[308th_sps]

In another thread there are several comments about this subject. I am interested in others opinions on this so I thought I would start up a thread for this specific question.

I understand that owning firearms is a right and not a priviledge. Even still, I would like to see some type of required training (and possibly testing) before one is able to receive a permit.

I know of several people that have permits that have never fired a weapon in their life. They own a pistol/revolver that was loaded by the gun store owner, friend, or relative and then it was placed in a holster. They now carry this gun in their purse or on their belt.

I'm not saying everyone should be a Cliff, but they should have some knowledge of the weapon and how to load/unload it and to store it properly, and then have some firearms safety rules pounded in. Some training to allow them to fire the weapon somewhat accurately would also be nice. Not x-ring, but in the general direction of the target, and then have some firearms safety rules pounded in. A couple hours of classroom on when you can/cannot use a weapon, and then have some firearms safety rules pounded in.

Not everyone was raised in a family that kept guns around the house and had some firearms safety rules pounded in.

Thanks

308th_sps

 

[ftsibley]

i wouldnt be much opposed to requiring someone wanting a firearms premit to take a hunter safety course first. That way the person getting the permit has been given a general knowledge of gun safety and handling, outside of that i think it is the person's responsibility to ensure they have the proper training and understanding to carry.

 

[savageshooter]

well, that is a sticky question. some states do require a firearms safety course to recieve a permit. as an instructor i think it would e wise for anyone to go to a safety course every year if they can, just to refresh their mind on safety and also know their weapon and how it acts and responds to shooting. but, carry permits also is a mind thing, there are things you need to have settled in your mind before you carry. so, to answer your question, i believe yes their should be training, weather its a legislative thing or voluntery is a different story.

 

[Beladran]

in ark you are required to take a one day course. you can take the automatic course wich will let you carry a revo or auto. then there is a revo only which like the title says you are only licensed to carry and use your revo. Its a fully day of learning your weapon, safety, and laws. then about 100 rounds at the range. I like their course.

 

[mhead]

Well this is a tricky one . I don't want the government tellin me @#$% we don't need more government interference in our lives , that is never a good thing .But , knowing how to shoot and manipulate your firearm is important so you don't shoot the wrong person . I don't know the Libertarian in me is constantly at battle with my common sense . . . . .The libertarian wins ! No more government intrusion in anything ! ullhair:

 

[bigsig]

This exactly what I was talking about. You should have to prove that you can safely load, clear, fire, and handle revolvers and automatic handguns prior to issuance of firearms permit. I do not feel that it would be necessary for someone to pay for training that is not necessary. You know the government would require that you pay for the training. Then there would only be a handful of certified trainers that you could use. Probably even some gov. run classes in which many students were more knowledgeable than the instructor. more knowledgeable than the instructor. Just think the government has too much control over my 2nd amend. rights now. They don't need any more control.

 

[mjfox6]

No, absolutely not. Why do you want to add government BS to something that ISN'T a problem? It's called personal responsibility. It's bad enough to have to pay for a permit! If you like infringement of your rights, move to another state.

 

[ftsibley]

playing a touch of devils advocate here but i think that having some type of required training means the people getting the permits have more knowlege and therefore may would be less likely to make mistakes that the gun ban crowd can use against concealed carry users. The required training would have to be part of the "fee" we pay for the Firearms premit and it would have to not increase above the current cost that is is now.

Having said that i agree with Mhead---- screw the govt intrusion.

 

[Beladran]

+1 This is what i would like to see. A one day NRA aproved training course. Cost $5-$10 per person. When you pass the course you take stamp/signed/ whatever form with you when you apply for the permit. Have testing locations in maybe north,south, east, west, and central MS Once a month.

 

[dnr1128]

While my libertarian bent leads me to the conclusion that since it is clearly stated in the Constitution that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms the government doesn't have the authority to demand that I take a training course to exercise my rights. However, on the other hand there are different fingers...

Part of the governments role is to protect the public safety while maintaining the least amount of intrusion possible and protecting the rights of all individuals. Having people carrying weapons who do not know how to use them could be as public safety issue.

One could make the case, and convincingly so, that if a person goes through the effort and trouble of obtaining weapon and a firearms permit, he will very likely also take the time to become intimately familiar with his weapon and the applicable laws. Indeed, I would venture to guess that many people who routinely carry a weapon are equal to or better with their chosen handgun than the average LEO is with his.

