Mandatory Training for Gun Owners: Constitutional? Useful?

Pajamas Media ^ | July 11, 2010 | Clayton E. Cramer

[Eaker]

At our age it is a shame that one of us didn’t just ask Hamilton what he meant! ;<)

Great picture. We all look forward to a retake in not too many months when he is back safely!

[Forty-Niner]

And what could any class teach me that the Marines, and my continuing clay pigeon shooting/pistol practice didn’t/doesn’t?

[EternalVigilance]

Again, thanks.

[TXnMA]

People who voluntarily take Defensive Driving courses are often rewarded with perks like discounts on insurance.

Perhaps a voluntary/reward system rather than a mandatory/penalty approach is needed.

(A card for 10% discount on ammo would be nice! LOL!!)

~~~~~~~~

I was taught to shoot a handgun at nine and got a .410 for my eleventh birthday. And I was taught gun safety from the time I learned to talk. At 70+, I still find it nearly impossible to put a (unloaded) weapon down with the muzzle pointed anywhere near another human...

The responsibility/legal ramifications part of the TX CHL course was useful. I'd like to have an update any time the law changes. And the handling/shooting competence part was just plain fun...

I was disappointed when the renewal class turned out to be basically a PowerPoint show -- on the test questions...

However, I expect that voluntary training is like "preaching to the choir": the ones who really need won't show up to get it...

[cva66snipe]

I would not give Guburmunt my name to own nor carry a weapon nor NRA the time of day much less any of my money. NRA COMPROMISES ARE PART OF THE REASON OUR RIGHTS AS GUNOWNERS HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED TO START WITH. I don't care how NRA started out it's now ran by Constitution Compromising Useful Idiots of The Left. If a person wants to take a weapon saftey course especially from venues that keep no named records unless student permits them to do so I think that's great and smart idea.

[gundog]

Asking permission is tacit acceptance that permission can be denied. Don’t fall for it.

[Cuttnhorse]

Permittees are required in Arizona and Nevada to hit the target in order to be issued a permit. In Nevada, applicants spend about 5-hours in class, (the one I went to was excellent!), then must qualify on the range with EACH firearm to be carried concealed. On the back of the CCW card is a list of firearms that may be legally carried concealed. One must only qualify with one revolver to be able to carry any type of revolver, but each semi to be carried must be fired on the range. I spent quite a bit of time on the range for my Nevada permit and have 4-pistols and one revolver on my permit. If you buy another pistol and want to add it to your permit, you have to meet the class at the range and shot the 30-rounds at each different distance. You then buzz off to the sheriff’s office and the nice lady issues you an up-dated permit which includes your latest treasure.

The process requires 10-rounds at 3 different distances for each firearm; so you end up with shooting 30-rounds for each pistol to be included on the permit.

In Arizona, after 3, 3-hour classes, (also excellent)it was 5-rounds at about 5-yards, all had to be in the the silhouette of the human target.

I had mixed fealings about requiring applicants to qualify on the range, but after seeing some of my classmates I was horrified at what a bunch of lousy shots many people were. There was one older gentleman who asked the instructor whether his “gun” was a revolver? It was an old .38 cal S&W police special. Pretty scary that these folks are packing!

[combat_boots]

I was thinking the State could provide the people who launch the pidgeons, targets, bullets, magazines, ear and eye protection and free range time.

I could personally nominate some pols to launch pidgeons. COuldn’t we all?

[Cuttnhorse]

I have CCW permits in three states and of the two states that require classes I enjoyed the classes very much. Both instructors were extremely well qualified and VERY good instructors...qreat personalities and really into teaching. Both instructors were ex-LEO, ex-military, ex SWAT, armorers, detectives, etc, etc. and they told a bunch of very funny war stories. They were very good classes and although I shoot a lot, they were good refresher courses.

[supercat]

Many people who are perfectly safe and competent with firearms have never had any formal training. Just a friend who taught them how to shoot. The only "training" that should be required is to tell people that if they do something stupid there will be serious consequences; if they are prudent they will train themselves well enough not to do stupid things.

[lentulusgracchus]

Then, why should there be mandatory government training to exercise another Constitutionally guaranteed right?

Different articles of the Constitution, mostly Article I, overwritten and modified by the Second Amendment, assign different responsibilities to the States, the People(s) of the States, the President, and the Congress w/ respect to the Right to Keep and Bear, and the calling and training of the Militia, which is the People in arms.

