Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?

[Smoke]

Right now six states do not require their citizens to obtain a permit of any kind before exercising their Right to carry a concealed firearm. Three other states have introduced legislation to do away with their permit system as well.

Although I will concede that Colorado's Bill isn't going anywhere as long as Hickenlooper is the Governor, it looks like permitless carry is the coming trend. At least twenty other states issue permits without any training requirement at all.

So in over half of the states in this country no mandatory training is required to carry a concealed handgun but we don't seem to be seeing any growth in firearms related accidents so I have to ask is STATE MANDATED firearms safety training really necessary?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for training I just really don't think the State needs to be getting involved. It's been my experience that those who would benefit from basic safety training or advanced training seek it out and those who wouldn't don't pay any attention when it's forced on them anyway.

ETA I did some checking and so far I've found the following states have no training requirement Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire Pennsylvania, South Dakota Vermont, Washington State and Wyoming. I'm sure there are others and I will continue to add them to the list (14 states total)

 

[Pef]

No state requires training to exercise the first amendment rights.

No state should require training to exercise second amendment rights.

 

[jakebrake]

No state requires training to exercise the first amendment rights.

No state should require training to exercise second amendment rights.

as much as I agree, I go to a public range.

I've seen a lot of new shooters that really need to be shown the ropes.

(I don't mind helping, and the r.s.o.s never do either, I just wonder if / hope all of us are being diligent regarding helping the newbs)

 

[Pef]

as much as I agree, I go to a public range.

I've seen a lot of new shooters that really need to be shown the ropes.

(I don't mind helping, and the r.s.o.s never do either, I just wonder if / hope all of us are being diligent regarding helping the newbs)

Yup.

While I believe a STATE should not be able to require training, I do think it wise for an individual to get some training. But the choice should be left to the individual, and not the state.

 

[GypsmJim]

There should be no database that collects names of individuals that own firearms. There should be no registration of firearms, nor should there be a record of who purchases ammo or how much.

However, I firmly believe that anyone that uses a firearm should be required to have a reasonable amount of safety training. I say that based on observations of "hunters" and target shooters that I come across at my club or out in the field.

Since I'm on a rant here, I think it should be extended to people that operate a boat. That's my other hobby. Every time out we see complete idiots driving crafts capable of 60 mph that are only an inch away from tradgedy.

 

[307-Niner]

I lived in Alaska for 23 years, no permit or training required. I don't ever remember hearing about problems or incidents because of it.

I'm going on 2 years living here in Wyoming, and have not heard of any problems or incidents here either...

I do travel to neighboring states that DO require permits, and have reciprocity with Wyoming. So my wife & I both have Wyoming permits.

While the class was informative regarding specific state laws, it was very basic. If you attended & paid the fees, you were going to pass. Any test question missed by anybody, was discussed openly until everybody understood better.

I feel it was a good class for somebody brand new to guns. But having been a gun owner for over 20 years... I would compare it to sitting thru a 5th graders math class... If you catch my drift.

I don't think requiring these classes is necessary for safety of the general public. It seems to be more about the money generated for the state.

With all of the new gun owners purchasing their first firearm, I would rather see the gun manufacturers offering to sponsor gun handling & safety clinics. I'd bet that the NRA would get involved, and local gun clubs as well. I think that a good percentage of new gun owners would take advantage of it, and gun clubs memberships would grow, as would the NRA.

 

[mstem]

Smoke, add Virginia to your list. I got my CHP by taking a hunter safety course & mrs. mstem got hers by taking an online class.

I have never understood why I have to get anyone's permission to exercise my Second Amendment right. If I have to pay $50.00 to exercise my SA right everyone should have to pay $50.00 to vote also.

GypsmJim, operating a boat is a privilege, not a right. Two different things entirely.

307-niner, you are a winner! It's all about states making money! In other words, another tax!

 

[JohnSW]

If you don't know about gun safety, can't hit a target, and don't know about your state's deadly force laws, you shouldn't be allowed to carry. Here is part of Minnesota's law:

"(2) completion of a firearms safety or training course providing basic training in the safe use of a pistol and conducted by a certified instructor.

(b) Basic training must include:

(1) instruction in the fundamentals of pistol use;

(2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

(3) instruction in the fundamental legal aspects of pistol possession, carry, and use, including self-defense and the restrictions on the use of deadly force."

 

[Smoke]

Smoke, add Virginia to your list. I got my CHP by taking a hunter safety course & mrs. mstem got hers by taking an online class.

Nope, doesn't matter what the content of the class is. State mandated training is State mandated training.

 

[Smoke]

If you don't know about gun safety, can't hit a target, and don't know about your state's deadly force laws, you shouldn't be allowed to carry. Here is part of Minnesota's law:

OK back up your hypothesis.

Do theses states Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Dakota Vermont, Washington State and Wyoming.

Have higher per capita instances of fire arms related accidents than states that require training?

What measurable benefit comes from State mandated training?

What other Constitutionally enumerated Rights would you put a training requirement on?

