Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?

[Muss Muggins]

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.

The Supreme Court has a different opinion, and the various Courts over the years are consistently against you. That's all I have.

 

[Pef]

The Supreme Court has a different opinion, and the various Courts over the years are consistently against you. That's all I have.

There are a number of issues that are opened post-Heller. Mance v. Holder is one example (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/40-opinion.pdf) (who knows what will happen on appeal).

The door is open, but it will take years for the case law to develop.

 

[k22fan]

[…] the militia was described as "well regulated" in the Second Amendment - what do you think that means, […] it means […] training.

How does the citizen's militia come to be well regulated? Training my friends, it's all training. […]

The RKBA requires training for the "militia" (which is all citizens) to be well regulated. We should never forget that.

You assert that the well regulated militia mentioned in the Second Amendment's prefatory clause required training. That may be so but that is irrelevant to the Second Amendment rights of private citizens who are not actively participating in a militia. The U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause." Whether or not requiring training is an infringement under the operative clause is the only Second Amendment issue here. In Heller the Court also ruled the right to keep and bear arms expressed in the 2nd Amendment's operative clause is a fundamental right, the same as the right to free speech. How long to you think a law requiring a training course on the limits of free speech before being allowed to speak in public would last in court?

As a practical mater requirements to exercise 2nd amendment rights inevitably get twisted by anti-gun bureaucrats who intend to do anything they can get away with to restrict gun ownership or make it more expensive or difficult to own and use guns. Lacking protection from them you wind up with communities where it is difficult to own and use guns like so many urban areas on the East coast.

Concealed pistol license holders only need basic training if they are too lazy to read library material. Books covering gun safety, hunting and target shooting were all in my junior high school library. There was far more information there than in the course I took that was required for a non-resident Utah concealed carry license that, like a previous poster wrote about his class, was equivalent to 5th grade math, or worse. The shooting test was to hit a dinner size paper plate with a pistol sand bagged on a bench rest at 5 or 7 yards, I forget which. I shot standing offhand. The instructor asked me to reshoot it aiming at different parts of the plate so the holes would land separate of each other. Other than a few Utah specific self defense laws the class was a waste of my time and money. Collecting some of that money is what motivates Utah to make it relatively easy for non-residents to get their license. Earning some of that money for himself was also what motivated the instructor. These days every range has a flock of 5 yard experts selling their self defense classes to new comers who would be better served by a trip to the library.

Edit to add: I see D.C. v. Heller declaring the 2nd Amendment's first clause is not the operative clause got some discussion while I cooked, ate and typed. I'll also add a link to the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf It starts on page 598 of the pdf. If you have enough interest to have read this far you ought to read the syllabus. I enjoyed the whole decision but it is long.

 

[Smoke]

^^^^ Thanks for saving the time to type it^^^^^^^

If we can get a requirement for training out of the prefatory clause then why can't we get a requirement for a militia out of it

 

[11B Lifer]

Some of the most unsafe

I've seen many state approved instructors do the most unsafe practices. Sloppy handling-flagging etc.
One of the most popular instructional places here rents pistols-when the guns are brought back an instructor will cycle the action, pointing the thing at everyone in the area-
So hundreds of students emulate these practices-

 

[Hang-Fire Hank]

TORN BETWEEN DIFFERENCES EXPRESSED

This is a very difficult subject for me. Difficult because I don't want any more govt. intrusion in my life than necessary, but I've been an NRA pistol instructor for just under 12 years & have personally observed pistol owners abysmal lack of handling safety, accuracy, & mental preparedness. Although I can't add anything new to the various posts previous to mine, I still want to advise you of my experiences.

There doesn't seem to be a happy medium between staunch 2A defenders and the need for training I've seen. As of 2/20/15, I've put 1,040 people thru my classes which cover NRA Basic Pistol, situational awareness, plans for confrontation, local/state/federal laws. Before our AZ law changed Oct. 2010 no longer requiring training to carry concealed, I averaged 13 people a month. I remember prior to that date thinking no more than 10% could handle a firearm safely & 0% were aware of the deadly force justifications.

The difficulty with the Constitutionalists denial of mandatory training is that if you tell people they no longer have to train....MOST WON'T! Training & the state fee total around $140. Times are tough! Now only the financially successful, whether retired (most of my clients) or still working, take my classes (about three a month).

