MANDATORY classes for ccw?

[Rule3]

I do not understand why the whole 2nd amendment has to be bantered about? If your State requires a License or Permit already to conceal carry then why not get all bent out shape about that??

That, based on some of the replies is an "infringement"

I am infriged when I can not carry in the Post Office or a Federal building, a school, sporting event, bar etc. Lets get rid of those lame requirements also.

So for everyone to be happy, anyone should be able to buy any gun anytime and carry it were ever they want.

There problem solved.

 

[ladder13]

I do not understand why the whole 2nd amendment has to be bantered about? If your State requires a License or Permit already to conceal carry then why not get all bent out shape about that??

Let's talk about kittens then.

 

[Realzebub45]

People are already bent out of shape about that. It says to keep and bear, not just to keep at home. Simple really.

 

[Lost Lake]

I do not understand why the whole 2nd amendment has to be bantered about? If your State requires a License or Permit already to conceal carry then why not get all bent out shape about that??

That, based on some of the replies is an "infringement"

I am infriged when I can not carry in the Post Office or a Federal building, a school, sporting event, bar etc. Lets get rid of those lame requirements also.

So for everyone to be happy, anyone should be able to buy any gun anytime and carry it were ever they want.

There problem solved.

Yes our rights are being infringed on right now! In the ways you posted and many many others. YOU cannot own a sound muffling device for your firearm unless you pay for a $200 tax stamp and submit to an FBI background check.

Why is that? Do you realize what that law did when it went into effect in 1934 when suppressors were selling for $5 or less and the gov wanted a $200 tax stamp on them? It destroyed an industry.

Today that $200 isn't much, but it could be raised to $10,000 with the stroke of a pen.

The reason why the suppressor tax was put in place is debatable, but one account I have read which kind of makes sense is this:

The gov had a lot of out of work IRS agents after prohibition was over. When they passed a silencer and machine gun regulation only 1% of those items were ever registered ($200 at the time was a LOT of money). If the goal was registration the tax could have easily been $5 right?

What the new laws did was create a lot of criminals. Now why would the gov want that? Think about it.


I think any new regulations passed could also do the same thing. Requirements for training, training renewal, registration, licensing, proficiency testing, ammo registration, ammo limits, etc. Any new law can create a lot of new criminals, new reasons to expand government and cause more taxes.

No foil hat here. Just take a poll on how many of us would willing register all our guns and agree to the need to re-register them if we pass them on to our kids. All those who 'lost their guns in a boating accident' immediately become felons by not registering their weapons.

It's a slippery slope.

.

 

[A10]

Just curious:

People on this thread seem to be in favor of training, but not mandatory training. Again, just curious, don't pick up your flamethrower yet, But if the training isn't mandatory, how many people do you think will even bother with it? What kind of standards should & could be set for this non-mandatory training?

So, your premise is that if the Government doesn't require it, it won't get done? I guess we should mandate all training then.....

Gun safety classes are now required to get a hunting license. Well except for us old geezers.

Gun safety is equally important for concealed carry.

If you oppose requirement of a class, would you agree the person should be REQUIRED to pass a gun safety knowledge and practices test.

"shall not be infringed" but we have minimum age limits ...

People aren't really citizens until they reach the age of 18. They do not have all the rights accorded to them by the Constitution until that time. Hunting licences are granted by the state (you don't actually have the right to hunt, any more than you have a right to drive, or be an electrician, or plumber) so the state can decide what requirements they want to set for those licences.

For non-LEO's, yes. For LEO's no...see HR218.

Uhhh.....no. If the law applies to one, it must apply to all, regardless of their choice of career.

 

[smitholdtimer]

Yes only because of the people........

You all know that there are those individuals who for one reason or another have never been exposed to firearms or the use there of. These folks do need training and plenty of it. I've heard horror stories from individuals who were taking the training and classes required by our fair state citing situations that were very scary to them and the remainder of the class. Just a fact of life that the individuals who have not had the privilege of learning how to properly handle guns or chose not to learn are now choosing to own and carry a gun. It is a good thing if they have the proper training and learn the safe handling procedures before they are turned loose on the public. We all had to learn from someone! Just one more opinion!

