Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
It's my latent Libertarian peeking out . . .
RV4driver
US Veteran
I've been teaching NRA basic firearm classes for years...be very afraid.
Having said that, I don't feel that much of anything should be federally mandated. State, maybe. But the Feds can only muck it up. Not my opinion, just 60+ years of experience. Not that the state can't muck it up, but the feds are pros. You know, over-achievers in the muck it up field.
Having said that, I don't feel that much of anything should be federally mandated. State, maybe. But the Feds can only muck it up. Not my opinion, just 60+ years of experience. Not that the state can't muck it up, but the feds are pros. You know, over-achievers in the muck it up field.
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
An interesting approach, but one I view as unconstitutional (of course, I view all carry permit requirements as unconstitutional).
Back to the original question:
Do I think people *should* get training? Yes. But the person should decide.
Do I think the STATE should have the power to require training? No.
How is it unconstitutional? It doesn't restrict or infringe any right. It's not a requirement. It just forces the carrier to assess the level of risk he is willing to undertake.
Do I want 25/50/25 insurance, or 50/100/50? Full coverage or just liability? What risk am I willing to assume? Perfectly legal, and not unconstitutional . . .
italiansport
Member
In all honesty I can't. But there invariably will be accidents and the anti's will use the no training requirement as the reason and also call for far more stringent laws. They alway do whenever there's a tragedy.
Also keep in mind there has NEVER been any legal requirement for open carry in this State from day 1.
However up until the mid 20th century Arizona was a sparsly populated and primarily rural State where virtually everyone was exposed to and familiar with firearms.
Jim
Johnmuratore
Member
Mass has a safety training requirement for all levels of firearm ownership, including pepper spray. An FID card covers rifles and shotguns, a Class B - pistols also but no carry, and a Class A for CCW. Most of the instructors train the NRA Basic Pistol Safety Course and the better ones do the State Police requirement that the student fire a minimum of 100 rds. Ours was conducted with an RSO behind every shooter.
I've owned and shot firearms for 50 years and I was not offended by being required to attend the training. Some of the others had never handled a firearm in their lives and watching them with the instructor made me glad they were there.
Will they carry that to the range when they aren't with an instructor?
Who knows, but I wouldn't want to be standing next to them on a firing line if they hadn't received any training.
I've owned and shot firearms for 50 years and I was not offended by being required to attend the training. Some of the others had never handled a firearm in their lives and watching them with the instructor made me glad they were there.
Will they carry that to the range when they aren't with an instructor?
Who knows, but I wouldn't want to be standing next to them on a firing line if they hadn't received any training.
Training is required
There was a comment in one of the above but I deleted it because I don't want to confuse rights or firearms training generally with hunting rules and regulations, although there is a certain amount of overlap.
First some history:
Thomas Jefferson was a shooter. So were James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Alexander Hamilton. All Founding Fathers of the US of A, you will recall. Hamilton actually got himself shot and killed in a duel with Aaron Burr, you will recall.
How do you think they became shooters? They were trained. None of them merely picked up a firearms and became a shooter. Cars are a modern example but firearms and other weapons training goes back to the beginning of human history. Surely, the first caveman to win a fight with a stick wasn't trained. But what about the second, or third?
For those of you who remember what you were taught in your American history classes three of those men named above were signers of the Constitution. Mr. Mason is probably principally responsible for the Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry was also instrumental in having the Bill of Rights adopted to amend the new Constitution and protect individual rights but he was not a signer. He did say these things, however:
And this:
Then there is this, from Virginia as a proposed amendment, and you just KNOW it came from Patrick Henry:
There is also this quote:
The underlying theme is that to effectively keep and bear arms there is a requirement of training. To be "able" means trained ability, not the mere strength to pick up a 4 or 5 pound object. Back in the day it was probably a given. When little Johnny got to be 7 or 8 and could hold a musket up by himself his daddy taught him how to use it so there was food on the table whilst dad was busy with other things.
More to the point, the militia was described as "well regulated" in the Second Amendment - what do you think that means, governed by the Code of Federal Regulations? It does not, it means being in proper working order. Something that is well-regulated is calibrated correctly, functioning as expected if you will. It has nothing to do with governmental oversight of arms. It is based on training. You can even think of a machine's calibration as its training.
How does the citizen's militia come to be well regulated? Training my friends, it's all training. So, yes, by all means let's have firearms training in the public schools.
Ipso facto, requiring training for citizens to carry weapons around really seems to be something akin to a natural requirement. It is arguably irresponsible to permit untrained people to run around armed.
The RKBA requires training for the "militia" (which is all citizens) to be well regulated. We should never forget that.
There was a comment in one of the above but I deleted it because I don't want to confuse rights or firearms training generally with hunting rules and regulations, although there is a certain amount of overlap.
First some history:
Thomas Jefferson was a shooter. So were James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Alexander Hamilton. All Founding Fathers of the US of A, you will recall. Hamilton actually got himself shot and killed in a duel with Aaron Burr, you will recall.