Since Oct. '10, I've had people tell me of local infractions of displaying a pistol in our Wally World parking lot over a verbal argument, outside carry into establishments that serve liquor, shooting both their windshield out & then their foot while clearing a 1911 (20 yr. retired Marine), & strong verbal assertions they would immediately "kill" anyone they found burglarizing their home.

I don't have a solution. I'm torn between the Constitution I swore to uphold 51 yrs. ago & the real world of unskilled owners of deadly force.

Hank in Payson, AZ

 

[ISCS Yoda]

In Heller the Court also ruled the right to keep and bear arms expressed in the 2nd Amendment's operative clause is a fundamental right, the same as the right to free speech. How long to you think a law requiring a training course on the limits of free speech before being allowed to speak in public would last in court?

In reality, we are trained on the limits of free speech from childhood. As we get older, the limitations on our free speech grow. Suggesting that there is no training on the use of speech is to ignore everything you have ever been taught on the use of words.

Childhood:

Say please and thank you.

Do not scream at me; I'm your mother.

If you use that word again you'll have your mouth washed out with soap....or lose your iPhone for a week, in today's society.

THIRSTY!!!! THIRSTY!!! - If you ask for water you'll get it. if you scream thirsty you'll get nothing.

Add your own.....

Adulthood:

The Supreme Court itself taught us we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Do that and you will be arrested for disturbing the peace.

Joe Smith is a liar. I never stole anything from the XXXwhatever.... oops...I get sued by Joe Smith slander for calling him a liar and he proves I really did steal something from XXXwhatever. Judgment for the Plaintiff - where's my free speech now?

It's libelous if I do it in writing - I write, In the State University Daily Press, that Hillary Scatzeroni stole all the poetry books from the library. Hillary sues me for libel - and shows the Court that the poetry books were moved to the opposite wall - and if I had looked I'd have seen where she put them and I never saw her remove them from the building. Judgment for the Plaintiff - where's my free speech now?

The following comes from this source and I am quoting from it directly (I think the rules say I can do that as long as I tell you what I am doing and source it):

NBC News anchor Brian Williams' comments about dead bodies, Hurricane Katrina starting to gain attention, draw scrutiny | News | The New Orleans Advocate ? New Orleans, Louisiana

(c) The New Orleans Advocate/John Simerman

Williams' account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

"I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert," Williams said Wednesday. He painted his earlier description as a "bungled attempt" to thank an Iraq War veteran.

What's the big deal? if Brian Williams has free speech who cares what he says? So what happened to his freedom of speech? Well, I guess he was permitted to say these things, okay, that's his freedom of the press, too.....but....because free speech AND a free press comes with responsibility and have limits Mr. Williams overstepped those limits - and he's paying the price.

So your training course in fee speech is really a lifetime of experience and schooling, learning at the hands of your parents and other adults when you're very young and then learning the limits of what you can write or say somewhere in your education, whether in school, in church, just by general reading - it's all out there. No special course is required, per se, since you've had a lifetime course of training.

Firearms are different. The freedom to own them and tote them around doesn't come to you so routinely, your third grade teacher doesn't sit and remind you of your Second Amendment freedoms (yeah, sure, try even mentioning them in the 3rd grade these days!) and only a very fortunate small percentage of children hear anything positive about firearms when they're very young. An even smaller percentage are lucky enough to have a parent who teaches them in their use in our modern world.

So they need training. I train adults to shoot; I have trained teenagers to shoot (no little kids; not yet), and when friends come to me because they want to buy guns I make sure they get some training. To be

WELL REGULATED

requires training.

As for the militia argument, first, the militia in the late 18th century included all able bodied men - it is not some defined corps of uniformed Soldiers. The Minutemen who stood up to the Redcoats were the militia. The citizens who joined Colonel Jackson in 1812 - and the pirates, too - were the militia. The citizens, WW2 veterans or otherwise, who stood up to the local government and its corruption in 1946 at what was called the Battle of Athens were the militia. (You can look it up; it's a great story.) They took up arms against the local government! The Second Amendment in action.

And I quote:

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 people have the right to keep and bear arms, even if they are not active in the militia, it secures freedom - BUT IT COMES WITH RESPONSIBILITY. Also, if you're going to quote the Heller case as your basis, NEVER forget that that very case describes limitations on the right to own firearms. it is clear from Heller that not everyone can own a gun because the right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill. Also, guns cannot be carried everywhere - laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, were not overturned by Heller. Further, certain restrictions on the sale of guns were allowed to stand, and the 1934 NFA restrictions, such as not permitting certain types of guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns, were not overturned. Lastly, and most importantly, perhaps, for this discussion, laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons were not overturned.

