Training Before Obtaining Carry Permit?

[alnen]

I agree that in theory, any training requirement could be used as a backdoor assault on weapons carry by government officials who want to discourage armed citizens.

But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)

New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...

... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.

Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?

Why does it matter if another nation has done this? The US is the best nation BECAUSE we have the second amendment to protect us from crap like this. Politicians attempt to circumvent our constitution constantly. This would, at minimum, be cut number 500 out of 1,000 cuts.

Setting the constitution aside for one moment, what evidence is there to support such a bold notion? There would have to be major, irrefutable evidence showing that mandatory training saves lives in order to institute such an infringement. To my knowledge, such evidence does not exist. So why give up what little we have left for a "feel good" half measure that is based on emotion? I know it would make many feel better if they knew that everyone had attended their mandatory government training, but that doesn't cut it.

 

[jeep78]

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the oftentimes bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.



Re-read this part if you missed it the first time:

the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights

 

[JDS556762]

Why does it matter if another nation has done this? The US is the best nation BECAUSE we have the second amendment to protect us from crap like this. Politicians attempt to circumvent our constitution constantly. This would, at minimum, be cut number 500 out of 1,000 cuts.

Setting the constitution aside for one moment, what evidence is there to support such a bold notion? There would have to be major, irrefutable evidence showing that mandatory training saves lives in order to institute such an infringement. To my knowledge, such evidence does not exist. So why give up what little we have left for a "feel good" half measure that is based on emotion? I know it would make many feel better if they knew that everyone had attended their mandatory government training, but that doesn't cut it.

 

[jeep78]

I agree that in theory, any training requirement could be used as a backdoor assault on weapons carry by government officials who want to discourage armed citizens.

But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)

New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...

... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.

Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?

It is nearly impossible to get a CCW in parts of Kali and NY because of "reasonable restrictions" like this.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

The second amendment is a reasonable restriction on the government. It States that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As for the rest of this thread..

 

[Ken Ford]

I agree that in theory, any training requirement could be used as a backdoor assault on weapons carry by government officials who want to discourage armed citizens.

But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)

New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...

... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.

Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?

Wasn’t long ago people scoffed at the idea of someone suing the legal manufacturer of an item (guns) for what an entirely different person did illegally with that item.

In a perfect world your notion might work, but the libs have proven time and again they will not give up.

 

[Ghost941]

I've got hundreds of hours of "documented" firearms training. Maybe even more than a thousand. Firearm training is NEVER a bad thing, however the second amendment is a constitutional right and should not have to be "earned".

 

[Ex313]

I agree that in theory, any training requirement could be used as a backdoor assault on weapons carry by government officials who want to discourage armed citizens.

But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)

New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...

... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.

Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?

 

[Comanche]

Shall not be infringed seems to be the most forgotten and ignored portion of the second amendment.
And it’s our fault for letting the tyrants get away with it.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

I asked a Lieutenant in charge of weapons training and officer qualification about what kind of training would be good for citizens to take, on their own, and what type of shooting test would be good for them to pass. Would it be similar to the POST qualifications shoot for law enforcment?

His answer:
1-- Mandatory training is a bad idea. The government could use that as a method to discourage citizens from carrying. Backdoor approach to gun control.

2-- Voluntary training is excellent and everybody should get training.

3-- The most important kind of training is just safe weapons handling. Cooper's 4 fundamental rules. Especially watch that muzzle !! Finger OFF the trigger until you're actually committed to shooting.

4-- As far as what type of shooting test we should be able to pass, he suggested that the one law enforcement officers use for their small "back up" or "off-duty carry" guns is a pretty good one for armed citizens. (I don't know what distances are involved or how many shots have to be fired in what time limits, and I didn't ask him for those details.)