Since I think PERMITS shouldn't even be required, then my answer is a big NO !
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Training Before Obtaining Carry Permit?
- Thread starter maddog995
- Start date
No I would not be ok with this. It is your right to defend yourself, government approval not required. Gwl's are enough of an infringement as is.
Besides, have you seen some of the government goons handing/firing firearms? I'd rather not have them involved in my training or in charge of my "approval". Not to mention, government training is a joke. Look at FL. You sit through a couple hours of class, then fire a single simuntion round point blank into a large target. Would that make you feel any more comfortable?
Finally, besides emotional feelings, can you show that safety is increased I states that mandate training? There is no evidence to support this.
To recap... second amendment trumps all.
You invite the man into your life.
Safety is not increased.
Besides, have you seen some of the government goons handing/firing firearms? I'd rather not have them involved in my training or in charge of my "approval". Not to mention, government training is a joke. Look at FL. You sit through a couple hours of class, then fire a single simuntion round point blank into a large target. Would that make you feel any more comfortable?
Finally, besides emotional feelings, can you show that safety is increased I states that mandate training? There is no evidence to support this.
To recap... second amendment trumps all.
You invite the man into your life.
Safety is not increased.
I am against mandatory training requirements. For a whole lot of reasons;
1. It is another expense (barrier to some) that creates a burden on law abiding citizens.
2. It can become more of a barrier to citizens if the training requirements get changed by people who want to stop people from getting a GWC.
3. When I was an instructor in Michigan, the law specifically named the NRA course "Personal Protection In The Home" as the training requirement. You had to do that class for 8 hours and slip in an hour with a lawyer or a cop who would sometimes just read the laws to you or they'd actually explain the laws. There was no mention in the law as to what this person had to do. There was some fraud involved with license renewals. The law said you didn't have to take a training class and obtain a certificate to renew your license. It did say that you may be required to stand in front of a "Gun Board" who would ask you to prove you had practiced. Instructors were selling "Renewal Classes". People were spending money on these and they didn't need to.
4. Fraud. There were people who sold training certificates for people who didn't want to take an 8 hour class to get their license. There are people who give the class up there who have no qualifications to do so. How do you control for that? Issue "Instructors Licences" ?
I try to encourage gun owners to take training classes all the time. If you are a responsible adult, you'll seek out some sort of training to learn how to operate your guns. And you'll seek out information about the laws. Not everyone does though.
But to make it mandatory is inviting trouble. Recently we saw that lady in Michigan recently who had a Michigan license and had gone through the required training class fire at fleeing shop lifters because she wanted to "help".
1. It is another expense (barrier to some) that creates a burden on law abiding citizens.
2. It can become more of a barrier to citizens if the training requirements get changed by people who want to stop people from getting a GWC.
3. When I was an instructor in Michigan, the law specifically named the NRA course "Personal Protection In The Home" as the training requirement. You had to do that class for 8 hours and slip in an hour with a lawyer or a cop who would sometimes just read the laws to you or they'd actually explain the laws. There was no mention in the law as to what this person had to do. There was some fraud involved with license renewals. The law said you didn't have to take a training class and obtain a certificate to renew your license. It did say that you may be required to stand in front of a "Gun Board" who would ask you to prove you had practiced. Instructors were selling "Renewal Classes". People were spending money on these and they didn't need to.
4. Fraud. There were people who sold training certificates for people who didn't want to take an 8 hour class to get their license. There are people who give the class up there who have no qualifications to do so. How do you control for that? Issue "Instructors Licences" ?
I try to encourage gun owners to take training classes all the time. If you are a responsible adult, you'll seek out some sort of training to learn how to operate your guns. And you'll seek out information about the laws. Not everyone does though.
But to make it mandatory is inviting trouble. Recently we saw that lady in Michigan recently who had a Michigan license and had gone through the required training class fire at fleeing shop lifters because she wanted to "help".
I'll help you guys, you will not find one person here who honestly think that firearms training is not necessary. But then one of you already knows this. The burden of knowing how to exercise the right falls upon the individual and not a Government nanny state.
However, you will find many who refuse to allow government mandated training be a requirement FOR ANY RIGHT! The issue they have is just how many, supposedly educated people fail to comprehend just what a "right" honestly and truly is.
Promote, encourage and even subsidize good firearms training but NEVER mandate it as a requirement to exercise the right. High schools should offer firearms training and educate the youth as to the true purpose and intent of that right. But the leftist that control our education will fight to the last breath to prohibit enlightening the youth to this right as they despise it.
I don't like this proposal, since it is mandatory training and thus one more hurdle to jump before getting your right to carry a defensive weapon.
But as far as mandatory training goes, this is pretty mild compared to what some other states have.
