Should training be mandatory? Answer: No!

[TSiWRX]

That's my opinion, YMMV.

^ Understood - I don't agree, but I understand and can respect your point of view.

"YMMV" is the same caveat of what I'd written above, too.

 

[TSiWRX]

As a trainer, I see three fundamental aspects of training that are important for the prudent person who is going to carry a firearm. First is the law. I am astounded at the misconceptions of what the law allows and prohibits where the use of force is concerned. Failure to understand the law of the use of force is a recipe for serious legal trouble. Second is gun safety. And third is marksmanship. Now, whether any of those trainings should be required for a carry license is a matter for your state legislature. Likewise, whether a license is required at all is a matter for your state legislature. But, even if there were NO licensing requirements or training required, carrying a gun without some education and competence on those three fundamental areas is done at the peril of you and those around you.

^ I actually see Ohio's Concealed Handgun License (sadly, @cico7 , it is just that, a "handgun" license - it doesn't even cover knives, but recent changes in the law have made things a bit better and more logical, along these lines) training requirements as being rather decent, in terms of fulfilling your very well-reasoned set of needs, @HayesGreener .

That said, the actual boots-on-the-ground class instruction can very tremendously in terms of quality........

 

[HayesGreener]

^ I actually see Ohio's Concealed Handgun License (sadly, @cico7 , it is just that, a "handgun" license - it doesn't even cover knives, but recent changes in the law have made things a bit better and more logical, along these lines) training requirements as being rather decent, in terms of fulfilling your very well-reasoned set of needs, @HayesGreener .

That said, the actual boots-on-the-ground class instruction can very tremendously in terms of quality........

Unfortunately I have seen some instructors who are clueless.

 

[cico7]

Ohio does not have knife or battle axe restrictions.
Ohio has some interesting changes coming down the pike, not quite Constitutional but less restrictive.

 

[BobM]

I think weapons should replace firearms. num-chuks, knives, battle axes, Self defense should not be
limited to handguns.

View attachment 21714

Battle Axe Carry Permit? ....Isn't that like a marriage license in some cases?

 

[cico7]

For those in need of a smaller more petite weapon.

 

[TSiWRX]

Ohio does not have knife or battle axe restrictions.

By my understanding, the language of the ORC used to be quite the catch-all, and quite messy. As of late this past April, clarification of that language made this somewhat less problematic (https://www.akti.org/state-knife-laws/ohio/, where SB 140 currently allows the legal carry of any "non weapon" knife), but even so Ohio's Concealed Handgun License is just that, a concealed handgun license. The ORC in its current iteration does not codify knives a legal concealed weapon under the protection of the Ohio Concealed Handgun License in the way that is, for example, enumerated in Georgia's 16-11-125.1 , under the Georgia Weapons Carry License.

Also, even as of today, there is still a lack of state preemption in terms of knife laws/statutes. Here in NE-Ohio, for example, many of the Cleveland-metro suburbs actually have blade-length stipulations on their books.

I'm reasonably certain that I've got this correct...but if I'm wrong, I'd very much welcome the correction!


----

Ohio has some interesting changes coming down the pike, not quite Constitutional but less restrictive.

Absolutely - and not only in terms of the gun.

Towards knife preemption, my understanding is that the Ohio Senate passed Knife Rights’ pre-emption bill, SB 156, (23-7), and it is now moving to the House, where its companion bill, HB 243, is awaiting vote by the Oversight Committee.

 

[cico7]

By my understanding, the language of the ORC used to be quite the catch-all, and quite messy. As of late this past April, clarification of that language made this somewhat less problematic (https://www.akti.org/state-knife-laws/ohio/), but even so Ohio's Concealed Handgun License is just that, a concealed handgun license. The ORC does not codify knives a legal concealed weapon under the protection of the Ohio Concealed Handgun License in the way that is, for example, enumerated in Georgia's 16-11-125.1 , under the Georgia Weapons Carry License.

Also, even as of today, there is still a lack of state preemption in terms of knife laws/statutes. Here in NE-Ohio, for example, many of the Cleveland-metro suburbs actually have blade-length stipulations on their books.

I'm reasonably certain that I've got this correct...but if I'm wrong, I'd very much welcome the correction!