 

[Rule3]

Let's talk about kittens then.

I have a copy of the Constitution right here in front of me.

Under the 2nd Amendment I do not see any thing about a Form 4473??
So based on that, all the felons, drug addicts, wife beaters, husband beaters and mentally ill should all be allowed to have guns as they are still US Citizens and their rights" have been infringed. So the whole thing about CCW and training is mute.

We must have this nonsense of back ground checks repealed.

We must have anarchy except of course in New Yawk

I like kittens but then they become CATS!

 

[gm272gs]

...Most people who own a gun have had some sort of training, whether it be a father, friend, or safety course...

From my experience, not true.

I am an instructor and was at the range just yesterday doing a private class with a guy and his wife.

While I was there, no less than three (3) people showed up with new guns they had purchased, and not a single one of them had ever handled a firearm of any kind, before. None of them had any training, whatsoever.

I see this all the time, and it's kind of scary.

 

[Lost Lake]

I have a copy of the Constitution right here in front of me.

Under the 2nd Amendment I do not see any thing about a Form 4473??
So based on that, all the felons, drug addicts, wife beaters, husband beaters and mentally ill should all be allowed to have guns as they are still US Citizens and their rights" have been infringed. So the whole thing about CCW and training is mute.

We must have this nonsense of back ground checks repealed.

We must have anarchy except of course in New Yawk

I like kittens but then they become CATS!

Cats.... I have no use for cats. The local oriental food place has been shut down three times (as reported in the newspaper) because they have been caught with multiple cages (23 at last report) of stray animals in the facility storage room. I guess different cultures see animals differently. Some won't eat cows while I just love a juicy steak!!!

Okay, back to the subject: Felons don't get the same rights the rest of us do. That's what you give up when you decide to commit felonies.

.

 

[JJEH]

Well, some new firearms owners that do the CCW class did never really handle/shoot a firearm before. Therefore I think taking a safety- and handling class is a good idea. Not to purchase one, but to get the CCW. And then it's up to each individual to keep up to date with proper training.

 

[woodsltc]

Ladder13, I voted for "no" mandatory training, but when you look at how the poll question is worded ("mandatory" could be interpreted to mean just a little training or an extensive course on law with a demonstration of firearm safety and proficiency or anything in between)....Accordingly, I'm not surprised at how this poll is going.

I can't speak for all states, but my guess is that "most" states "already" require some sort of mandatory class in order to get a "carry license"....at least Tennessee does. Note: I said "most states". I know there are some that only require you to pay a fee and have a background check, but I think those states are in the minority.

I think most people are going to vote based on what they are already familiar with, which is some kind of mandatory training that's already required in their home state. JMO

Don

 

[SW_shooter]

Well let's see if I can pour some gas on this fire.

I voted Yes for mandatory training before reading all the responses. Some good arguments some not so good in my opinion. Why do I say yes? Because I believe people (like me when I started my gun buying) should have some sort of instruction on proper handling, care and use AND especially the legal ramifications of using the firearm to shoot another human.

and now the gas........................

You guys that have military experience think you're special and don't need classes for concealed carry are full of it. Just because you served time in the military (and I really do appreciate your service and thank you from my heart) doesn't mean you know the legal aspects to shooting a civilian in self defense. I agree you probably deserve a pass on the handling and care of a weapon but that'd be the extent of it. IMHO

The paranoid portion that think the government will somehow magically obtain their names and numbers to confiscate their guns are just that...paranoid.

Why did I have to take a test to get my drivers license, I mean come on it's just driving. Why would I have to get a pilots license to fly an airplane, it's just flying a little single engine plane. Hunting and fishing? The government doesn't own those animals so why do I have to get a license to harvest them? I don't have to have a license to farm or grow a garden and the vegetables/animals I harvest!

A vehicle is a deadly weapon, airplane can be a deadly weapon and a firearm certainly is a deadly weapon and that's why I think a little training is a good thing.

here kitty kitty....

 

[gregintenn]

Why did I have to take a test to get my drivers license, I mean come on it's just driving. Why would I have to get a pilots license to fly an airplane, it's just flying a little single engine plane. Hunting and fishing? The government doesn't own those animals so why do I have to get a license to harvest them? I don't have to have a license to farm or grow a garden and the vegetables/animals I harvest!

