way for 200+ years in this country and every state.

[suntzu]

Laws are made by legislatures which are elected by the people. There is nothing that says they have to make sense. If the people don't like them, they can elect new folks to change them.

Been that way for 200+ years in this country and every state.

What kind of answer is that. Do you sir beleive mandatory training is required to get a CHL? Simple, I don;t need a civics class. As an "expert" your thoughts carry weight with the general public. If a certified instructor says they beleive that mandatory training is required then they will take that as fact. But sir, you have no fact to suppport mandatory training.
So I ask you....do you 1-support mandatory training and 2-can you prove at all that it makes any difference when compared to states where it is not required?

[dldeuce]

I am wondering if you are able to find any evidence that states that don't require training fair as well as states that do. Or are you guessing they do?

If the "facts" aren't readily available, and I am sure they are not. Everyone is simply guessing on both sides.

That's true, but shouldn't one side have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they have a strong and compelling interest in denying all citizens a fundamental right? We're just asking for some documentation of that compelling interest.

[9MMare]

I thought that, at first. But then, how do you differentiate? Did the intent to commit the crime commence because the individual wasn't educated with his/her firearm? For example: detaining someone at gun point. Was the person a threat who was committing a criminal act? How do you know when you are justified by holding someone at gun point? Are you ever? Could a gun course teach you this, or are you just learning the basics? Same for shooting someone in the back. Was it incidental? Unlawful? Justified? Was the person educated with a weapons course? Would they really have been taught what to do in this situation in the classroom? Now, how was this data recorded? Probably, the person would be grouped with every other criminal who commits a similar offense - like manslaughter with a firearm or possible murder charges. This is why permitted carriers would have to be studied in many criminal offenses. Even ones with "intent".

I suppose we could scratch a couple off of the list, but I just wanted to point out some complexities in figuring this all out. I'd be all for it if there was a way to do it.

You're pretty safe removing 1,2,5,6,7,8.

[9MMare]

Laws are made by legislatures which are elected by the people. There is nothing that says they have to make sense. If the people don't like them, they can elect new folks to change them.

Been that way for 200+ years in this country and every state.

Agreed....isnt that what the anti-gun people are trying to do?

So let's copy them?

[dldeuce]

Laws are made by legislatures which are elected by the people. There is nothing that says they have to make sense. If the people don't like them, they can elect new folks to change them.

Been that way for 200+ years in this country and every state.

Sure there is. When you talk about denying people their 2nd Amendment rights, they do have to make sense. It's called the constitution.

[SCXDm9]

There were 2 guys in my CWP class that I did not feel comfortable being on the same range with! They were border line dangerous, the came together and had purchased their Glocks the week before the class and had fired them once before.

MANY people do not grow up around guns as most of us did. I think its great these people want to carry but without training... I just hope they don't do it around me!

I vote yes for required training.

[glockman10mm]

They already are, all the time, in many states. I'm fine with it based on what I've seen here in my state and read about elsewhere.

The point of the thread is to prove your belief correct or incorrect.

Well if proving anything one way or the other was a criteria for responding to this thread, then this Forum would be out of business.
Funny thing how gun people wear the constitution like a banner, yet admonish opinions.

[farronwolf]

What kind of answer is that.

It is an answer based on facts that are true. There are legislative processes for enacting laws. The arguments for and against enacting laws takes place during that process.

I support following the laws of each state which the legislatures have enacted. Do you support ignoring the laws which you don't agree with?

If there is compelling evidence that training does no good, why hasn't it been gathered and put forth to overturn "bad" laws?

I will say, that based on the constant questions from those who already have permits from various states, even states that require training, the knowledge of many of the laws in their own state is very lacking in many cases.

[farronwolf]

Sure there is. When you talk about denying people their 2nd Amendment rights, they do have to make sense. It's called the constitution.

Yea, well there isn't any court in the land that agrees with the idea that states can't put certain restrictions on carrying firearms in public. When you get to sit on a bench, your opinion will hold much more weight.

[glockman10mm]

It is an enigma to me how we put so much value on education for everything in this country, yet balk at the idea of mandatory education before carrying a firearm among the public.

Additionally frustrating is the idea that somehow having a standard for this upsurps ones Constitutional right to the exercise thereof. Since having a CCW permit is already established, a more stringent and informative CCW class could be instituted and funded from the sale of confiscated property from drug busts or even drug money.

Thinking outside the box is a little difficult, I know, but it would benefit all gun owners in the long haul. Because sooner or later, if we don't , the Goverment will, and we won't have a say.

[hoppy]

Nobody likes things to be mandatory. There are lots of reasons for people handling a deadly firearm around others to be trained. But one of the reasons for a state having mandatory training requirements is that a concealed weapons permit issued by that state is more likely to be recognized by other states which require training. It is a real pain to travel through states which do not grant reciprocity to your state for carry permits. Sorry if this is a slight shift in the thread.

[dldeuce]

Yea, well there isn't any court in the land that agrees with the idea that states can't put certain restrictions on carrying firearms in public. When you get to sit on a bench, your opinion will hold much more weight.

Every court in the land is now bound to uphold the standards set in the Heller and McDonald rulings. The court ruled that, although the limited Heller ruling didn't cast doubt on longstanding laws, a rational based argument is insufficient justification to deny the fundamental individual right to self defense with common firearms. Every court will now have to weigh every gun law brought before it against those standards. That's all we're asking for. Give us your evidence that can withstand even intermediate or strict scrutiny constitutional test. That would be nice, but admittedly all you can do is guess.