Posted on 07/11/2010 9:15:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
A solution in need of a problem: mandatory training is of questionable legality, and gun misuse is not generally due to a lack of skill or knowledge.
In many states, to get a concealed handgun license you must complete a training class. Some states have very strict requirements for such classes, which teach not only safe use of a firearm but also the legal use of deadly force. Other states have more lax coursework requirements, often requiring only an NRA class on handgun safety. A few states have no training requirement whatsoever.
It feels a bit like challenging motherhood, baseball, and apple pie to criticize mandatory training requirements. Carrying a gun for self-defense is a serious matter, and I think any gun owner would benefit from a course in the safe and legal use of a gun. I can’t imagine any good reason to not take such a course. Nonetheless, I am skeptical of the utility — and perhaps even the constitutionality — of such mandatory training requirements.
I’m skeptical of the utility of such requirements from the standpoint of accidents. Handguns are very close to being the ultimate point-and-click interface. The instruction manuals for all modern handguns are astonishingly well-written and complete. If the instruction manual isn’t enough, you probably can’t be trusted with a hammer and nails either. About the only subtle safety issue with modern handguns: after you remove the magazine from a semiautomatic pistol, there is still a cartridge in the chamber. You need to rack the slide to eject that cartridge and render the gun safe. (And the manuals are very clear on this point too.)
Non-hunting gun accidents are pretty rare in this country. Once you remove the accidents involving alcohol or teenagers (who can’t get a concealed weapon permit anyway), there aren’t a lot left — and many of those are incidents like this. I’m skeptical that even several thousand hours of mandatory training will give someone like that the good sense that God gives to turnips.
There might be a case for mandatory training to make sure that a person carrying a gun does not use it improperly — for example, in an argument about a parking spot. But I have not seen much evidence that this is a problem. For the most part, people who carry guns seem to realize the very serious responsibility that goes with it. For all the talk about how petty disputes lead to gunfights, in the more than seven years that I have been editing The Armed Citizen, I have been astonished at how few of the more than 4500 incidents we have blogged have fit into that category.
Similarly, while there is good reason to worry about shots fired at a criminal that go astray, it’s not clear how useful mandatory training is for solving this problem. The major use of a handgun for self-defense is as a threat — it causes criminals to suddenly remember an urgent appointment elsewhere. When the victim opens fire, it is often at astonishingly short range, and under circumstances where marksmanship training is quite irrelevant.
In short: mandatory training as a safety measure may be a solution in need of a problem.
I find it interesting that states such as Washington, which have had a shall-issue concealed weapon permit law since 1961, have never imposed a training requirement — and seem to have done just fine without it.
There is an interesting constitutional question about mandatory training. The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right. If you don’t see a problem with mandatory gun training before you can carry a gun, how would you feel about mandatory training in libel, obscenity, and incitement to riot law before you could exercise your First Amendment right to draft a political pamphlet?
It is true that there was mandatory militia training in 1791, when the states ratified the Second Amendment. But that wasn’t safety training, or even training with respect to self-defense. It was training for the purpose of making members of the militia into effective soldiers — not at all equivalent to the mandatory safety training for concealed weapon permits.
There are a great many rights we enjoy in this country that are easy to abuse: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to travel, freedom of association, freedom of religious worship. But we don’t license those freedoms because someone may and will abuse them. We recognize that adults not only have great power in our society, but also great responsibility. Abuse your freedoms in a way that causes harm to others, and you will pay a price for it after the fact.
I am willing to discuss the potential that some new technology might require a more stringent approach.
For example, if someone started selling a megawatt gamma ray laser pistol that you could carry in your pocket, cost $10, and when fired would blow holes through buildings for several miles — well, that sounds pretty scary. But so far, the technology we have is not so dramatically different in the risks it carries from the arms that the Framers knew. I don’t see any stronger argument for mandatory training today than in 1791.
When you need to pass a test and get a license to use your right to free speech or to read a book then we can talk about tests and licenses for guns. Actually I don’t want to give this administration any ideas.
This is a back door attempt to locate and control gun ownership.
“So sorry Mr. Jones but you failed our gun safety course and must now turn in all of your firearms.”
“No we will no pay ou for those nice weapons.”
See post 18. I was writing it right as you were writing yours.
:-)
Useful? Yes.
Recommended? Yes.
Required? Absolutely not.
