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.
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.
