MANDATORY classes for ccw?

[GaryS]

I don't know about that but I found something interesting and scary. The title of the statistics seems to be written by someone with a particular point of view.

From VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
"Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Carry Killers
May 2007 to the Present"

Tennessee 15
Georgia 5
Texas 33

Maybe it's time to relocate?

Yes, to Texas. The way that the VPC compiles their statistics, they make no differentiation between murder and justifiable homicide. There is a pretty high incidence of self defense shootings in Texas and from what I've read (and probably have as well) Grand Juries are very unlikely to indict on a justifiable self defense shooting. I'm not as familiar with the laws in TN or GA, but on a guess, those states aren't all that different in that regard.

All of the gun grabbing organizations like to pad their statistics and confuse things by lumping in self defense shootings by citizens with criminal acts.

As to the poll, while I'm in favor of firearms safety training, I'm against mandating it. I'm also against a "qualification" course as a prerequisite for issuing a CCW permit. From my viewpoint this is a civil rights issue. As we've seen over the course of history, it's all too easy for the authorities to make a test too hard for most people to pass. Look at the history of literacy tests for being able to vote.

What is to stop a legislature mandating that potential gun owners must demonstrate how to detail strip and then reassemble a weapon before they are allowed to buy one? Or to demonstrate "proficiency" and safety by having to hit a bulls eye with a handgun from 100 feet with iron sights?

Remember, the people who would deny us our rights want to deny us our rights. They don't care about safety, proficiency, knowledge. They care only about finding ways to take our Second Amendment Rights away. Which is why we must fight them on every issue. To compromise is to concede that there is a certain validity to their arguments.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

So are you saying that an enthusiast and permit holder cannot also be in favor of requiring some training?

Have no idea how you dreamed up that interpretation.

To the contrary, the poll and commentary here shows that many do.

Or that you can only be deemed an enthusiast if you oppose any gun legislation that is proposed?

See above.

 

[jag312]

Originally Posted by jag312
One thing that no one has mentioned is a training session to teach the CCW applicant when the firearm can be used and what are the legal ramifications of discharging the firearm. No one has the right to use a firearm against another person without facing the consequences. I feel an applicant needs to be told what to expect when the firearm is used, even when the investigation eventually shows it to be a good shoot.

No kidding?

Did you really think that anyone here did not already understand this?

You must not be in the law enforcement field. Otherwise you would be amazed at the reasons, or excuses, some people have given for using their firearms, and then are surprised when they are facing the consequences. "Why am I being persecuted? I shot my neighbor because his cat was defecating in my yard. That's justifiable, isn't it?"

Besides the criminal investigation, you can bet there will be a civil suit brought by the family of the deceased. An armed robbery suspect was killed by the police during an armed robbery. The suspect died with a gun in each hand. It was a good shoot. The family sued the department claiming that the suspect was the victim of police persecution as evidenced by his long arrest and conviction record. If the police hadn't been persecuting the poor boy, then why had he been arrested and sent to jail so many times? The department had the City Attorney's Office to deal with the civil suit. How many here have free legal representation?

I believe that anyone with a CCW should first show proficiency with their firearm. If they are not proficient, then they need to get proficient. I hope that everyone here is sensible and proficient in the use of a firearm. Not everyone in this world is.

 

[Silver Dollar]

My opinion? If it weren't for the safety and legal courses that I took first, I would be in the hospital ward of the county jail having shot myself in the foot or someone else by now. If there was one thing I learned from the military, it was that extensive preparation for a mission ensured its success. All you have to do is read stories of some of the absolutely stupid things people have done with weapons and you understand why training is necessary.

 

[redlevel]

Originally Posted by jag312
One thing that no one has mentioned is a training session to teach the CCW applicant when the firearm can be used and what are the legal ramifications of discharging the firearm. No one has the right to use a firearm against another person without facing the consequences. I feel an applicant needs to be told what to expect when the firearm is used, even when the investigation eventually shows it to be a good shoot.





You must not be in the law enforcement field. Otherwise you would be amazed at the reasons, or excuses, some people have given for using their firearms, and then are surprised when they are facing the consequences. "Why am I being persecuted? I shot my neighbor because his cat was defecating in my yard. That's justifiable, isn't it?"

Please provide a link confirming that this happened, especially done by a licensed, untrained, legal carrier. Or did you just make it up?

You imply that LEOs are well informed about laws, and what citizens can and cannot do. Again, not to get into a police bashing mode, I can link you to incident after incident where officers demonstrated their ignorance of state gun laws. They are also bad to shoot themselves in the butt with their Glops, too.

 

[SW_shooter]

I had to quit responding last night because I had written a long post that probably would have gotten me banned..................forever. After a night to think and a discussion with a friend who is opposed to the "mandatory" wording I have a question.

But first to clarify (since I don't appreciate others putting words in my mouth), I am in favor of CCW and do it myself, I am in favor of some sort of training but optional is preferred, I don't like the government meddling in my personal life and certainly don't want them looking into my firearms hobby.

Question for all of those who keep saying they don't want the government taking away or infringing upon your 2nd Amendment rights, or telling you what you can and can't do, who do you think wrote the amendment and gave you that bill of rights? Hint: it wasn't just a bunch of guys sitting around a campfire making **** up.

Now, I have to go cook up some broccoli for lunch.

 

[ladder13]

I propose mandatory training for hot coffee drinkers, since so many wind up spilling the coffee on themselves and costing taxpayers money in medical costs, and lawsuits to businesses. It's just common sense.

 

[keith44spl]

.

