Mandatory CCW training? - Page 2

Mandatory CCW training?

This is a discussion on Mandatory CCW training? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by OldVet I think firearms training should be a required high school class for everyone ! A full semester should do it. Absolutely. ...

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 97
Like Tree164Likes

Thread: Mandatory CCW training?

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,566
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I think firearms training should be a required high school class for everyone! A full semester should do it.
    Absolutely. Then, instead of worrying about mandatory training, we would have a gun-proficient citizenry.
    OD*, G26Raven, OldChap and 6 others like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  2. #17
    PJH
    PJH is offline
    Member Array PJH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I think firearms training should be a required high school class for everyone! A full semester should do it.
    Want to stop school shootings? Teach shooting in schools.

    Then, let the idiots come.
    OldChap and montejames like this.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array CG11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    NorthWestern Arizona
    Posts
    5,322
    California required a 1 day class, half on the range, half in the classroom, in my jurisdiction until recently. Moonbeam just doubled that, with no guidelines on how it might be implemented with already stretched departments, and costs approaching $700 to get a permit for only two years. The class also applies to renewals, making renewals effectively almost the same as original applications.
    Be careful of people who brag about who they are - a lion will never have to tell you who he's a lion.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array RedSafety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    1,464
    No classes for Constitutional Carry, but that doesn't give the owner a right to carry outside the state except in other Constitutional Carry states that allow non-residents to carry also. For the CCW permit one needs to take the class, including range time and pass a proficiency test. "A live fire test administered to the applicant while the instructor is present of 20 rounds from either handgun from a standing position or its equivalent at a distance from a B-27 silhouette target, or an equivalent target, of seven yards." We had to put a minimum of like 15 or 17 of the 20 rounds in the silhouette. 20 practice, then 20 qualifying. I fired rather quickly, and put the first 20 rounds on target. "You passed. You can go ahead and do some practice if you want." Well of course! I did my 20 practice after I did my 20 qualifying rounds. Now I can carry pretty much everywhere but the communist nations of NY, NJ. CA, IL, and a few others I don't really care about.
    When seconds count, help is only 18+ minutes away!

  6. #20
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,566
    Quote Originally Posted by PJH View Post
    Want to stop school shootings? Teach shooting in schools.

    Then, let the idiots come.
    Meanwhile, elsewhere:

    NECCdude likes this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array Stirling XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by WebleyHunter View Post
    The state of Colorado requires an 8 hour (or so) classroom session covering defensive concepts and legal requirements. You are exempt from this requirement if you have documented military training (there may be other exemptions as well). Since I had an Army DD 214 and an M9 Expert qualification scorecard, I didn't have to pay $75 for a class, but my wife did...
    The training my wife and I took for our permits was only 4 hours and cost us $120 each. However, the instructor did provide the guns and ammo for the range session. That was good because my wife wanted to try a few different guns before buying hers. There were other classes that were longer and more expensive. If someone was a newby to concealed carry, I would definitely recommend a more thorough class.
    Has anyone tried turning the country off and then back on again?

  8. #22
    Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    391
    ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Doesn't say the right of the people who complete a training class.

    The danger posed by required training programs is that political bosses will amend such requirements endlessly. 8-hours class on firearms safety becomes a week, or a month, and only certain institutions may administer said classes, and the cost of said classes may be raised until exercising one's right becomes impossible for many. Demonstrated ability may start out as a range exercise demonstrating safe gun handling and putting 7 out of 10 shots on a 18" target at 25 feet, then become a 2-week program requiring 100% accuracy at 50 yards with any handgun the instructor chooses to put in front of you. Approved classes may be regulated so that the majority of a state's residents live 200 miles away from the facility.

    We have enough trouble currently with the mandatory background checks for firearm purchase. If the computer reports that a name and date of birth are similar to a fugitive or convicted felon the transaction is denied, then it is up to the individual to appeal, gather and present all the evidence proving he/she is not the person falsely linked by the computer. Over 90% of all transaction denials are in error, and few are willing to spend the time and money to successfully appeal the denial (which is just what the gun-banners want).