No i don't think you are wrong. Knives are not handguns.
The more recent laws pertaining to knives are fairly open. Automatic or switch blade knives are legal, it's all about intent.

 

[TSiWRX]

^ I ninja-edited my post above a couple of moments after your reply.

 

[BobM]

By my understanding, the language of the ORC used to be quite the catch-all, and quite messy. As of late this past April, clarification of that language made this somewhat less problematic (https://www.akti.org/state-knife-laws/ohio/, where SB 140 currently allows the legal carry of any "non weapon" knife), but even so Ohio's Concealed Handgun License is just that, a concealed handgun license. The ORC in its current iteration does not codify knives a legal concealed weapon under the protection of the Ohio Concealed Handgun License in the way that is, for example, enumerated in Georgia's 16-11-125.1 , under the Georgia Weapons Carry License.

Also, even as of today, there is still a lack of state preemption in terms of knife laws/statutes. Here in NE-Ohio, for example, many of the Cleveland-metro suburbs actually have blade-length stipulations on their books.

I'm reasonably certain that I've got this correct...but if I'm wrong, I'd very much welcome the correction!


----



Absolutely - and not only in terms of the gun.

Towards knife preemption, my understanding is that the Ohio Senate passed Knife Rights’ pre-emption bill, SB 156, (23-7), and it is now moving to the House, where its companion bill, HB 243, is awaiting vote by the Oversight Committee.

Thanks for the info TSIRX, Raised some thoughts here too.
Is or can be amazing what all changes from here to there w/o average person knowing about them? Wishing all or most changes would hit the general news when those changes happen. Allowed or not? Knife type, function or length can vary greatly in many places. Unfortunately, many people don't know, haven't heard or can't keep up with all the laws.

Some knife laws are being relaxed, where they shouldn't have been an issue in the 1st place. For example, switch blade knives are one and so is blade length. Many average kitchen length knives can be illegal out of the kitchen for example? Those useful functional bits of knowledge may likely be better to know about than reading about the so many out of the out of the ordinary things that don't really effect or matter to the average everyday person?

 

[jumpinjoe]

BreakingWind said this: "Here is my thinking. Training to own a firearm kept on private property, absolutely not. To own and possess a firearm in public is a different animal IMHO."

First...... let me say 'loudly' that I am personally in favor of personalized safety and legal training for anyone who intends to or is currently carrying a concealed firearm for personal protection or any other reason, but adamantly opposed to any being mandated by the gov't or any other entity.

I would offer this based on his assertion above. First, since the 2nd amendment says in part "to keep and bear", there is no different animal involved in my opinion. In most folks thoughts/minds the 'keep' part would encompass a person 'keeping' a firearm at his home, or business, or car, or simply 'keeping/storing' it somewhere of his choosing. The term 'bear' typically would mean the actual carrying of it on his person wherever he may be, which certainly can be but is generally not thought of as 'carrying' it while at home. So, if we can agree on those two premises, any mandated or required anything, including training, and regardless of cost, would be an infringement on the rights enshrined in the 2nd amendment. However, the idea of school provided (not mandated) elective type safety and/or legal training program would be a legitimate offering. Keeping in mind that any requirement to enjoy any constitutional right makes that right immediately a privilege and no longer a right.

The next thing to consider is that it is and should be incumbent upon anyone who chooses to carry to search out and take advantage of that training that may avail itself. Am I dense enough to think they all will .... of course not. So, if schools cannot/will not offer training as an elective course, maybe the gov't in it's infinite wisdom could be persuaded to provide free and readily available training programs much like they provide help with IRS issues and/or other gov't requisites. Not as a requirement, but as a gov't provided service to the public. Failing that and knowing there will be some who will ignore any need for training, I'll simply fall back on the fact that our constitution has never guaranteed our safety, but only our freedoms. Crude? Yes, but absolutely correct.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” dissenting Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in the case of 'Young vs. Hawaii' in a 2018 ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” Here is how he arrived at his decision: The judge scoured history from Geoffrey Chaucer’s England to the American antebellum period to trace the history of gun rights. He ruled that there is 'little doubt' the authors of the Second Amendment were comfortable with Americans openly carrying weapons for self-defense, and until the Constitution is changed, that remains the standard.

