Took my NRA certified course tonight...

[Janq]

+1 Sixto

- Janq

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Scott]

[example training requirement]People should be required to take a 1 week training course, shoot 3000 rounds of ammunition with a minimum caliber of 40 S&W, and the tuition should be $5000. It must be taught by the one designated LEO in the state and the state is only required to offer it twice a year. It will be offered in Poetown, VA. Class size is 10, so seats will be awarded by a lottery system. All current permit holders must take this course before they may renew their permits. That ought to keep the riff raff from getting permits. Also easy to see how a training requirement can become almost a ban on concealed carry. [/example training requirement]

My opinion, no course requirement. The Second doesn't say you have the right to bear arms after a training class. Yep, there are some folks who don't have a clue. As responsible adults they should seek training. The only reason why I won't gripe to loudly about the hunter ed course is that it is free in VA. You get no handling or shooting, just a safety and basic operation lecture. However, not everyone can take two days off work. So it can still be an impediment for some to get their permits.

[press1280]

WV requirements are similiar to VA. While I agree everyone who carries or even just shoots at the range on occasion should have some training, I don't believe it should be mandated by law. It should be the owner's responsibility to properly use their own firearm.
Now if we could just have voter training.........

[ctr]

The only training requirement that I see is "I support the Constitution of the United States and the Republic for which it stands..."

Seriously, the more we accept goverment imposed limits on our personal freedoms, the less freedoms we shall have to enjoy. Individual responsibility is what made this country great, not government supported training, or attending the popular training course of the day. I'm for no restrictions.

[UpOn2Wheels]

Florida here. The mandated course consists mostly of advice on when you can (and cannot) carry or draw a weapon. The shooting portion was not skill based, as there was no mandatory score.

Nothing was covered on handgun types, weapon retention, proper concealment, etc., which REALLY surprised me.

The vast majority of people in my class didn't even know enough to understand that further training would be required. In fact, I'm guessing there are a lot of unfired J frame revolvers laying at the bottom of purses or glove compartments down here.

Like the O/P, I'd say better training is required.

[FN1910]

As I have expressed before that I don't think that any kind of training, permit or other requirement should apply to someone being able to purchase a gun and have it in their home. Once they walk outside on a public street there should be some method insure that they at least know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of and that it is illegal to shoot someone with it unless in self-defense.

Comparisions are made to drivers license but most states do not require training to get a drivers license, but do require a demonstration of knowledge and abilities by some sort of test. Maybe a similar test for CC permits. I am not the expert but my feelings are totally different between having a gun in your home and out in public. You don't need a drivers license to drive around your property, only on the highway.

[FLSquirrelHunter]

If we are talking about open carry, then I would think the Constitution is clear: no license, no training.

But if we are talking about concealed carry, then I would prefer that we have voluntary training but mandatory testing. Like a driver license: I decide whether or not to go to "Concealer's Ed" but have to go pass a simple written test on the laws of concealed carry and a practical test of weapons handling.

If I can pass the test without going to class, no big deal. If I fail the test, I can try again later. And if my license stays current, I have only to mail in the renewal fee every so often and they send me a new license and handbook.

[Resurgam]

Franklin said that a a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. In that same respect, a government that "entitles" you to carry a weapon can easily deny you that right. Should that even be open to discussion?

Does anyone think that states requiring "classes" actually prevent one single idiot (or BG for that matter) from slipping a pistol in his waistline? If you care enough to go to that class you likely will spend at least some time learning about and how to use your weapon on your own.

I understand your line of reasoning, Kerbouchard, but I don't think we can afford to concede even one more principle in the hope that our masters will "give" us just a little bit more of our natural rights.

[Rob99VMI04]

If a state mandates that everybody go through a shoot em up school before getting there carry permit that may not be such a good idea. VA is very lax on what you can use for a CHP. Heck DD 214 will work.