The training has to cover how to shoot a gun, but it does NOT require that the student actually fire a real gun. So these classes could be held as classroom-only events in shopping centers and malls and office parks and all sorts of common and plentiful and affordable spaces. Trainers who want to offer this training can easily rent a space and hang out a shingle and do it. It won't require a shooting range. People can become certified NRA instructors pretty easily and at modest cost. So there are not a lot of barriers to instructors and trainers entering this market.
There are a number of exceptions to formal and recent training, and the cost is reasonable.
I agree that once a state implements mandatory training, it makes future gun control efforts so much easier for the gun grabbers.
They can increase the costs, decrease the number of qualified instructors (by adding more credentials to the requirements list), reduce the availability of training sites, toughen the standards for passage to unrealistic levels, and otherwise use dishonest back-door techniques to prevent people from getting their GWLs.
But as far as mandatory training goes, this is pretty mild compared to what some other states have.
The training has to cover how to shoot a gun, but it does NOT require that the student actually fire a real gun. So these classes could be held as classroom-only events in shopping centers and malls and office parks and all sorts of common and plentiful and affordable spaces. Trainers who want to offer this training can easily rent a space and hang out a shingle and do it. It won't require a shooting range. People can become certified NRA instructors pretty easily and at modest cost. So there are not a lot of barriers to instructors and trainers entering this market.
There are a number of exceptions to formal and recent training, and the cost is reasonable.
I agree that once a state implements mandatory training, it makes future gun control efforts so much easier for the gun grabbers.
They can increase the costs, decrease the number of qualified instructors (by adding more credentials to the requirements list), reduce the availability of training sites, toughen the standards for passage to unrealistic levels, and otherwise use dishonest back-door techniques to prevent people from getting their GWLs.
Training for a Certification Means Nothing. You can't teach Brains, Morality, or Common Sense. Face it there are Plenty of Cops (No Not Cop Bashing) that don't now When or Even How to Shoot., and they go through Plenty of Training and Certifications! There are Plenty of other Examples of Training/Certifications that don't mean SQUAT! Dr.s, Police, Drivers etc. Again you can't Legislate Morality, and Common Sense. And Don't Mistake a Privilege for a RIGHT!
I am against mandatory training. It can be abused.
I do think that you should have training on use of deadly force. When I was in law enforcement, we had to regularly sign a "Use of Deadly Force Statement" that outlined exactly when we could shoot. No test is necessary.
I wouldnt mind taking a course that would allow carry in other states that have training requirements. The GWCL is not honored in a number of states because of that. It could be an enhanced license, voluntary only.
I think that a national carry law should be passed with very few restrictions. This would help prevent the terrorism we have now running rampant. I think it would give the terrorists pause to know that any American could come up fighting when attacked.
I also think the right of self defense is above any property rights.
I do think that you should have training on use of deadly force. When I was in law enforcement, we had to regularly sign a "Use of Deadly Force Statement" that outlined exactly when we could shoot. No test is necessary.
I wouldnt mind taking a course that would allow carry in other states that have training requirements. The GWCL is not honored in a number of states because of that. It could be an enhanced license, voluntary only.
I think that a national carry law should be passed with very few restrictions. This would help prevent the terrorism we have now running rampant. I think it would give the terrorists pause to know that any American could come up fighting when attacked.
I also think the right of self defense is above any property rights.
Last edited:
While the 2nd amendment is clear on its intention & training should be voluntary, it is foolish & irresponsible to think that just because you own a gun you are qualified to use it.
As one well known Instructor stated, "If you had a serious threat to you/ your families lives where someone said they intended to kill you, would you not want the best protection you could get?
If you were to hire someone for the "job" of protecting your lives, what qualifications do you have to suggest you would be up to the task?
Are you proficient handling your weapon?
Have you trained using it under stressful conditions?
Can you hit your intended target, clear malfunctions, reload, use cover properly, fire one handed if needed, etc. while your heart rate is 170 b.p.m. +?
Would you want a person who has never trained to do any of those things to draw their weapon around you or your family & start firing in close proximity while your life/ lives were at stake?
No I don't think gov't mandatory training is a good idea but it is ignorant & irresponsible to carry a gun with the illusion that if it's needed you will be safe or competent in the use of it under stress unless you have trained to do so.
As one well known Instructor stated, "If you had a serious threat to you/ your families lives where someone said they intended to kill you, would you not want the best protection you could get?
If you were to hire someone for the "job" of protecting your lives, what qualifications do you have to suggest you would be up to the task?
Are you proficient handling your weapon?
Have you trained using it under stressful conditions?
Can you hit your intended target, clear malfunctions, reload, use cover properly, fire one handed if needed, etc. while your heart rate is 170 b.p.m. +?
Would you want a person who has never trained to do any of those things to draw their weapon around you or your family & start firing in close proximity while your life/ lives were at stake?
No I don't think gov't mandatory training is a good idea but it is ignorant & irresponsible to carry a gun with the illusion that if it's needed you will be safe or competent in the use of it under stress unless you have trained to do so.
Last edited:
