Training Before Obtaining Carry Permit?

[Ken Ford]

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.)

Seems like I’ve heard this before...

 

[chucklenut]

A required test or even paying ffor the ccw itself is a poll tax

 

[TapcoFan]

Make training mandatory, only certify a few places to conduct such training, make sure they charge $800 for basic safety lessons and take up the whole weekend (like traffic school). Make sure only people with disposable income can exercise their fundamental rights. Make it harder to pass the class in case too many people are passing. Also make the classes smaller so there is a year long waiting list to get into the classes. Raise prices even more to reduce demand. Deny rights. Profit. What could go wrong?

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Make training mandatory, only certify a few places to conduct such training, make sure they charge $800 for basic safety lessons and take up the whole weekend (like traffic school). Make sure only people with disposable income can exercise their fundamental rights. Make it harder to pass the class in case too many people are passing. Also make the classes smaller so there is a year long waiting list to get into the classes. Raise prices even more to reduce demand. Deny rights. Profit. What could go wrong?

And where in the USA has that ever happened?
Is that how New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey go about restricting gun carry rights?
California? Minnesota? Illinois? Show me a liberal, gun-hating state where they put unreasonable burdens (like you describe above) on the training element of getting a carry license.

 

[Ken Ford]

And where in the USA has that ever happened?
Is that how New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey go about restricting gun carry rights?
California? Minnesota? Illinois? Show me a liberal, gun-hating state where they put unreasonable burdens (like you describe above) on the training element of getting a carry license.

Most have draconian laws already, but this type of stuff has been addresed, also ammo tax, registration and tax, etc, etc, suing manufactures. Expiring gunpowder to keep fro stocking up. How much more proof that they will use any method they can?

Why would you possiblely give the antis more ammunition that you know they will attempt to use.

 

[chucklenut]

And where in the USA has that ever happened?
Is that how New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey go about restricting gun carry rights?
California? Minnesota? Illinois? Show me a liberal, gun-hating state where they put unreasonable burdens (like you describe above) on the training element of getting a carry license.

They do it with foid cards

Not with the training element, but they (illinois state police) are accused of intentionally delaying issuing permits and excusing it by claiming "administrative backlogs"

It is entirely reasonable to believe that those in gov would use mandatory training as a go around to restricting rights

 

[GeauxLSU]

And where in the USA has that ever happened?
Is that how New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey go about restricting gun carry rights?
California? Minnesota? Illinois? Show me a liberal, gun-hating state where they put unreasonable burdens (like you describe above) on the training element of getting a carry license.

It is a right, uniquely protected by "shall not be infringed". Why do you persist?

 

[TapcoFan]

And where in the USA has that ever happened?
Is that how New York and Massachusetts and New Jersey go about restricting gun carry rights?
California? Minnesota? Illinois? Show me a liberal, gun-hating state where they put unreasonable burdens (like you describe above) on the training element of getting a carry license.

In California, if you want a license to carry (LTC), you must complete mandatory training (anywhere from 1-2 full days, plus a couple hundred dollars for the class) and submit your fingerprints for a livescan (another $100) BEFORE applying. Once you complete everything and apply, you pay $71 to CA DOJ and another $111 to the Sheriff's Office. Several weeks later, you get called in for an interview (make sure you get time off from work), then wait another 90 days for the processing of your application. The mandatory training requirement is part and parcel of an overly restrictive, unconstitutional licensing scheme.
Not only is it part and parcel of an unconstitutional licensing scheme, the requirement is an unconstitutional infringement because it provides the government yet another means to restrict our rights. I believe that requiring training that costs several hundred dollars and the opportunity cost of my time is an unreasonable burden. Further, the cost of a training course could be an unreasonable burden on those working two jobs, individuals with fixed incomes, and others with limited financial means. If getting a voter ID is too much of a hurdle or an unreasonable burden, an LTC is certainly even more unreasonable.

 

[spencer60]

Make training mandatory, only certify a few places to conduct such training, make sure they charge $800 for basic safety lessons and take up the whole weekend (like traffic school). Make sure only people with disposable income can exercise their fundamental rights. Make it harder to pass the class in case too many people are passing. Also make the classes smaller so there is a year long waiting list to get into the classes. Raise prices even more to reduce demand. Deny rights. Profit. What could go wrong?

You just described the process for carry permits in the area around Chicago. I work with folks up in Naperville (just west) and it took two of them over a year to get tier permits.

It's also the process in NYC, although the rest of NY state isn't as restrictive.

Of course a lot of states simply have 'may issue' systems where they just deny you for pulling Susy's hair back in 3rd grade.

 

[TapcoFan]

You just describes the process for carry permits in the area around Chicago. I work with folks up in Naperville (just west) and it took two of them over a year to get tier permits.

It's also the process in NYC, although the rest of NY state isn't as restrictive.

Of course a lot of states simply mave 'may issue' systems where they just deny you for pulling Susy's hair back in 3rd grade.

Yep, California already does something similar. It wouldn't be a big step for the CA legislature to roll back the number of training providers by increasing fees or changing requirements, creating hurdles to acquiring ammunition for training (already happening), or any other number of "minor" infringements. Like previously stated, death by 1000 cuts.