I propose mandatory training for hot coffee drinkers, since so many wind up spilling the coffee on themselves and costing taxpayers money in medical costs, and lawsuits to businesses. It's just common sense.

.
Yup....Ya can give em free training, but that don't mean they'll leave the lid on it!

Kinda like a lobotomy


.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I'm not so much in favor of gun safety training as much as I am in favor of training regarding the law on self defense, and when it is proper to even pull a gun much less use it. You would be horrified at what some people think is justification for pulling a gun on someone.

 

[gregintenn]

How many of you would be in favor of a mandated liability insurance policy in order to carry, or perhaps even to own a gun?

This is like anything else, you let em have one thing, it is just a start. This sort of thing will not have an end.

 

[ladder13]

How many of you would be in favor of a mandated liability insurance policy in order to carry, or perhaps even to own a gun?

Hey, start yer own poll.

 

[silentflyer]

In view of some of the idiots I see at public shooting ranges and how they handle firearms YES! YES! and YES! Lucky more of them don't shoot themselves.

 

[baldeagle8888]

I've been following this thread since the beginning and thought I would add my 2 cents.

As I read the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment, why is there any other interpretation other then "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" not understood.
Would I "LIKE" for everyone seeking a CCL to be fully informed and to fully understand all about the legal and safety aspects and show proficiency, of course. What I find totally unacceptable is making it MANDATORY. As soon as it becomes mandatory, we NO LONGER have a "RIGHT", but a
"PRIVILEGE", which by definition then would be subject to any restrictions the politicians desire to put into a law. This would lead to a complete ban over time.
I don't have a solution, but we CAN'T allow this "RIGHT" to be
watered down if we want FREEDOM.

baldeagle8888

 

[USAF385]

Originally Posted by gregintenn
How many of you would be in favor of a mandated liability insurance policy in order to carry, or perhaps even to own a gun?

Hey, start yer own poll.

I assume that everyone comparing the 2nd amendment to driving a car would HAVE to agree with that idea. Otherwise their argument starts to get (more) holes.

 

[luangtom]

While it is a very good practice to take firearms classes if one carries, I do not support the mandatory aspect of them. In all honesty, I have seen classes limited by state authority so that only a specific few instructors could deliver the classes and that, in turn, pushed the prices for said classes out of the reach of many would-be students. It could become an indirect method of gun-control. I am not saying it is, but could be. So, no, I do not support mandatory classes at this time.

 

[labworm]

Mandatory? A big NO.

Leave it up to the individual to understand his responsibilities while carrying a hand gun.

When I was issued my permit in 1990 there was no requirement to take a safety course. I did take one for my own personal reasons, wasn't that familiar with handguns and thought the course was well worth taking.

 

[jag312]

Please provide a link confirming that this happened, especially done by a licensed, untrained, legal carrier. Or did you just make it up?

You imply that LEOs are well informed about laws, and what citizens can and cannot do. Again, not to get into a police bashing mode, I can link you to incident after incident where officers demonstrated their ignorance of state gun laws. They are also bad to shoot themselves in the butt with their Glops, too.

If you are referring to the homicide case where the suspect shot his neighbor of the neighbor's cat, I worked that case. The shooting happened on the sidewalk in front of their houses. The shooter did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but the Smith & Wesson revolver that he used was in his hand when he left his house, not concealed, and not that it matters.

I have never implied that LEOs were well informed about either their firearms or the California laws pertaining to firearms. I have always maintained that most police officers have a superficial knowledge of the gun they carry, just enough so that they don't shoot themselves in the foot too often. As far as shooting themselves in the butt, that was actually a California National Guard officer who shot himself in the butt at San Francisco International Airport while providing security for passengers. I happened to have been there at the time. He put his finger into the trigger guard of his Beretta 92 and yanked it out of the holster by pulling on the trigger. If I was his CO, I would have waited for his butt to heal, then I would have really kicked it.

As far a knowing the California Penal Code as it pertains to firearms and other weapons, they are given a superficial orientation of the Penal Code, and half of what they remember is wrong.

I could write a book about what I've seen during my career. I'm not bashing anyone, but I'm just telling it like I have seen it.

I still feel that in order to get a permit to carry a firearm, the applicant needs to:

1. Demonstrate proficiency in the use of the firearm.

2. Be made aware of the ramifications of the use of the firearm. I believe that this is best taught by an attorney. I know several people in the District Attorney's Office, the Public Defender's Office, and private attorneys who would happily volunteer their time.

 

[pace40]

Here...let me fix this so you guys voting "yes" don't have anything to worry about.

"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" so long as you complete the mandatory training class to do so.


Geeze......on a gun forum????????????

 

[kisportolt]

Have no idea how you dreamed up that interpretation.

Just trying to understand your post. You listed those who you thought would support mandatory training, including those who just have a gun in the home and aren't enthusiasts or permit holders. Did I interpret what you meant incorrectly? No where in your list does it mention the collectors, CC'ers, and others who still feel training is needed. Just the ones who buy a gun on a whim and leave it in the night stand. Feel free to correct me.

 

[MrJT]

What this thread has taught me is there are apparently a lot of incompetent, untrained gun owners out there just hoping and praying the government will step in and mandate they receive some training. Likely assuming others are incapable of receiving training on their own and that the only way they will is for Uncle Sam to force it upon them.

Probably a majority of them are also happy the government will mandate they buy health insurance since they aren't capable of doing it for themselves.

The naivety of some of these responses in favor of more gun restrictions and regulations is mind boggling.

With friends like these, who needs gun grabbing enemies?