A vehicle is a deadly weapon, airplane can be a deadly weapon and a firearm certainly is a deadly weapon and that's why I think a little training is a good thing.

here kitty kitty....

I'll be glad to tell you why, although it has been previously covered in this thread.

You do NOT have the specific constitutional right to fly an airplane, drive a car, hunt wildlife, eat a cat, etc.

We've just plum given up on personal responsibility haven't we?

 

[SW_shooter]

I'll be glad to tell you why, although it has been previously covered in this thread.

You do NOT have the specific constitutional right to fly an airplane, drive a car, hunt wildlife, eat a cat, etc.

We've just plum given up on personal responsibility haven't we?

I figured someone would try to re-direct my point to that argument. If you've read the 2nd amendment it says you have the right to bear and keep arms, NOT to conceal carry! And don't give me that argument that you interpret it to mean you can keep and bear arms on your person.

My point (which wasn't obvious enough apparently) was that we use other deadly "things" and have to have training to use them, why not for a gun?

 

[redlevel]

I'm amazed at the number of firearm owners that see no problem with, and agree with government requiring training and license to exercise our right to carry a firearm.

looks like decades of gov't conditioning has taken it's toll.

Yep . . . . once you get used to it, I guess it ain't really so bad.

I just have to keep saying, "Thank God for Georgia."
I guess us dumb old "regressive" Crackers will keep plugging along.

By the way, I can't believe some keep harping on the training LEO's get.
How many LEO's have shot themselves in the leg, butt, or foot with their
Glops in recent years? I am certainly not a police basher, but apparently
the training the average street cop gets ain't much.

 

[Autococker07]

Although it hurts my heart to say yes, a few years working in a gun store has shown me that a significant number of "legal" carriers have not received, or have forgotten/ignored any type of safety training.... it would blow your mind how many concealed guns have been pulled on me..... very very few have been pulled safely, and cleared......

Obviously the key to this issue is keeping a ccw license separated from what/who/etc.... the govt has no need to know what why or when you carry, only that you, the carrier have met a basic safety course.... it would be a tough thing to do effectively....

 

[Rule3]

Georgia does not require a mandatory class or test for a GWCL (GA Weapon Carry License). We only require a background check, and I have not heard that Georgia citizens are carelessly wounding himself or family members due to a lack of "training".

The ATF also issued me a FFL 03 C&R License without "training". I had to submit to a background check and have a current hunting or GWCL license.

I guess a TN guy can have a FFL 03 which would allow him to buy, sell, and ship eligible guns within the 50 States. Just don't carry one until you are certified by the local gov'ment.

Well do you expect more from Georgia? Just kidding. Joke hint hint.

But you mention Hunting Licenses. Why do we need those? According to our leaders guns were only needed to hunt game and feed our families. Something like "you do not need x amount of bullets to kill a deer" or something like that.

Hell we need fishing licenses and that does not involve guns (usually) They claim it goes to resource management just like the Lottery goes to education.

 

[Bullzaye]

I voted "No".

I don't see anyone looking into the knowledge (or lack thereof) of voters entering the voting booth. It occurs to me that the dangers presented by an uninformed, ignorant voter are much greater than an untrained CCW'er.

I'm not espousing testing for voters...I'm just saying that personal responsibility trumps the "feelings" of being unsafe that some of you profess to have around potentially untrained (or at least, not government sanctioned) CCW'ers. We assume that voters have done their due diligence before they cast their votes...why can't we assume the same of a person choosing to carry a gun for self-defense?

Tim

 

[jag312]

Cops are pretty well trained in firearms yet they miss quite often when the SHTF...QUOTE]

I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you on that. Most Police Officers I know have only a superficial knowledge of the gun they carry. Others are just pathetic. Maybe it is because of the area where I work. Don't get me started.

 

[jaykellogg]

I voted "no" even though i agree that training is good. I support background checks also (on some level), but I have yet to see a background check bill I can support. My fear is anti gun locations could make the training so onerous or expensive as to limit the number of permits issued