Now we all know that the Heller decision left something to be desired by those of us who unequivocally support the 2nd amendment as it's written, but there is hope for the near future. SCOTUS has agreed to take up a NY case this term that hopefully will clarify and expand our commonly held restrictions, whether agreed to and accepted or not. It has been reported that SCOTUS has chosen to rewrite the actual question before it which may or may not be a good thing. Only time will tell. But in any event, there is no indication there will be any training requirements brought, or required in any ruling.

And finally to lighten things up just a little ..... back when I was in high school there was not only 'Driver Ed' offered in school, but at the same time 'Sex Ed' was offered. Now I wanted a driver's license really bad and my dad said if I wanted a car I would have to take the 'Driver's Ed' training. I thought of myself as a proficient (far better than most) driver and wasn't really keen on it until I learned that 'Driver's Ed' and 'Sex ED' classes were given in the same cars !!!!!

Yeh, I know you're laughing ...... or at least smiling broadly.

 

[BobM]

BreakingWind said this: "Here is my thinking. Training to own a firearm kept on private property, absolutely not. To own and possess a firearm in public is a different animal IMHO."

First...... let me say 'loudly' that I am personally in favor of personalized safety and legal training for anyone who intends to or is currently carrying a concealed firearm for personal protection or any other reason, but adamantly opposed to any being mandated by the gov't or any other entity.

I would offer this based on his assertion above. First, since the 2nd amendment says in part "to keep and bear", there is no different animal involved in my opinion. In most folks thoughts/minds the 'keep' part would encompass a person 'keeping' a firearm at his home, or business, or car, or simply 'keeping/storing' it somewhere of his choosing. The term 'bear' typically would mean the actual carrying of it on his person wherever he may be, which certainly can be but is generally not thought of as 'carrying' it while at home. So, if we can agree on those two premises, any mandated or required anything, including training, and regardless of cost, would be an infringement on the rights enshrined in the 2nd amendment. However, the idea of school provided (not mandated) elective type safety and/or legal training program would be a legitimate offering. Keeping in mind that any requirement to enjoy any constitutional right makes that right immediately a privilege and no longer a right.

The next thing to consider is that it is and should be incumbent upon anyone who chooses to carry to search out and take advantage of that training that may avail itself. Am I dense enough to think they all will .... of course not. So, if schools cannot/will not offer training as an elective course, maybe the gov't in it's infinite wisdom could be persuaded to provide free and readily available training programs much like they provide help with IRS issues and/or other gov't requisites. Not as a requirement, but as a gov't provided service to the public. Failing that and knowing there will be some who will ignore any need for training, I'll simply fall back on the fact that our constitution has never guaranteed our safety, but only our freedoms. Crude? Yes, but absolutely correct.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” dissenting Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in the case of 'Young vs. Hawaii' in a 2018 ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” Here is how he arrived at his decision: The judge scoured history from Geoffrey Chaucer’s England to the American antebellum period to trace the history of gun rights. He ruled that there is 'little doubt' the authors of the Second Amendment were comfortable with Americans openly carrying weapons for self-defense, and until the Constitution is changed, that remains the standard.

Now we all know that the Heller decision left something to be desired by those of us who unequivocally support the 2nd amendment as it's written, but there is hope for the near future. SCOTUS has agreed to take up a NY case this term that hopefully will clarify and expand our commonly held restrictions, whether agreed to and accepted or not. It has been reported that SCOTUS has chosen to rewrite the actual question before it which may or may not be a good thing. Only time will tell. But in any event, there is no indication there will be any training requirements brought, or required in any ruling.

And finally to lighten things up just a little ..... back when I was in high school there was not only 'Driver Ed' offered in school, but at the same time 'Sex Ed' was offered. Now I wanted a driver's license really bad and my dad said if I wanted a car I would have to take the 'Driver's Ed' training. I thought of myself as a proficient (far better than most) driver and wasn't really keen on it until I learned that 'Driver's Ed' and 'Sex ED' classes were given in the same cars !!!!!

Yeh, I know you're laughing ...... or at least smiling broadly.