How do you think they became shooters? They were trained. None of them merely picked up a firearms and became a shooter. Cars are a modern example but firearms and other weapons training goes back to the beginning of human history. Surely, the first caveman to win a fight with a stick wasn't trained. But what about the second, or third?
For those of you who remember what you were taught in your American history classes three of those men named above were signers of the Constitution. Mr. Mason is probably principally responsible for the Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry was also instrumental in having the Bill of Rights adopted to amend the new Constitution and protect individual rights but he was not a signer. He did say these things, however:
And this:
Then there is this, from Virginia as a proposed amendment, and you just KNOW it came from Patrick Henry:
There is also this quote:
The underlying theme is that to effectively keep and bear arms there is a requirement of training. To be "able" means trained ability, not the mere strength to pick up a 4 or 5 pound object. Back in the day it was probably a given. When little Johnny got to be 7 or 8 and could hold a musket up by himself his daddy taught him how to use it so there was food on the table whilst dad was busy with other things.
More to the point, the militia was described as "well regulated" in the Second Amendment - what do you think that means, governed by the Code of Federal Regulations? It does not, it means being in proper working order. Something that is well-regulated is calibrated correctly, functioning as expected if you will. It has nothing to do with governmental oversight of arms. It is based on training. You can even think of a machine's calibration as its training.
How does the citizen's militia come to be well regulated? Training my friends, it's all training. So, yes, by all means let's have firearms training in the public schools.
Ipso facto, requiring training for citizens to carry weapons around really seems to be something akin to a natural requirement. It is arguably irresponsible to permit untrained people to run around armed.
The RKBA requires training for the "militia" (which is all citizens) to be well regulated. We should never forget that.
I believe I read that there is legislation coming after that numbskull instructor gave the full auto Uzi to a 9 year old girl. That is all it will take to get the mandated training, not if but when.
Well, maybe. That was a destination range. The 9 year old's parents paid that instructor to give her an UZI. Lot's of things to be litigated/decided.
varmint243
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 516
- Reaction score
- 372
I have been one of the team qualifying club members for the use of two of the club pistol ranges.
After seeing what I have seen in the last two years, I'm not sure I'm opposed to some training.
In principle I am opposed to government intervention, IMO reality is probably another thing.
After seeing what I have seen in the last two years, I'm not sure I'm opposed to some training.
In principle I am opposed to government intervention, IMO reality is probably another thing.
I agree with most of what you've said, but you have to consider the locations. I grew up in western South Dakota and had a similar experience - never a problem with gun accidents, etc. But then, like WY and AK, hunting is a common past time and even more importantly, guns are just tools. In all three states the percentage of gun owners is high and the percentage of times with guns in them is even higher. It's a fairly safe bet that kids are exposed to guns at a young age and that gun safety is taught at a young age. We had NRA sponsored hinter safety courses offered in the evening on school grounds and nearly all 11 or 12 year olds took it as it was a prerequisite for a big game hunting license in SD.
That's not how it is in many more populated areas, where guns are not as common and where they are not a part of every day life.
I encountered an individual once who was dating the daughter of a friend of mine. We were getting read for a range trip and he was stunned that my friend and I acted the same when we were handling handguns as when we were not carrying a gun (although neither of us pointed out he'd probably never seen either of us when we were not carrying a gun). My friend drew his concealed carry weapon, handed it to his daughter and said "Look! She doesn't act any different either!"
It took him awhile to understand the "guns are just tools" concept and that a handgun did not turn you into Tony Montana.
-----
So when we start talking about how boring mandatory training classes are, I'm right there with you - mostly bored and actually critiquing the instructor in my head.
But, I'm also observing the other students in the class and it's obvious that for many this is their first exposure to firearms and that for many of them, this badly needed training, but at the same time not nearly enough.
The live fire qualification required in NC is also a cakewalk for experienced handgun shooters, but it is also eye opening for those same shooters when they observe the new gun owners in the class.
In that regard, I disagree that mandatory training is not necessary for public safety. It's still not enough, but the North Carolina 8 hour classroom (4 hours gun safety, 4 hours use of deadly force, with additional coverage of the law requiring you to keep your weapon on your person or secured where children cannot access it) training requirement along with the live fire requirement are a good happy medium between minimizing the hassle of getting a permit, and ensuring that people carrying concealed handguns on their person are not totally clueless.
The major objection you'll always hear is that bearing arms is a second amendment right and should not be subject to any conditions. The hardcore far right wingers will throw in the words "God given". The reality is that ALL of our constitutional rights come with a commensurate degree of personal responsibility to ensure that we exercise our rights appropriately and safely so as not to infringe on the rights of others - as our rights stop when we begin to infringe on the rights of others.
We all learn at fairly young age that we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, slander other people, or make false accusations regarding other people and expect it to be covered under "free speech" as it violates the rights of others. We learn in part as young children trying it, and not getting away with it, learning there are consequences, and modeling the behavior of others. It's part of the normal enculturation process.