 

[John R]

The only reason the government is involved in it is FOR THE MONEY, and control, but you can call it what you want.

 

[JohnSW]

No state should require training to exercise second amendment rights.

With rights, comes responsibilities.

No, untrained / untested gun owners do not have the unconditional right to endanger the public, through their carrying.

 

[silentflyer]

Watching some of the idiots I see at the public ranges, YES, before they hurt themselves or someone innocent bystander. My favorite is the ones who arrive right after purchase of a handgun and can't figure out how to load a semi-auto..yes I have seen this with my own eyes.

 

[Smoke]

With rights, comes responsibilities.

No, untrained / untested gun owners do not have the unconditional right to endanger the public, through their carrying.

Again I offer the invitation

OK back up your hypothesis.

Do theses states Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Dakota Vermont, Washington State and Wyoming.

Have higher per capita instances of fire arms related accidents than states that require training?

What measurable benefit comes from State mandated training?

What other Constitutionally enumerated Rights would you put a training requirement on?

untested gun owners do not have the unconditional right to endanger the public, through their carrying.

Can you demonstrate that this is the case?

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Assuming for a moment that a certain level of firearms training is accepted as being in the best interest of public safety, my argument would be that such training should be included in public school education.

Not a bad idea, in my opinion.

 

[Fastbolt]

Mandated and necessary are two different things.

If it's mandated, it's not like it's open for immediate discussion (barring a change in any laws involved, via legislative or court action).

Necessary?

Well, let's just say that I've seen a very dismaying number of people who were shockingly and unimaginably unsafe in their handling and shooting of firearms.

They were adamant in the whole "It's my right" mantra, of course, and didn't see anything wrong with their handling and use of their guns.

People make mistakes, or use sloppy, slip-shod and unsafe methods even using simple tools like hammers and screwdrivers. Or any other mechanical equipment.

The thing is, making such mistakes, and/or handling practices involving casual indifference to the safety of the general public around them, can create some tragic consequences, and do so very quickly, often negating the safety of 'distance' when it involves motor vehicles & firearms ... and even bows & arrows, airguns and slingshots.

FWIW, I've listened to a number of folks who have always been ardent supporters of RTKBA, and who went on to become firearms instructors, who, after increasing exposure to enough people in classes, opined that some people just shouldn't own or possess firearms.

Sure, this could be said of any number of pursuits and activities in which people are involved. (Including owning pets and raising children.)

I've seen a sad number of people who apparently can't be trusted to safely operate a shopping cart, for that matter.

At some point, the society which discovers it's becoming endangered by reckless, uninformed, unknowledgeable and negligent ownership and usage of something (including firearms), is going to express the desire for the risk to be mitigated and minimized, or at least dealt with harshly.

The trick will be for that perceived risk to be addressed in a manner that also conforms to the manner in which that society has already chosen for itself to be governed and protected within its laws. A tricky & slippery slope, to be sure.

I suspect that further case law decisions will continue to clarify the 2nd and how it relates to carrying firearms outside the owner's dwelling & private property. Guess we'll see what course the idea of "training" takes as this evolves.

Considering that some of the reciprocity disagreements among states has involved the nature and extent of "training", I'd not be at all surprised to see any expanding concept of 'national reciprocity' address this subject.

Look what they did with LEOSA and annual qual requirements, and that's for peace officers (active & retired) who have already arguably received more "basic" firearms training than is required of most private citizens.

People can really complicate just about anything they touch.

 

[Wingmaster]

I agree LoboGunLeather.

In fact, Hunter safety is required in 9th grade PE class here in the public schools. I have always thought that was a great idea.

I don't remember reading in the second ammendment anything about requireing training.

Wingmaster

 

[F75gunslinger]

I have seen people that have no idea how to responsibly handle a gun, go and buy one for self defense, and go home. No practice, no idea of how the laws work, and no real idea of how to use the gun effectively. There are A LOT of people that decide to get one, having little to no experience with them. Some ( or probably most of us here ) grew up with guns and have common sense pertaining to them, as well as a second nature sense of safety with them. But for someone who hasn't ever handled one, and had no experience with them..I think a training course is a MUST HAVE.

 

[Fastbolt]

Assuming for a moment that a certain level of firearms training is accepted as being in the best interest of public safety, my argument would be that such training should be included in public school education.

Not a bad idea, in my opinion.

As long as it's an elective, why not?

 

[Mike McLellan]

In lieu of some test to separate the gun-savvy from the complete imbeciles, some form of rudimentary training isn't a bad idea. When I lived in New York, a days training in firearms safety was a pre-requisite to getting a hunting license. In Alaska, a 1 hour film is must-view for anyone desiring to use the indoor range, operated by the Department of Fish & Game.

Even a know-it-all, like myself, benefits whenever I'm forced to re-think safety issues. The government is the logical choice for a provider of such training. A private entity cannot be easily indemnified from liability, when a mishap can be traced to a flaw in the training curriculum, in the way a government agency can.