And just how does a citizen in most states get around the prohibition of carrying a concealed handgun?

They take a state mandated training course.

And that's the name of that tune.

 

[Pef]

There's no teeth to the prefatory clause "A well regulated militia..."

Read Heller. It's an easy read. It really is.

 

[Pef]

This is a very difficult subject for me. Difficult because I don't want any more govt. intrusion in my life than necessary, but I've been an NRA pistol instructor for just under 12 years & have personally observed pistol owners abysmal lack of handling safety, accuracy, & mental preparedness. Although I can't add anything new to the various posts previous to mine, I still want to advise you of my experiences.
.....<SNIP By PEF>

The difficulty with the Constitutionalists denial of mandatory training is that if you tell people they no longer have to train....MOST WON'T! Training & the state fee total around $140. Times are tough! Now only the financially successful, whether retired (most of my clients) or still working, take my classes (about three a month).

....<SNIP by PEF>

I don't have a solution. I'm torn between the Constitution I swore to uphold 51 yrs. ago & the real world of unskilled owners of deadly force.

Hank in Payson, AZ

I understand. But if we are to apply the Constitution with any discipline, then sometimes we have to acknowledge that the Government cannot force people to do what we think is wise.

Here's an oversimplified view Constitutional interpretation: If you think the Government can do everything you would like it to do, then very likely you are misinterpreting the Constitution.

 

[Muss Muggins]

There are a number of issues that are opened post-Heller. Mance v. Holder is one example (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/40-opinion.pdf) (who knows what will happen on appeal).

The door is open, but it will take years for the case law to develop.

The second holding in Heller:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: . . .

 

[walkin' trails]

I am reminded of the scene in the movie, "Shane," where the homesteader brags that he'll go to town anytime he wants and is packing his 38. Then he gets smoked by the professional gunman. While not necessarily directly applicable to this discussion, I've seen that mentality exhibited a lot over the years. A lot of gun owners criticize law enforcement officers' gun handling skills, police officers have received a lot more training than the average gun owner. All that training, even if the minimum amount required by state law is not always enough. I believe that everyone who owns a firearm should attend at least a minimum amount of shooting and safety training using NRA standards as the guidelines. That said, I have a hard time with state/federal mandates.

ISCS Yoda spelled it out correctly regarding the intent of the 2A. I would add that my understanding of "well regulated" also meant well trained.

 

[Pef]

The second holding in Heller:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: . . .

Yes. And that is when the "strict scrutiny review" comes in.

Just like the First Amendment does not protect all religious practices or all forms of speech (for the latter, think time, place and manner restrictions). That's nothing new.

My view is that States, under strict scrutiny review applied to this individual right, cannot mandate training.

Others may disagree, and that's fine. As a practical matter, I doubt this particular issue will be challenged in court anytime soon. The only time it would is if a state imposes training requirements that are extremely oppressive - e.g., 40 hours class room training, followed by written and oral exam, followed by qualification on a range. It would be very very easy to develop a training course in which I could fail a vast majority of the trainees.

 

[ladder13]

I've seen many state approved instructors do the most unsafe practices. Sloppy handling-flagging etc.
One of the most popular instructional places here rents pistols-when the guns are brought back an instructor will cycle the action, pointing the thing at everyone in the area-
So hundreds of students emulate these practices-

I used to hang out at a small range close to NYC run by a good friend of mine, frequented by NYPD, Probation, Court Officers, Corrections, and local suburban cops.
There's so many stories I could tell.

 

[Watchdog]

Is STATE MANDATED safety training really necessary?

Where I live, it's the law, so it really doesn't matter if shooters think it's necessary or not.

The "training" cost me sixty bucks and eight hours of my time. Big deal. I've long since forgotten about the sixty bucks. I'll never have to requalify. Over and done with, end of story.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Yes. And that is when the "strict scrutiny review" comes in.

Just like the First Amendment does not protect all religious practices or all forms of speech (for the latter, think time, place and manner restrictions). That's nothing new.

My view is that States, under strict scrutiny review applied to this individual right, cannot mandate training.

Others may disagree, and that's fine. As a practical matter, I doubt this particular issue will be challenged in court anytime soon. The only time it would is if a state imposes training requirements that are extremely oppressive - e.g., 40 hours class room training, followed by written and oral exam, followed by qualification on a range. It would be very very easy to develop a training course in which I could fail a vast majority of the trainees.

