Do you think additional training should be mandatory to carry concealed?
This is a discussion on Do you think additional training should be mandatory to carry concealed? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I think some states need to require more training
for carry permits. I have known a few people that
have permits that really dont have ...
View Poll Results: Should states mandate additional training in order to allow handgun carry?
- 315. You may not vote on this poll
Yes! I want more mandated training!
No! We have enough mandates already!
I am not against more training as long as it is not mandatory.
I am undecided.
September 6th, 2009 08:59 PM
I think some states need to require more training
for carry permits. I have known a few people that
have permits that really dont have enough training
to be carrying a firearm. Think in VA you dont even have
to qualify with a gun to get a permit.
However the training shouldnt be crazy expensive either.
I would feel better if it took more training to get a permit
as it could save a innocent bystander's life in a shootout
and who knows I could be the innocent bystander one day
September 6th, 2009 08:59 PM
September 6th, 2009 09:06 PM
Along with mandatory training...
Science fiction author Robert Heinlein created an entire future world and one of the tenets of that society was that you were only eligible to vote if you had served a career in the military.
Just serving an enlistment wasn't enough, a career. He figured if you weren't interested enough to protect and defend the country then you got no say in how it was run. Full citizenship required payment up front.
Both ideas are too extreme for me. When I was younger I liked the idea of earning the right to vote by serving first. But the founders saw more clearly than I did - on both counts.
We have our rights and now must protect and defend them. We don't get to tell the other person how they have to earn their rights.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
September 6th, 2009 09:10 PM
How about if the states require a $1000 license fee, a $3000 training course which is only available from a handful of trainers, with a waiting list of 2 years, to make sure the poor, inner city blacks, and "trailer trash" can't afford it, or don't bother?
Because that really IS the point isn't it?
Every gun control law in the last 150 years was designed to disproportionately afflict people of the wrong race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class.
Any call for "more training" is intended to make CC difficult and expensive, so that the "wrong people" stay disarmed.
September 6th, 2009 09:26 PM
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution simply states "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "only after demonstrating proficiency" or "only after eight (8) hours of classroom instruction from a certified instructor."
I don't argue that education is important and practice is extremely valuable; however, to limit a law abiding citizen's ability to "keep and bear arms" or obtain a CWP and carry hurts the community, state, and nation.
Both Pennsylvania and Georgia (the two states that I reside and have CWP's) only require the applicant to be able to write a check. I had my PA-CWP before I had a weapon. I practice drawing and shooting multiple targets with multiple magazines at least twice a month or I don't carry. As so many have said more often and better than I, "in a survival situation, you react based on what you've practiced." So those that buy a gun, get a CWP, and then carry without instruction or practice are putting themselves in harms way. And they aren't going to be a member of this forum either!
"A strong body makes a mind strong. As to the exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson August 1785
September 6th, 2009 09:28 PM
I look at this as a RKBA issue. I don't need a permit to exercise my right to free speech, or any other rights outside of RKBA, with the emphasis on 'bear arms', and arguably the right to peaceably assemble. Seeing as how we already have to jump through hoops to participate in a god-given right, i don't think it's necessary or constitutional to mandate additional training. Further mandates will only serve to turn concealed carry into a means of defense only certain citizens are able to afford.
"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back" -- Adolf Hitler
September 6th, 2009 09:33 PM
Rights should not be subject to licensing.
I'm all for training, get as much as you can, but adding costs before you are "allowed" to carry the handgun is a form of rationing.
Minnesota requires an 8 hour classroom including live fire. It cost me $125 for the class, another $100 for the license, plus I had to take a day off work.
An enemy of liberty is no friend of mine. I do not owe respect to anyone who would enslave me by government force, nor is it wise for such a person to expect it. -- Isaiah Amberay
September 6th, 2009 09:50 PM
Jeez, has anybody seen a goverment run program that ran on time, under cost, or without miles of red tape? Just because of the nature of getting more people involved to certify something like this, it has to become more complicated. If I need training it's my duty to go find it, wether it's shooting targets or Close Quarters Combat.
Back to the "freedom has responsibities" arguement. Do it because you want to, or feel your need to, not because you're told to, usually by somebody that doesn't have as much idea what you need as you do.
"Come Watson, the game is afoot!"
September 6th, 2009 09:57 PM
Yeah, we need mandated instruction all right...
"We are very sorry to in form you Mr. Jones that you Carry Permit has been revoked because you failed to provide proof of antiquate training and or monthly practice under the supervision of a State Licensed firearms instructor."
ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
September 6th, 2009 09:59 PM
This is the BEST IDEA EVER!
Originally Posted by Cycler
September 6th, 2009 10:06 PM
I really like the idea of firearm safety classes in our schools.
good point to mention Cycler.
They already teach family life and such why not firearms?
Guns are everywhere and in most homes anyway
Kids need to be taught firearm safety it would save many lives
September 6th, 2009 10:07 PM
MI has some nutty laws. It's OK to OC without a permit, but is you want to put the same equipment under your clothes, or carry it IN your car, you need training, be able to stay on the paper at 20 yrds and license. That I don't understand.
When I look at all the traffic accidents and think all the pore drivers, I say to my self, "this is the result of a government run licensing program". I'm pretty sure licensing for CC isn't really a whole lot of good...
September 6th, 2009 11:37 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I encourage all of you to read, "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook (Welcome to StephenHalbrook.com), who chronicles what the intentions of our founding fathers and their reasoning for the above language.
The right to self defense through arms is a natural right. Those who take this seriously, know that training is good, but we should not be curtailing this right to anyone who is lawfully allowed to arm themselves for the purpose of self defense.
LEO w/ 29 + years of service, USMC 1975 to 1979
Certifed Sig Classic Pistol Armorer
Lawdog: 1980 to ???
Soldier of Christ: January 2000 to Eternity
A Sheepdog who has found the Shepherd
September 6th, 2009 11:41 PM
Could not agree with you more! However, for some reason, those others on that forum I spoke about seem to think that the 2A only protects our right to own a gun, not carry one!!
Originally Posted by Cericko
Excuse me, I said, "keep and bear" arms seems to indicate that carrying firearms is included in the 2A.
“I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
- Barack Obama Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004
September 6th, 2009 11:47 PM
My vote is NO.
Honestly, the Second Amendment allows us to own and carry (Keep and Bear) arms and there is no stipulation on training at all. In the strictest reading of the Constitution, no training at all should be mandated, and indeed the Government shouldn't even be able to mandate that we need a permit to carry our weapons.
The older I get, the less my carry permit is a badge of honor and more a thorn in my side.
September 6th, 2009 11:53 PM
You had better go back and read your history as far as what the founders required for someone to be able to vote.
Originally Posted by woodstock
By cmzneb in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: November 10th, 2009, 07:45 PM
By ProShooter in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: February 28th, 2009, 01:15 PM
By bradcat in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: February 18th, 2009, 11:55 AM
By Sheldon J in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: August 14th, 2008, 09:04 AM
By Interloper in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: April 18th, 2007, 02:23 PM