    Living in Finland the OP has probably not seen the lengths that the ban-all-guns crowd will go to in pursuit of their utopian dream. In the 1990's our Veterans Administration was ordered to report all veterans who had sought mental health care, and that information was used to deny firearms rights to those veterans. Washington, DC and the City of Chicago were both ordered by our highest courts to revise their permitting programs to return basic rights to keep and bear arms, and both responded with expensive and cumbersome requirements that few citizens were capable of satisfying. We still regularly see new plans to force disclosure of medical history (a clear violation of privacy, as protected by federal law) in order to acquire a firearm. There are a couple of schemes right now that would tax ammunition sales as much as $50 per round of ammunition (A $2 box of .22 cartridges would become a $2502 box of .22 cartridges). The current push toward "red flag" laws would allow anyone (family member, former spouse, ex-girlfriend, neighbor, medical professional, employer, disgruntled former employee, etc) to make a report resulting in a court order to seize a person's firearms without notice or opportunity to contest the action before it is done, and placing the burden of proof on the affected individual in order to overturn the order and reclaim his property.

    There seems to be no limit that the gun-banners will not exceed in their efforts to make the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights as difficult, cumbersome, and expensive as possible so the majority of the people will simply forfeit those rights. Over the past 50 years we have learned that the gun-banners will always keep pushing for more, and every compromise leads to another effort toward abolition of our rights.

    A right may be exercised by any law-abiding citizen at will. When permission is required there is no longer a right, only a privilege to be granted or withheld at the discretion of government officials.

    Mandatory training and demonstrated skills sound like good common-sense approaches. However, in actual practice, these are nothing more than barriers to overcome by those wishing to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and the stated requirements will always become more and more impossible to comply with.
    OldChap likes this.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,406
    I submitted my military ID as my training for my permit. I dont think training or a permit should be required. "training" is a method of infringing on peoples rights in some states, and permits serve no purpose other than generating revenue.
    wizard7mm08 likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  10. #24
    Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    I submitted my military ID as my training for my permit. I dont think training or a permit should be required. "training" is a method of infringing on peoples rights in some states, and permits serve no purpose other than generating revenue.
    Here in Colorado the documented training must be within the past 10 years. I came home from Vietnam and was discharged 46 years ago. Served 24 years as a cop, but took early retirement 23 years ago. Went through the Hunter Safety program 54 years ago. So I still have to take the class every 10 years to keep my concealed handgun permit renewed.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,566
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Doesn't say the right of the people who complete a training class.

    The danger posed by required training programs is that political bosses will amend such requirements endlessly. 8-hours class on firearms safety becomes a week, or a month, and only certain institutions may administer said classes, and the cost of said classes may be raised until exercising one's right becomes impossible for many. Demonstrated ability may start out as a range exercise demonstrating safe gun handling and putting 7 out of 10 shots on a 18" target at 25 feet, then become a 2-week program requiring 100% accuracy at 50 yards with any handgun the instructor chooses to put in front of you. Approved classes may be regulated so that the majority of a state's residents live 200 miles away from the facility.

    We have enough trouble currently with the mandatory background checks for firearm purchase. If the computer reports that a name and date of birth are similar to a fugitive or convicted felon the transaction is denied, then it is up to the individual to appeal, gather and present all the evidence proving he/she is not the person falsely linked by the computer. Over 90% of all transaction denials are in error, and few are willing to spend the time and money to successfully appeal the denial (which is just what the gun-banners want).

    Living in Finland the OP has probably not seen the lengths that the ban-all-guns crowd will go to in pursuit of their utopian dream. In the 1990's our Veterans Administration was ordered to report all veterans who had sought mental health care, and that information was used to deny firearms rights to those veterans. Washington, DC and the City of Chicago were both ordered by our highest courts to revise their permitting programs to return basic rights to keep and bear arms, and both responded with expensive and cumbersome requirements that few citizens were capable of satisfying. We still regularly see new plans to force disclosure of medical history (a clear violation of privacy, as protected by federal law) in order to acquire a firearm. There are a couple of schemes right now that would tax ammunition sales as much as $50 per round of ammunition (A $2 box of .22 cartridges would become a $2502 box of .22 cartridges). The current push toward "red flag" laws would allow anyone (family member, former spouse, ex-girlfriend, neighbor, medical professional, employer, disgruntled former employee, etc) to make a report resulting in a court order to seize a person's firearms without notice or opportunity to contest the action before it is done, and placing the burden of proof on the affected individual in order to overturn the order and reclaim his property.