Agreed JJ,
That little "bear" thing can be a real bear sometimes?
"The term 'bear' typically would mean the actual carrying of it on his person wherever he may be, which certainly can be but is generally not thought of as 'carrying' it while at home." Bearing and carrying are often used interchangeably, but are sometimes a little different? - On the definition of bear? It can have those you mentioned and has had other meanings throughout history as well. - As in "to raise up in opposition or against." Like for example to bear burdens, guilt, grudge or even grins?

Yah, on the educational training. Sometimes training was condensed a bit? A daily chuckle rarely hurts anyone?

 

[C. Sumpin]

" and until the Constitution is changed,"

Gotta hope that never happens. Otherwise, generally agreed on most points.

But be cautious with this one " if schools cannot/will not offer training as an elective course, maybe the gov't in it's infinite wisdom could be persuaded to provide free and readily available training programs much like they provide help with IRS issues and/or other gov't requisites. Not as a requirement, but as a gov't provided service to the public."

IMO Government has very little if any "wisdom". And you are willing to grant the IRS legitimacy when it is the largest Terrorist/enforcement organization around the world?

 

[Jimbo]

Training should be optional; but if you violate some basic safety rule resulting in an injury or death, you should be held responsible. It is your responsibility to know what you are doing if you are going to carry.

 

[ACIinventor]

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.

Voting in an 'unsafe' manner will not create an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death for members of the public. Mishandling a firearm because of a lack of training can create such a threat.

 

[ACIinventor]

Training should be optional; but if you violate some basic safety rule resulting in an injury or death, you should be held responsible. It is your responsibility to know what you are doing if you are going to carry.

Holding someone accountable for the result of their lack of training, I agree with. But really this training issue is centered on everyone around the armed citizen. A member of the public who is negatively impacted as a result of the armed citizen not being adequately trained doesn't care about the legal aftermath. They're already dead or seriously injured. The public wants the problem addressed before the incident happens. Requiring initial training is a way to reduce such problems. The question then becomes exactly how do we go about such training in a way that is effective, convenient, and doesn't infringe upon our rights. This may be the way to increasing reciprocity in all states of the union too. If a standard level of training was agreed upon, acceptance by states would increase. Good discussion. I'm still developing my opinion about this subject. Thank you, everyone.

 

[ACIinventor]

David might have had an unlicensed slingshot? 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 . 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 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!!!!!

Just a thought: After all this time we're still just throwing rocks at each other. The only real difference is they're thrown much faster and more accurately. Hell, (pun intended) this even applies to hypersonic missiles!

 

[BobM]

Voting in an 'unsafe' manner will not create an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death for members of the public. Mishandling a firearm because of a lack of training can create such a threat.

Not too sure about that voting statement. Both can be very deadly. Get enough "stones" in a pile from voting and an avalanche may happen and bury everyone and everything around them too? Poor voting ideas have actually killed many people and things. The actions Prohibition created for example? The "Cure" can be worse than supposed malady sometimes?

 

[ACIinventor]

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.

A small percentage applied to a small population, the results will be small. When the population increases in size, that small percentage now produces a larger result. Training can reduce that small percentage thereby reducing the result. You are correct, there will always be dangers associated with such requirements. There is always someone willing to take advantage of things to others detriment. We always have to be vigilant.
When I carry, I'm exercising my right to self defense. I'm also taking on the responsibility to protect the public around me. I do this by choosing to defend someone else from a justifiable threat. And I also do this by carrying and handling my firearm safely. All the above requires training. The assumption that everyone will seek out training on their own, really is a fantasy. Requiring initial training and some level of periodic training should be considered.

 

[Bassbob]

A small percentage applied to a small population, the results will be small. When the population increases in size, that small percentage now produces a larger result. Training can reduce that small percentage thereby reducing the result. You are correct, there will always be dangers associated with such requirements. There is always someone willing to take advantage of things to others detriment. We always have to be vigilant.
When I carry, I'm exercising my right to self defense. I'm also taking on the responsibility to protect the public around me. I do this by choosing to defend someone else from a justifiable threat. And I also do this by carrying and handling my firearm safely. All the above requires training. The assumption that everyone will seek out training on their own, really is a fantasy. Requiring initial training and some level of periodic training should be considered.

You mean like they do for the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 14th amendments ? You realize you are essentially singling gun owners out from the rest of society and explicitly singling out the 2nd amendment from the rest of the BOR ?