testtest

Should training be mandatory? Answer: No!

Ranger715

Elite
In another thread regarding open carry, a member voiced concerns that more people carrying would lead to more accidents. In the end, he concluded, "I do see a need for initial safety training to be mandated."

I thought this deserved a new thread unto itself. I am against mandatory training as a precondition for owning or carrying firearms. I assume most others in this forum agree with me, but maybe I'm wrong. I doubt anyone here would poo-poo the value of good training. I encourage everyone to get all you can stand to get. But making it a required obstacle to the exercise of your right is very, very bad.

Once such a requirement is established in the law, it becomes like a control knob attached to your right to bear arms. Everything about the training can be adjusted to make it more difficult or inconvenient to obtain. How often can you get the training? What will it cost? Where will it be available? Who can teach the classes? How long will the class be? What are the "passing" standards? How often do you have to "refresh" and do it all over again? When authorities are hostile to our right, it's easy to make the classes infrequent, remote and expensive. Many people, when they find out what they must do, simply say, "forget it." And that's the whole point.

My father taught required concealed carry classes in California. In his county, the local authorities were friendly to issuing permits, and the demand was high. The waiting list for the classes was months long. It required many people to travel far from home for two days. My dad could have charged whatever he wanted, but he kept the cost nominal. Nevertheless, with ammo and travel costs, It could cost people hundreds of dollars. They have to refresh every two years. They have to train with every gun they might carry, which will be listed on their permit. Taking the class did not guarantee a permit. It simply made you eligible to apply. You could still be denied for no reason.

The law used to limit the class to a maximum of 16 hours. Recently, it was changed to a minimum of 16 hours. See how easy that is? All because a "reasonable" training requirement got its foothold in the door. They didn't prohibit anything, they just erected bureaucratic obstacles to get in the way. The effect is the same.

If you were patient enough to read all this, I'm grateful. There is a great deal more to this issue, but I'll shut up for now.
 

Ranger715

Elite
State of Texas requires Hunters Education Safety Course for all folks born after September 1, 1971 to obtain a hunting license to take legal game animals.
Pretty much mandated safety awareness for hundreds of thousands of folks carrying guns.
A very good point, which I had not considered. Thank you. I guess my response is that hunting is a regulated recreational activity, whereas basic self defense is an "unalienable right" with which we are endowed by our creator. I think different standards apply.
 

Oaktree45

Master Class
A very good point, which I had not considered. Thank you. I guess my response is that hunting is a regulated recreational activity, whereas basic self defense is an "unalienable right" with which we are endowed by our creator. I think different standards apply.

I keep looking in the Bible and can't really find anything about self defense being an unalienable right endowed by our creator. Help me out here.
 

benstt

Professional
Founding Member
I'm of mixed minds on that. Yes, 2A. But also, can you imagine the carnage if some schmuck who just bought his first pistol for self defense pulls it and starts shooting? How likely do you think it would be for him to hit a bunch of bystanders? I really want to make sure a person carrying a gun, which they might use, only hits what they want to hit and not someone else, like me. I don't think it's unreasonable AT ALL to have someone show proficiency with a gun before carrying one in public. I dare say such a restriction would pass strict scrutiny, too. Compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
 
I keep looking in the Bible and can't really find anything about self defense being an unalienable right endowed by our creator. Help me out here.
David might have had an unlicensed slingshot? :unsure: :rolleyes: :censored: Cain and Abel version was an early John Wick. Should we ban apples (example of forbidden fruit) no thanks too women? No death happened, but no thanks too what women want can be detrimental to health :unsure: ;) :rolleyes: :whistle: :censored: . I don't know you and you don't know me, but for sake of my and my families we being YES! Maybe not the carry class, but for new peeps that don't know :poop: then it is a good thing! Not enough have the luxury of having enough time behind a firearm from an early age! 6 months of training should be a good start, especially for those anti2a peeps that go out and buy firearms. Bring them up too my level and get some sense into them!!!!!
 
I keep looking in the Bible and can't really find anything about self defense being an unalienable right endowed by our creator. Help me out here.
We don't all share the same beliefs in this regard. Mine differ and I believe that I'm a product of nature. Every living being (for the most part) has some sort of defense mechanism against external threats, plant and animal alike, all the way down to bacteria. My propensity for survival and propagation of our species, along with the belief in autonomy and sovereignty, creates this unalienable right. This is just MY philosophy though. I appreciate that we all think differently.
 
The training issue has been the stumbling block for state reciprocity. The AG in Virginia tried to deny CC holders from several states because he felt that their training standards weren't up to his expectations.
That's an interesting point. Here in my state we have Constitutional Carry, so our training definitely wouldn't be up to his standards lol.
 

C. Sumpin

Custom
It's worth pointing out, too, that the "unalienable rights" language was in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, the Constitution is.
In my copy, there is no "preamble" Mr. Bennett. The "unalienable rights" is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration. The Declaration was/is the law with the Constitution to guarantee it; The two have never been divorced. Your lean to the left in your interpretation is showing again.
 