My father a retired Air Force Officer. Will be the first to admit. After spending 22 years in the service his knowledge of handguns was almost none existant. All training he got on pistols was given outside the Air Force, and hes made up for it going to civilian courses starting at the begining going all the way to advanced. I'm sure hes not the only one that has been in the Military and doesn't feel confident he learned how to carry a gun on the street concealed from the military.

[youngda9]

There is no class req. in MS. A background check, fingerprints, and 120 days!! We don't need a govt. telling people"now your trained" That's what I don't like about the classes! If your going to carry you need to get the range time and training for yourself!

Same goes for Indiana.

Agree with OldMick post just below this one 100%

[OldMick]

To me, the whole training issue is a double edged sword. I hear quite a few experienced folks say the new shooters (folks new to firearms) should be better trained. Some even say that they shouldn't be allowed to carry. And I understand the sentiment, I just don't agree with it.

What if each state "upped the anty" to a point where few (even those that have been shooting since they were kids) couldn't pass the qualifications? That would ensure that only the "best of the best" were carrying. Would we all be safer for it?

In fact, that's very similar to the "may issue" states. They tell us whether we really need to carry, based solely on their divine wisdom.

As adults, we're responsible for our actions. Whether it's using a gun, nail gun, hammer, knife whatever. If an adult decides to carry a sidearm, he should be able to do so without jumping through state-mandated hoops. If he uses it irresponsibly, it a matter for the justice system.

That said, I attend at least one class on firearms/concealed carry/advanced concealed carry every year. Personally, If I'm going to carry, I want to be good at it.

I've thought about the mandatory training issue quite a bit. And in looking at the current state of concealed carry, I considered this: I've never heard any stats that say firearms accidents, or irresponsible actions with firearms, by concealed carry folks, are more prevalent in states such as Indiana, where no training is required.

Just my take on the subject.

[FearSheeple]

Thanks everyone for the discussion on this. I am definitely torn on the issue. On one hand, I think it could do us a lot of good if CHP holders were all highly trained individuals, but at the same time, why should we be required to spend even more of our hard earned cash just to exercise fully our 2A rights.

Thanks for not bashing me here! :)

[FN1910]

If we are talking about open carry, then I would think the Constitution is clear: no license, no training.

But if we are talking about concealed carry, then I would prefer that we have voluntary training but mandatory testing. Like a driver license: I decide whether or not to go to "Concealer's Ed" but have to go pass a simple written test on the laws of concealed carry and a practical test of weapons handling.

If I can pass the test without going to class, no big deal. If I fail the test, I can try again later. And if my license stays current, I have only to mail in the renewal fee every so often and they send me a new license and handbook.

Why is there a difference between OC and CC as far as the constitution is concerned? This is a point that I have heard before but yet to figure out. Can someone enlighten me?

[TX-JB]

One thing to remember, the majority of CHL holders are not like most of us here. The vast majority will obtain a license and simply carry in their vehicle when they travel, or use it to bypass the background check when purchasing firearms. They will not carry on a regular basis. Those same folks will most likely never draw and fire at any assailant that is more than arms length from them, IF they ever have to draw and fire at all.

As an former LEO I agree with Sixto, any requirement should deal more with use of force. A CHL holder is more likely to get in trouble for shooting when they shouldn't, than from an errant round striking an innocent bystander. The shooting when not justified situation looks bad for all CHL holders and gives the anti's more ammunition to fight us.

Texas has a 10 hour class, that is heavily weighted on use of force law and where you can and can't carry. There is some time spent on basics of concealed carry, holster types, etc... but the majority of time is spent on use of force. The proficiency test is 50 rounds, with the majority of those rounds being fired at 3 and 5 yards. My class did the shooting part after the first class hour was used to complete forms, take photos and fingerprints. Perhaps the class requirements have to do with the fact that you don't hear about too many bad CHL shootings in Texas.

[cdwolf]

Where is there alot of bad shootings by CHL holders? I was looking for some numbers the other day and couldn't really find any.
Is there anyone tracking these numbers?