Cooking down a lot of scholarship, Congress has the power assigned by the Constitution to prescribe the manner in which the Militia are to be armed, and the training the Militia are to undergo. The States assign the officers and administer the Militia unless called by the President to federal service.

The Militia are not to stand in arms unless called -- no State, under Article I Section 10, may keep bodies of troops in arms, or armed ships (and, we interpolate, aircraft), without Congressional approval.

[lentulusgracchus]

The men who wrote the Second Amendment were all part of the active militia, they all trained, and they made sure those they led did too.

The Active Militia weren't the only Militia. There was also the Unorganized Militia, who didn't drill, who were mostly men who'd aged out, or were legally disabled in some way (alienage, for instance, or minority, or deformity or illness perhaps, or perhaps poverty as well). I haven't seen a categorical treatment of the latter group, only that they existed on paper (and in the flesh, somewhere "out there") as a classification.

[lentulusgracchus]

I would not give Guburmunt my name to own nor carry a weapon .....

Ditto. Main reason I rejected the idea of CHL, although I'm sure the classes are very useful, and I'd benefit. I just didn't want to tell Eric Holder (and before him, Janet Reno) what I had, or that I had "anything".

At least the yellow sheets stay with the FFL and get sorta hard to find years later (I'm told -- I wouldn't know).

I just don't want Holder's Agent Smith showing up at my door one day with a SWAT team and a burning bar.

[cva66snipe]

Older firearms purchases from friends and trusted private sales is my preferences. I saw my dad do something when I was a kid I didn't understand at the time but do now. About 40 years ago we were in K-mart and he wanted to buy some ammo. The sporting goods department required {store policy} your name on a ledger they kept. He told them to keep their ammo and we went to a bait store instead.

I do keep a record of make, model, and serial number of what I own for the one legitimate purpose government has in knowing them. They are kept by me to file a theft report if needed. By the time I was about 10 my dad had drilled gun safety into my head real good with a BB gun {not an air rifle} I had to treat as a deadly weapon. By 12 I had a .22 and 410.

[William Tell]

EternalVigilance said: "The men who wrote the Second Amendment were all part of the active militia, they all trained, and they made sure those they led did too. "

I think most of the postings on this thread seem to be missing a key point.

Here's the Second Amendment: " 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 prefatory clause states that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State". Connected to this is a prohibition on the infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

It's important to realize that this Amendment is not designed to guarantee a "well regulated Militia". It simply mentions one restriction on the federal government that is needed to accomplish that goal.

Though "training", or "equipping", or "disciplining" the Militia might be needed in order to accomplish having a well regulated Militia, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that implies that "training", or "equipping", or "disciplining" is permitted as an infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It is not "the People" who are needed to be "well regulated". The People, instead, are simply to be left alone to exercise their right to keep and bear arms without government interference.

What the government is entitled to do with the Militia is an entirely separate matter, addressed elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is NOT permission to infringe the right of the people simply because the government believes that it is necessary to establishe a Militia. To use an expression in a recent Supreme Court decision, this option is "off the table".

[EternalVigilance]

The Second Amendment is NOT permission to infringe the right of the people

It most certainly is not.

simply because the government believes that it is necessary to establishe a Militia.

That's a misnomer. There is not such thing as "establishing a Militia." The militia IS. There's nothing to establish.

To use an expression in a recent Supreme Court decision, this option is "off the table".

What isn't "off the table" is the constitutional power to activate the militia. You and I may not want it, since we don't trust those who are supposed to be representing us and the constitutional oath, but the authority is right there in the document.

[VRWCmember]

The only thing you should say to the police is, "I was in fear for my life, I need to talk to my attorney."

Another helpful phrase is "this ordeal has been extremely stressful, and I'm feeling short of breath and a tightness in my chest; I don't feel that I should be making any further statements right now."

[353FMG]

It seems that only greedy and selfish people are attracted to a life in politics and once they reach their goal they become drunk with power.

[hadit2here]

Thus the reasoning behind the second of my two terms.

It’s an alternative to what would really work- hanging after one term.