Mandatory Training for Gun Owners: Constitutional? Useful?

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

[GladesGuru]

I became an NRA instructor when a friend pushed me to do it. I argued that being part of government licensing of a Constitutional guarantee is unconstitutional.

However, upon reflection, I decided that due to the many people deciding to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and having NO tradition of firearms ownership for at least a generation, that training was desirable.

I still believe that Da Gooberment, local, state, Feddies - all have no authority to make such training mandatory. But, until Americans make their wishes known to their elected servants, and said servants change the laws, I will keep the NRA credentials. In fact, such training does allow my students to determine if an independent third party has qualified me.

NRA instruction/training is the free market solving the generations long consequences of American abuse of the Second Amendment.

Such training will continue after all such Gooberment requirement. Why? Because people want to be able to defend their lives and they know that purchase of a weapon no more makes a competent user of that weapon that purchase of a violin makes a musician.

A free tip from the NRA courses:
“Practice does not make perfect.”
“Perfect practice makes perfect”.

Practice it right every time. Repeat as necessary. Add range time. Lots and lots of range time.

[DManA]

I would call that an unacceptable requirement. In Mn you have to take the course, and bring the certificate of attendance to the sheriff’s office. No tests required.

[piytar]

Unconstitutional, but not worth the fight unless truly onerous. Why? Because anyone not willing to put some time into learning how to use a gun and about the laws in their state is a deadly accident waiting to happen. And that type of accident is used by the gun grabbers in their propaganda all the time.

[William Tell]

Enterprise said: "Yet the left passes laws that make it more likely that gun owners will hit what they’re shooting at, and will be more likely to NOT shoot someone accidentally. I can support that."

What maximum expense level for training do you believe that our Founders had in mind when writing the Second Amendment?

[William Tell]

The article contains a link, "incidents like this", which describes the incident as follows: "Walter re-inserted the magazine into the pistol and manipulated it as if loading it when the gun discharged."

I recently completed a two-month tour of the U.S. during which I carried whenever it was legal to do so.

Because of the conflicting carry laws, I found myself having to unload and store the gun,and later reload and holster the gun, dozens of times.

Almost all of these "manipulations" of the gun had the potential for a slam-fire due to a defective cartridge or other malfunction of the gun. When you are staying in a motel or sitting in your car, it is not always possible to find a REALLY safe direction in which to point the gun while chambering a round.

The same liberals who are praised in another posting for having attempted to reduce accidents through legislation, are responsible for increasing the unneeded handling of loaded firearms immensely through their patchwork of needless restrictions.

[Americanexpat]

The constitution says you can keep and bear arms it does not say you have to drive. These laws are just little digs by a pissed off liberal establishment nothing more.

[Enterprise]

"What maximum expense level for training do you believe that our Founders had in mind when writing the Second Amendment?"

I see you miss the sarcasm/satire in my post. The answer is - NONE. Now go eat your prunes.

[archy]

-- I would vote for mandatory Constitutional training for politicians. -- And the voters.

Ever read Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers?

You have to have read the book; watching the crappy movie doesn't count.

[Melinda in TN]

I think the course on law and general safety should be all that is required. Here we have to take the written exam, the shooting exam and go to the Department of Safety for fingerprinting. After all of that it gets sent to the State and it’s almost two months before you get your permit IF they approve it and you pass a background check with the TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) and the FBI. We don’t take it to the Sheriff. I think it’s overkill considering how gun friendly the state of TN is.

[Eaker]

When the founders said “well-regulated” they meant “well-trained,” to use our modern vernacular.

No, they meant well equipped.

[calex59]

So if there was going to be gun-use training, then I’d say that it should be along the same lines, ie - you must have proof of training (gun-use license) to buy a gun. But just like cars, you could buy as many as you could afford.

BS, driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. I would like to see the statistics on the states that require classes and those that don't. I would bet the accident rate is the same.

[Stentor]

I’m going to call Elmer Fudd to this thread and get his opinion. After all, guns are only for shooting wabbits. If I’m allowed to shoot wabbits with my single shot shotgun then I don’t care what bull cwap the authorities dwop in front of the west of you

[Flag_This]

"With no test involved, no one could then ‘fail’, so there could be no one that conceivably would be denied the exercise of their 2nd amendment right."

I understand your intent, but you're just not cynical enough, yet. Take a look at the complete bastardization of the Commerce clause and you'll understand to what lengths "our leaders" will go to to empower themselves and dis-empower the people given the opportunity. We need to stop giving the politicians opportunities.

[EternalVigilance]

No, they meant well equipped.

---

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

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.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
        --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
        --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
        --- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
        --- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
        --- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

 

What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

 

[EternalVigilance]

I should actually have said “well trained and well disciplined,” I suppose, although one would think that in context discipline must always be a part of any decent military training.

But I do agree the militia should be well-equipped as well, as I said in my original post.

Originally, of course, the militia in this country equipped itself. Still does, for the most part. I don’t see the government handing out weapons to the citizenry.

[Non-Sequitur]

If they really want to save lives, they should concentrate on the 40 thousand deaths caused each year by motor vehicle accidents. But they don’t really want to save lives.

Most, if not all states require that new drivers complete a training course before they can be licensed.

[darth]

How about if a state drafted everyone who is not in the military into a State Militia and “regulated” (trained) them? That is what the Second Amendment referred to.

What if we really emulated the Founders and required adult males to show up with their own personal firearms and ammo?

If I were a Governor, I would start such a program with drill every Sunday after church like they did in post Revolutionary War America.

[Eaker]

Lots of stuff written by other people with their own agenda.

To find a man in the days of the Founders who wasn’t proficient with a gun would be like finding a man now days who was unable to operate a TV.

However, to be a member of the Nielsen family one would have to own a TV. To be an effective militia member you would have to be well equipped by owning a current and well maintained gun.

I have seen this issue argued by both sides with tons of attributes and my interpretation is the only one that makes any logical sense.

[gogogodzilla]

In order to bear arms, you have to know *HOW* to bear arms.

Keeping is another matter, no training is needed to simply ‘keep’ something.

[darth]

Great minds think alike. Posted before reading your comment.