I am for requirements of safety classes or displayed competency to purchase first hunting license, hunter’s ed, military, participation in shooting sports, etc. I am against those same requirements to simply own a gun.
Requirements to exercise a right put an artificial gate to that right. There is no prerequisite to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, or petition. There is no prerequisite to any other right given to us by God and enumerated in the Constitution.
Is there mandatory government training to be able to exercise the vote? Peacefully assemble? Worship in the church of your choice? Start your own newspaper? Get a jury trial?Excellent point. You may also want to remember that the source of many a gun control measure was racism – certain people didn't want minorities to be able to defend themselves. Why don't the Leftists ever mention that?
And once upon a time in the 50’s and 60’s, Firearms Safety training was part of the public school Physical Education curriculum. So if every grade school child in America took a 9 weeks basic training in the handling, care and shooting of firearms, we would be a stronger nation and could do away with all these stupid restrictions. Problem solved.
I helped teach an NRA safety course once, and can see where gun safety courses might be useful for some young people and others who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with firearms, but that doesn’t make me think it is the government’s business to make safety courses mandatory. If you want or need to take a gun safety, shooting, combat course, go for it.
IMO veterans that have weapons training should be exempt from small arms permit requirements. This includes permits in states that require a gun course. A DD214 should be sufficient.
Mandatory = infringement.
Guns aren’t that complicated. The left deliberately tries to make them seem more complicated then they are to scare people away from them. It’s shameful.
I’m all for allowing tax deductions for firearm trianing, but mandating it is just another way to limit ownership.
“Theoretically speaking, we require people to pass a driving test to get a driver’s license, which is supposed to show a minimum understanding of how to drive....”
The failing in your analogy is that no license is required to purchase a car. There are no age limits or restrictions on what type, max speed, or how many vehciles you can own. You don’t need to register them. No license is required to drive unless you are on a public road. Anyone with the money (or a loan) can buy any vehcile, even a commercial vehicle, even a felon on parole with multiple DUI fatalities.
Firearms and vehicles are completely different. Firearms are a fundamental right to all people. They aren’t just random pieces of property, they’re the assurance that you can unseat an unjust governement if needed.
See post 18.
And I’d disagree on your critique of the analogy, for it it is as you say, then the anti-gun left could then pass laws allowing everyone to buy a gun, but make it illegal to use a gun.
And that would pass your muster in the critique. I’d say that’d be just as constitutionally wrong as banning guns itself.
Some people definitely need training on voting, and if they fail they should not be allowed to
We oughtta get back to that, if anything.
What’s to disagree with? I’m not for restricting cars, either. There are no restrictions at all on car sales, only on driving them on public roads.
Your analogy that it’s OK to restrict gun sales by mandating training because you need a license to drive on a public road is a bit of a non-sequitor.
It is not possible to pass an enforcable law that mandates the purchase of any private product. That is what will unseat the health care “reform” law in the end. The exercise of rights are a choice, not a mandate. If you don’t want to use yours then don’t, but anyone who tries to take them from someone else because they don’t use theirs should be executed.
Just have Gun Ed in high schools
My dad taught me everything I need to know about firearm safety, function and application.
I think the individual is smart enough to know if he or she needs training or not. The training mandates are just feel-good hurdles put in place as an obstacle to slow down the rate of legally carried firearms. Here in Indiana, our local officials require nothing more than an absence of a felony record in order to carry. I even have serious issues with permits of any kind, let alone mandatory training. Even an ex-felon should be able to carry. If he can't be trusted with a firearm, he should be dead or in jail. We have to stop treating this as some sort of privilege afforded to us because it is NOT. We own it, we were born with it and we should go to our graves with it. We've given far too much leniency by accepting mandates for permits, etc... In my humble opinion, a background check for mental stability should be the only requirement... and shouldn't cost you any money at all.
I see a troubling trend as folks celebrate the recent SCOTUS decisions. Most see them as small victories in the right direction. But, you see these have all passed with a slim win and directly along political lines... this is a very scary thought. Also, each of these decisions have come with attached language showing our justices somehow recognize the right of the government to restrict but not prohibit.
"Shall not infringe" could not be more clear; and any interpretation is nothing more than disagreement with the ideology overall.
Let us not be satisfied with the small "victories" , as each of these victories are chiseling away at the constitution and your rights in general.
BINGO!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.