Chuck B

Operator
Absolutely NO mandated training!!!!!!!!!!!!! If a new gun buyer is serious about self defense, they will seek out training. If they only want to play with a firearm, they may end up in prison, the morgue or some long term care facility. This idea of not being trained to "my" level is ridiculous, I've seen way too many postings on various forums of people talking about their extensive training (apparently getting ready for Armageddon, or zombie apocalypses), and there is nothing wrong with people seeking out the level of training they want to receive, but DO NOT try to tell someone they need to train for something just because you think they should. Now if you state "IMO" that puts a whole different spin on your perspective. ok, feeling much better now, have a good day
 
In my copy, there is no "preamble" Mr. Bennett. The "unalienable rights" is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration. The Declaration was/is the law with the Constitution to guarantee it; The two have never been divorced. Your lean to the left in your interpretation is showing again.
No offense, but there is most certainly a preamble, which is the part that contains the phrase, "unalienable rights".
There are actually 3 parts to the declaration itself. It's also a seperate document from the Constitution. I don't have a dog in the fight, but this is obviously an important topic.
 
Everyone EXCEPT those prevented by law due to a felony should be able to buy and/or own a firearm, I do appreciate the constitutional carry state that I currently live in however I do believe in the current society a course on gun handling would go a long way to make people more aware of the common sense do and don’ts.
My opinion.
 

Ranger715

Elite
I keep looking in the Bible and can't really find anything about self defense being an unalienable right endowed by our creator. Help me out here.
I'm not referring to the Bible, of course, but to the Declaration of Independence, which articulates the foundational principles of our nation. We have the right to our lives. Therefore, we have the right to protect our lives from danger (within a reasonable framework of law and order). Therefore, we have the right to possess the means with which to do it.

Others have pointed out that the Declaration is not law. That is correct. It is, however, the justification of our nation's existence. It explains what we hold true as a people. There could be no Constitution without it. It counts.
 

benstt

Professional
Founding Member
In my copy, there is no "preamble" Mr. Bennett. The "unalienable rights" is in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration. The Declaration was/is the law with the Constitution to guarantee it; The two have never been divorced. Your lean to the left in your interpretation is showing again.
No, you are wrong. There most definitely is a preamble. Read the Declaration. In case you don't know what a "preamble" is, it is an introduction. in the case of the Declaration, the paragraph with "unalienable rights" was explaining the philosophy of the Founders, who then, after said introduction, went into the allegations against King George and why they determined declaring independence was the only true course. A document doesn't need to have a section labeled "preamble" to have one.

The Declaration and the Constitution are connected in spirit but the Constitution is our legal document. The Declaration is our justification to break away from England, the Constitution is what we used to form our country. They are separate and distinct in that way. I don't know where you get your positions from, as they are not rooted in law or fact, but I'm sure you'll throw some litany of questionable assertions at me again, tell me I've "had enough," then say you're over the conversation when I push back again. You do have a pattern.

My position on this is not based on a leftward lean, it's based on being an attorney whose job requires a great deal of study of the Constitution.
 

cico7

Custom
It's kinda like voting rights. Requiring someone to get training may eliminate some people from being able to protect themselves just like requiring a voters ID eliminates the ability of some people to vote.

....and that's when the fight started.....

I think self defense is a natural right. Carrying a concealed weapon is one of several methods.
You can own a car, but you must have a license to operate it. You can carry a weapon concealed but??

I think it is a excellent discussion and I am open to everyone's input and I could change my mind.
 

C. Sumpin

Custom
No, you are wrong. There most definitely is a preamble. Read the Declaration. In case you don't know what a "preamble" is, it is an introduction. in the case of the Declaration, the paragraph with "unalienable rights" was explaining the philosophy of the Founders, who then, after said introduction, went into the allegations against King George and why they determined declaring independence was the only true course. A document doesn't need to have a section labeled "preamble" to have one.

The Declaration and the Constitution are connected in spirit but the Constitution is our legal document. The Declaration is our justification to break away from England, the Constitution is what we used to form our country. They are separate and distinct in that way. I don't know where you get your positions from, as they are not rooted in law or fact, but I'm sure you'll throw some litany of questionable assertions at me again, tell me I've "had enough," then say you're over the conversation when I push back again. You do have a pattern.

My position on this is not based on a leftward lean, it's based on being an attorney whose job requires a great deal of study of the Constitution.
Your definition of a preamble may be acceptable, and hair splitting is a trademark of your profession. But you need not lecture me on the DOI or Constitution, I read and comprehend fairly well though my profession (and education) is different from yours. Your pattern of steering left is consistent.

Really now Benstt, I am not so sensitive as to take offense or get too serious of a mere digital exchange. And yes, I could say I'm over the conversation as arguments are not my style, specially when a person expresses they are no longer open to or would consider the opposing view. In good humor, I rest my case Your Honor.
 
Top