Why did I not have to take a training course?

[BigStick]

While prohibitive costs is a concern, the other issue is who determines what training is adequate? And who licenses the instructors, and what will the curriculum include. Anytime you get the government involved in decision making, it adds massive buerocracy that can and will be used to restrict or repress out rights.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bootslxa]

I agree about the bureaucracy part. It is 'used' insinuating that someone is purposefully restricting/repressing people's rights. However I think sometimes it just does it by nature. When I was in school I held several offices both in my fraternity and on the student government association. Anytime you get a group of people together to decide something it is going to take forever and in the end most of the people wont be happy. At least, these are the majority of the decisions that we remember. If it works in our favor it's simply the government doing its job.

It may sound like I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not. Just expanding from my own experience, which I'm glad I experienced but also am glad it's over.

[ericmt]

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry (no training, no permit needed) since the 1930s and hasn't had much problems. I doubt the people of the great state of Alabama are any dumber than people from Vermont.

Note: I speak from personal experience, as my wife is from Alabama

[QKShooter]

I think that people should have to take at least 5 comprehensive and intense training courses before they are eligible to obtain a license to carry a firearm because that is about how many I've taken in my lifetime and I think people should at the very least be as well trained as I am before they are allowed to carry.
That would make me feel a LOT better.

What are your thoughts on that? Are you now willing to tear yours up?

I didn't have to take a training course to get my license. I highly think this should be required. I had training from an instructor, although it was of my own accord and not an official class. It was more of a "hey come shoot my guns, if you don't know how I'll teach you" kinda thing.
It would make me feel better if I knew that everybody else that carried concealed in the area around me had received some sort of official training.

Would anybody else feel that way? Thoughts?

&

Do any Alabama people know if there are any courses offered in central Alabama?

[tubadude]

Second Amendment rights aren't dependent on completion of a class based on arbitrary requirements set by a bunch of dumb politicians.

[Glhadiator]

I am a strong supporter of our 2A 'right to bear arms'. As I am sure that all of the members on this forum are as well. I am against any effort or movement that seeks to restrict the 2A.

I have owned and shot guns my entire life. My first required gun training came from my father. My first formal gun safety training was required in school in the state of Texas. The list goes on for many years and is long and still continues today, some required but most of it voluntary. Simply put...I strongly believe in all levels of training for gun safety and use.

So the question is should it be required? To answer that lets first go back to the Constitution. Remember the clause "well-regulated"? The founders weren't talking about government regulations. They meant that we should be well-trained. They understood the importance to develop the skill to use a gun in order to defend liberty.

No, I do not think that firearms training should be legislated or regulated. But I do think that if we are going to stand behind the 2A that protects our right to bear arms, then we are mentally and morally bound to respect the wisdom of our founders. As a responsible gun owner we should seek out training so that we become familiar and skilled with our guns.

[BigJon10125]

Because it is (supposed to be) a right. Training is a personal choice and imo a great piece of being a responsible armed citizen, but as hb stated correctly, that is how it should be.

[minimalbrat]

I think of a gun as a car. You have to take a test before you can drive a car. You have to know the laws and show you can drive a car safely before you can get your licenses. Does this mean all drivers are safe? No, but it does show they know what they are suppose to be doing. I think it should be the same for a gun. The test I had to take was a little of this and a little of that but it never really showed I was responsible with a firearm nor that I knew the laws well enough to be walking around with a gun.

My big surprise is people who take the ccw test and have NEVER fired a gun. Who get their first gun after they have taken the test. Oh for heavens sakes, how about you be able to fire a gun fairly well before you even think to carry it around and maybe have to use it around other people.

[BadHabit]

In TN I had to show proficiency. I believe your wording should be "competency exam" instead of "training course" which to me implies something totally different.

[PEF]

I'm not for government mandated training. It will accomplish very little and overlooks guzintah/guzhoutah. Responsible citizens go in, responsible citizens come out. On the flip side, yahoos go in, yahoos come out. And most yahoos can hide their yahooness for 4 or 8 hours of training so they can get their carry license and handle their guns in just as unsafe a manner in public as they do in private.

[pfries]

In TN is a course required yes but it is a joke, my 10 year old has passed it
(gave him the same questions verbal that are on the written portion and hold him to a higher standard on the shooting portion).
Do I think training should be mandatory? No. Do I hope that anyone that chooses to take carrying a fire arm for protection would? Yes.
It is supposed to be a right (it is not most places) but the responsibility is real, take my opinion for what it is worth.

[pittypat21]

I see your point, but at the same time, here's why I have a problem with it.

Government mandated.

Boom. I don't need to say anything else. It is the individual's responsibility to be a grown up and make grown up decisions. When they don't make grown up decisions, that's when natural selection comes into play.

[nedrgr21]

Because it's a right, not a privilege.

[marinevet1994]

I'm not for government mandated training. It will accomplish very little and overlooks guzintah/guzhoutah. Responsible citizens go in, responsible citizens come out. On the flip side, yahoos go in, yahoos come out. And most yahoos can hide their yahooness for 4 or 8 hours of training so they can get their carry license and handle their guns in just as unsafe a manner in public as they do in private.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Mi requires a training class and when I took mine a couple weeks ago there was one young "gentleman" (term used VERY loosely) who I was scared to think of carrying a gun period, much less concealed. He was able to pass the class though. As we were standing around chatting and looking over the instructors pieces, I was wincing every time this yahoo picked up a pistol. If he's lucky, he will only shoot himself in the foot.

[marinevet1994]

Sorry, forgot to say that while I do not feel that training should be mandatory, I agree with earlier posts that it should be taken as part of responsible ownership.