    There seems to be no limit that the gun-banners will not exceed in their efforts to make the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights as difficult, cumbersome, and expensive as possible so the majority of the people will simply forfeit those rights. Over the past 50 years we have learned that the gun-banners will always keep pushing for more, and every compromise leads to another effort toward abolition of our rights.

    A right may be exercised by any law-abiding citizen at will. When permission is required there is no longer a right, only a privilege to be granted or withheld at the discretion of government officials.

    Mandatory training and demonstrated skills sound like good common-sense approaches. However, in actual practice, these are nothing more than barriers to overcome by those wishing to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and the stated requirements will always become more and more impossible to comply with.
    While that risk may exist within the realm of possibility, it certainly hasn't played out in reality. Aside from the requirements of a few may-issues, concealed carry requirements have generally become much more relaxed once shall issue became law. Several states have even gone to constitutional carry, where there are no licensing requirements.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,379
    @retired badge 1 Yes sir...1,000 likes!

    If I had my say, I would mandate that every child attending any school in America would be extensively taught that America is not a democracy, but a republic (Along with John Wayne, I love the sound of that word) as spelled out by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That makes a HUGE difference in whether or not we have "political bosses", "government officials", or simply "representatives of the citizens of the United States."

    Those children would also be taught that elected representatives are not bosses or officials, they are servants of We The People. Furthermore, that the Constitution and BOR is the only thing that separates America from tyranny. When politicians get the idea that they are not servants, we come to the place we're in today: Politicians exist almost solely to maintain their hold on the power to profit from being in a position to accept whatever bribes, (I refuse to call them "campaign contributions") flow into their bottomless pockets.

    I apologize for my skepticism about the current crop of worthless politicians throughout our great country. I'm getting to be a bit optimistic about what is happening in France. Maybe, just maybe, someday we will begin to act like we the people govern this country and wrest control from the leeches. Although I freely admit that we, as a people, must grow a backbone before that happens.
    Frodebro and msgt/ret like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by retired badge 1 View Post
    Here in Colorado the documented training must be within the past 10 years. I came home from Vietnam and was discharged 46 years ago. Served 24 years as a cop, but took early retirement 23 years ago. Went through the Hunter Safety program 54 years ago. So I still have to take the class every 10 years to keep my concealed handgun permit renewed.
    As a retired LEO you should look into a LEOSA permit from your agency. There is a proficiency requirement but it allows you to carry in all states.

    Here is a basic rundown.
    5lima30ret likes this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    While that risk may exist within the realm of possibility, it certainly hasn't played out in reality. Aside from the requirements of a few may-issues, concealed carry requirements have generally become much more relaxed once shall issue became law. Several states have even gone to constitutional carry, where there are no licensing requirements.
    Only becasue it hasnt needed to.The states that would do this simply dont issue permits to people other than the privileged few.
    OldChap likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array ButtShot14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    559
    I do support a reasonable amount of training before someone can legally obtain a license to carry. Not a big thing. I had to take a class and pass a test to get my driver's license. A LTC is just as necessary for everyone's safety. Some people don't even know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. I don't want them around me carrying a loaded firearm. I think we have all been uncomfortable around someone who was not well versed in firearm safety. Let's not foster this by allowing them to CC without a little bit of training.
    Maui1919 likes this.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,379
    Quote Originally Posted by ButtShot14 View Post
    I do support a reasonable amount of training before someone can legally obtain a license to carry. Not a big thing. I had to take a class and pass a test to get my driver's license. A LTC is just as necessary for everyone's safety. Some people don't even know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. I don't want them around me carrying a loaded firearm. I think we have all been uncomfortable around someone who was not well versed in firearm safety. Let's not foster this by allowing them to CC without a little bit of training.
    I wonder how many times we'll continue to hear this argument? I would like to challenge anyone who believes this to do some careful research on the precise difference in our country between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.

    Just a tiny hint: The former is spelled out in the Constitution as something being granted to you by your Creator that must be respected and protected by your government. The latter is something a government, in their munificence, allows you to have. Perhaps, as an easier to understand example, I have the RIGHT to speak freely. I do not have the PRIVILEGE to practice medicine - without taking a test.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •