Galco, a manufacturer of holsters and gunbelts, says on its website (and I'd assume in the printed materials that come packaged along with their produts) that guns are too dangerous to use without formal training from an accredited (meaning, NRA) training program.
https://www.galcogunleather.com/qa.html#How+do+I+determine+what+size+belt+to+buy
99% of American gun owners haven't taken such a training program, unless the basic "hunter safety" program counts. It shouldn't count, because hunter's safety classes do not address the issues involved in carrying handguns for defense out in public, or sport shooting handguns at shooting ranges, including drawing from the holster. That's what Galco's products are meant for. And just about nobody who has been actually using Galco's products that way for the last 30 years (or however long they've been in business) has the level of training that Galco now claims is necessary to use its products.
I think Galco is wrong, and probably they're actually lying. I don't think the people at Galco really believe this B.S. that they're publishing. They're just saying it on the advice of their lawyers and insurance company.
WHY IT MATTERS:
Galco's opinion on gun safety training can be used by lawyers and judges and jurors to more easily find "negligence" and therefore LIABILITY for US, gun owners and permit holders who carry, if we have an accident and hurt somebody. Or, if a person we supplied a belt or holster to later hurt somebody. HOW? Because Galco is saying that it's per-se negligent to carry (or even use) a gun without first having NRA-certified and accredited training.
(Galco doesn't name the NRA specifically, but I don't know of any other national group or agency or business that certifies firearms instructors and training courses for the general public).
Galco's opinion on gun safety training pushes aside the REAL questions related to negligent firearms handling (muzzle discipline, finger off trigger, know your target, etc.) and substitutes a new and much lower standard for negligence--your failure to get proper training through an official class or coaching by a certified instructor.
Galco's opinion can be CITED by LOBBYISTS advocating for GUN CONTROL, showing that firearms training is viewed as absolutely critical in the gun products industry, and therefore the government should mandate it.
Galco's opinion can be cited by GOVERNMENT AGENTS in deciding that guns and shooting are too dangerous to allow without this bona-fide, accredited, training. For example:
-- You want to be a foster parent? You'll have to prove to the State that you either have no firearms in your house or all the adults in your home have been trained to nationally-recognized standards on gun safety. Otherwise, your home cannnot pass the safety inspection needed to place a foster child with you.
(Same thing for having custody or visitation rights to your own children in the event of a divorce. The judge might order you to ONLY USE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND GUN-RELATED PRODUCTS OR ACCESSORIES if (and ONLY if) you follow all the manufacturer's recommendations and instructions regarding those products. Well, your holster company instructs you not to use a holster unless the NRA or some other accrediting agency trains you and tests you to prove you're safe enough to have a holster).
There could be future repercussions from having a major player in the gun products industry saying that the way we American gun owners have been doing things for generations is wrong, dangerous, and substandard. When Galco does it, it's bad. If many other companies that make guns, ammo, or gun-relalted products take the same position, it's going to open the back door to a lot more gun control through mandatory training and denial of permission to have guns or use guns in certain situtations if you don't have that kind of training.
https://www.galcogunleather.com/qa.html#How+do+I+determine+what+size+belt+to+buy
99% of American gun owners haven't taken such a training program, unless the basic "hunter safety" program counts. It shouldn't count, because hunter's safety classes do not address the issues involved in carrying handguns for defense out in public, or sport shooting handguns at shooting ranges, including drawing from the holster. That's what Galco's products are meant for. And just about nobody who has been actually using Galco's products that way for the last 30 years (or however long they've been in business) has the level of training that Galco now claims is necessary to use its products.
I think Galco is wrong, and probably they're actually lying. I don't think the people at Galco really believe this B.S. that they're publishing. They're just saying it on the advice of their lawyers and insurance company.
WHY IT MATTERS:
Galco's opinion on gun safety training can be used by lawyers and judges and jurors to more easily find "negligence" and therefore LIABILITY for US, gun owners and permit holders who carry, if we have an accident and hurt somebody. Or, if a person we supplied a belt or holster to later hurt somebody. HOW? Because Galco is saying that it's per-se negligent to carry (or even use) a gun without first having NRA-certified and accredited training.
(Galco doesn't name the NRA specifically, but I don't know of any other national group or agency or business that certifies firearms instructors and training courses for the general public).
Galco's opinion on gun safety training pushes aside the REAL questions related to negligent firearms handling (muzzle discipline, finger off trigger, know your target, etc.) and substitutes a new and much lower standard for negligence--your failure to get proper training through an official class or coaching by a certified instructor.
Galco's opinion can be CITED by LOBBYISTS advocating for GUN CONTROL, showing that firearms training is viewed as absolutely critical in the gun products industry, and therefore the government should mandate it.
Galco's opinion can be cited by GOVERNMENT AGENTS in deciding that guns and shooting are too dangerous to allow without this bona-fide, accredited, training. For example:
-- You want to be a foster parent? You'll have to prove to the State that you either have no firearms in your house or all the adults in your home have been trained to nationally-recognized standards on gun safety. Otherwise, your home cannnot pass the safety inspection needed to place a foster child with you.
(Same thing for having custody or visitation rights to your own children in the event of a divorce. The judge might order you to ONLY USE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND GUN-RELATED PRODUCTS OR ACCESSORIES if (and ONLY if) you follow all the manufacturer's recommendations and instructions regarding those products. Well, your holster company instructs you not to use a holster unless the NRA or some other accrediting agency trains you and tests you to prove you're safe enough to have a holster).
There could be future repercussions from having a major player in the gun products industry saying that the way we American gun owners have been doing things for generations is wrong, dangerous, and substandard. When Galco does it, it's bad. If many other companies that make guns, ammo, or gun-relalted products take the same position, it's going to open the back door to a lot more gun control through mandatory training and denial of permission to have guns or use guns in certain situtations if you don't have that kind of training.