If you come from someplace like SD, WY or AK, you experience a similar enculturation process, absorbing gun safety rules through instruction as well as vicarious learning, and you also learn what is and is not socially acceptable when it comes to handling and carrying firearms.
If you live in a state that does not have a strong hunting and guns as tools kind of culture, you don't get that. And in those states, a much higher percentage of potential concealed carry applicants NEED the mandatory instruction.
-----
If you have any doubt about that, just consider the rash of toddlers and children who seem to be shooting themselves and others with handguns - usually handguns carried off the person's body, and owned by people (some now deceased) who apparently never thought through the pros and cons of off body carry, and who FAILED to uphold the personal responsibility side of the 2nd amendment equation.
That is my major concern. If we, as a larger body of gun owners, continue to allow under trained individuals with inadequate knowledge of gun safety and concealed carry to continue to cause accidents, injuries and fatalities, it will reflect badly on all of us and will lead to ever more restrictive legislation as the non gun owning public votes to ensure they are protected from "us".
I agree with you that the NRA could and should take a lead role in this. I'd like to see them do that by offering more local training, but beyond that by pushing for reasonable legislation - such as requiring gun owners with children in the house to properly secure weapons that are not under their direct control or on their person. It should not be needed, but sadly it is, as evidenced by way too many gun owners are not being responsible enough to keep them secured.
I also think we can help self police our community on forums like this and help train newer shooters in our community to be safer shooters, as well as better shooters. I recently posted some thoughts on carrying striker fired pistols, outlining some concepts that I suspect some of the members here may never have considered. That's because way too many people hear "My finger is may safety" and believe, it but have no idea what that really means or how quickly real works events make that inadequate.
In the end, it's neither productive nor adequate to point a finger at someone and say "what an idiot", or to sit back and state that because it's a "right", people should be able exercise it in an irresponsible manner. Instead we need to proactively identify unsafe practices and help people develop better habits and practices while promoting the concept that while we have second amendment rights, in the end we will only keep them if we exercise them responsibly and convey an image to the non-gun public that we are normal, responsible individuals who do not pose a threat to the public.
Last edited:
bhayles
Member
I'm sure you can cite what part of the 2nd Amendment backs this up, right?
Yep. I have said it for years. Junior High students should have a mandatory firearms safety class!!! JMHO...........
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
My view is that any law that affects the right to keep and bear arms is subject to "strict scrutiny" court review. This is the strictest level of judicial review. For a law to pass constitutional muster under this review, the law must 1) further a compelling governmental interest; 2) must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and 3) must be the least restrictive means to do so.
Here the law "would ramp up the criminal/civil penalties available for those who commit a crime or civil tort (bad shoot, negligent shoot, etc.) for those who haven't had any training."
So: First, is there a compelling governmental interest for training? Assume there is.
Second and third prong: Is this the Least restrictive means to achieve that interest? Stiffer civil and prison penalties? No. There are less restrictive means (e.g., requiring people to take the training, thereby eliminating enhanced prison sentences).
The law would also be unconstitutional because it imposes stiffer criminal penalties for people that did not take training. So think about it. Do we want to live in an country where we tack on three extra years in prison if we do not abide by our government's desires? Of course not.
This is the same as saying if you do not have speech training and commit slander, your penalty should be enhanced.
Sorry, but I believe that Government is already infringing on our rights too much. I do not suffer any additional infringements if the Government is acting to further an interest I myself endorse.
As I said - It's wise to get training. But that's a personal choice when it comes to a constitutional right. I don't want the Government - either actively or passively - forcing my hand.
"A well regulated militia"
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
The prefatory clause is not limiting on the operative clause. Scalia explains it much better than I ever will. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
Side note: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right of the people, not the militia...
So we have an individual constitutional right. The government's authority to place limits on it is subject to the same scrutiny as the first, fourth, fifth, etc.
Look, I AGREE people should get training. I DISAGREE that a STATE can impose such training as a condition to exercise the right, or place any other restrictions or additional penalties on those that do not get training.
In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Do you agree that a citizen can be disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights? Scalia seems to think he can . . . This, to me, seems to constitute the "well regulated" part of the Amendment.
Last edited:
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
That's a good question, and yes, a person can be disqualified and such disqualification would pass constitutional muster.
But it's not the Militia portion. It's simply strict scrutiny review for an individual right. For example, say a guy was convicted of attempted murder, did his time, and is out. Here there is a compelling governmental interest in keeping guns out of hands of people that have shown that they are willing to break extremely serious laws and harm (or attempt to harm) others. Perhaps not a lifetime ban, but perhaps X years while he integrates back into society, subject to review should he petition to have his full rights reinstated.
On the other hand, say a guy was convicted of tax evasion. Does his time. Here, no evidence of violent behavior. I'd say he should be able to possess a gun.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FINLAND - The Winter War 1939 -> NATO member 2023 - general matter about Finland- Latest: S&WshooterFIN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