Fair enough. Good discussion . . .

 

[ladder13]

I understand. But if we are to apply the Constitution with any discipline, then sometimes we have to acknowledge that the Government cannot force people to do what we think is wise.

Here's an oversimplified view Constitutional interpretation: If you think the Government can do everything you would like it to do, then very likely you are misinterpreting the Constitution.

100 likes on that one!

 

[Pef]

In reality, we are trained on the limits of free speech from childhood. As we get older, the limitations on our free speech grow. Suggesting that there is no training on the use of speech is to ignore everything you have ever been taught on the use of words.

...

That training is not mandated by the Government. But the example does illustrate while individual training is wise.

But be careful when attaching any weight to the prefatory clause. Example: Want a well regulated militia? Then the Government needs to know how many weapons can be brought to bear. Thus, every gun owner must now register their firearms with a central database maintained by Homeland Security....

So we should all be thankful the prefatory clauses was found to be non-limiting. To rely on it is to drastically reduce the protection of the Second Amendment.

 

[Shootbrownelk]

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.

The parents involved with that bear more responsibility than the instructor. What the hell were they thinking there? Bringing that kid to a range and allow her to shoot a full-auto uzi?

 

[BB57]

I am reminded of the scene in the movie, "Shane," where the homesteader brags that he'll go to town anytime he wants and is packing his 38. Then he gets smoked by the professional gunman. While not necessarily directly applicable to this discussion, I've seen that mentality exhibited a lot over the years. A lot of gun owners criticize law enforcement officers' gun handling skills, police officers have received a lot more training than the average gun owner. All that training, even if the minimum amount required by state law is not always enough. I believe that everyone who owns a firearm should attend at least a minimum amount of shooting and safety training using NRA standards as the guidelines. That said, I have a hard time with state/federal mandates.

ISCS Yoda spelled it out correctly regarding the intent of the 2A. I would add that my understanding of "well regulated" also meant well trained.

That's where we as a community have to step in.

1. We need to be less tolerant of unsafe shooters on the range, we need to correct the unsafe behavior, and we need to provide and promote higher levels of training.

2. We need to point out unsafe practices and bad ideas when we see them - in person or on the internet and we need to host some healthy discussion about unsound practices, like off body carry, or carrying a Glock in purse, a pocket or with a holster that does not fully protect the trigger.

3. We need to promote the necessity of expecting responsible gun ownership as going hand in hand with the right to own a gun, rather than just defending the right, absent the responsibility.

4. We need to promote firearms training in schools again, to ensure that kids receive at least a basic education on how to notify an adult if they find an unattended handgun, ad to understand the four basic safety rules of gun handling.

If we do not start doing this as a community, we will not be abel to reverse the trends we're seeing and sooner or later the government will step in and impose greater limitations on gun ownership as a means to increase public safety.

 

[BB57]

Where I live, it's the law, so it really doesn't matter if shooters think it's necessary or not.

The "training" cost me sixty bucks and eight hours of my time. Big deal. I've long since forgotten about the sixty bucks. I'll never have to requalify. Over and done with, end of story.

That's really the key issue.

In NC you don't have to do anything to open carry, and one can argue that is sufficient to meet the requirement of the second amendment. It does not specify a right to concealed carry.

Consistent with that, it you want to conceal carry in NC, you'll have to spend one day and between $80 and $100 on a concealed carry class, spend a few hours on the range with 40 rounds of ammunition and get a passing score of 28/40 rounds within any of the scoring rings on a B-27 target at 3, 5 and 7 yards. Then you pay $10 for fingerprints and $80 for the application fee - a total of $170-$190 plus ammo. For someone who wants to conceal carry, it's not overly burdensome, all that difficult or, in the over all scheme of things, all that expensive.

If you don't want to spend the time and money you don't have to, you can still open carry.

------

You could argue that unreasonably high CCW fees and training costs discriminate against persons from lower economic status, and in that regard disproportionately affects blacks and hispanics. That is where liberals actually get on board with us now and then in opposing gun control restrictions that have a disparate impact on minorities.

In that regard, state provided training could eliminate the training fee and the state could lower the application and finger print fees to reflect actual costs, rather than making money off them, but the training requirement itself is a good idea, given that we now live in an age where the majority of people are not exposed to firearms training growing up.