I think that a brief safety course and legal instruction class would be acceptable, with the exception that a person could take a brief written test on acceptable use of deadly force and undergo a very short shooting test to exempt himself from the class. This would allow people who are already knowledgeable in the law and safe handling of a weapon to show their proficiency without taking a class. Those who aren't already equipped with that skill set could take the course.

Already it is state law that a person must take a hunters safety course to get a hunting license. I don't see that it is much different from this situation.

 

[captain-03]

BE CAREFUL HERE GUYS!! Consider the next step when you start walking up these stairs ..... the next step is to require training / courses, etc to PURCHASE a firearm. What is the difference? Since you do not have to have a permit to keep it in your house or car - I see no real difference IF your intent is to make sure everyone who carrys or owns a firearm is trained.

... and the very next step would be having to show your satisfactory completion of training, courses, etc, to buy ammo. What is the difference? Ammo and guns go together. A gun is useless without ammo -- most do not even make good clubs. Since there are so many guns out there in the hands of individuals who have not completed any type training, restricting ammo sales to only those who have had training is the next logical step to protect us from ourselves ...

BE CAREFUL HERE!!

 

[dnr1128]

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Xd357]

Required no. But you should do it on your own.

 

[mhead]

I don't think bein required to have a lincense is constitutional , and most off you guys want more regulation ? The government over steps its bounds in little pieces like requiring a lincense then maybe you won't mind firearm registration next we will have a government employee come to our house and take inventory and make sure they are stored safely.

 

[dnr1128]

I don't think bein required to have a lincense is constitutional , and most off you guys want more regulation ? The government over steps its bounds in little pieces like requiring a lincense then maybe you won't mind firearm registration next we will have a government employee come to our house and take inventory and make sure they are stored safely.

Again, slippery slope fallacy.

Do you feel the same about a hunters safety course? It is required to get a license, and it hasn't let to government inspectors or classes for ammunition purchases. I don't see any consequential difference between that and a permit to carry a weapon.

 

[savageshooter]

it would not be so bad, if it werent true what capt said, first its innocent training, next its a little more intrusion and a little more and bam weve lost our rights in red tape of some government beurocrate who couldnt hold down a real job in the real world telling us what we can and cant do. washington is a prime example of this.
not to get off subject, did you guys here o anf the BS speach he made today on immigration? what a load of :bull:

 

[captain-03]

[//Again, slippery slope fallacy.

Do you feel the same about a hunters safety course? It is required to get a license, and it hasn't let to government inspectors or classes for ammunition purchases. I don't see any consequential difference between that and a permit to carry a weapon.

Hunting, like driving a car is not a RIGHT .... My ability purchase, own, and use a gun is my RIGHT. Hunter safety course is required to get a license and you are correct in stating it has not lead to government inspectors or classes for ammo purchase - Could it? My response would be YES. It could easily pass as a need for stricter enforcement because it has been reported that we have individuals who are hunting without every taking the class - as an enforcement measure. A law or prohibition without enforcement in useless. An example is road blocks checking for license, inspection stickers, and proof of insurance. Again, an enforcement measure.

Most everything of this nature starts off "little" and "insignificant" in the minds of most people. Just ask those in locals where gun locks are required - look at CA, IL, MA, NY ... Once the "little" and "insignificant" restrictions take hold, the anti-s do not stop there. It is on the next step on the ladder for them.

The bottom line for me here is that individuals must be responsible for their actions and held strictly accountable if they are not.

 

[308th_sps]

I agree with both sides.

I don't want any more governmental regulation than I have now.

I also believe that a "training course" of some kind would be beneficial to "some" FP holders.

Most of those FP holders that need the training have not nor will not voluntarily obtain this training. If it is not a prerequisite for the FP, then it will not get done.

There are a lot of knowledgeable people that hold a FP. There are a few LE's and some ex and current military. There are some that have grown up around firearms. For most of them this training would be redundant and mostly a waste of time and money.

There are also a lot of people that have a permit and know nothing about firearms. They have a permit to carry it, but do not understand any firearms safety, how to load/unload, have never heard of sight alignment, trigger pull, and many other things that some of us have learned thru our military /LE training, or what dad taught us as we grew up.

The discussion a few posts back about hunter safety courses is a good example. I don't think (my opinion only) that firearms training will lead to as bad a future as some predict. It may even lead to reciprocity with more states.

Thanks

308th_sps

 

[dnr1128]

[//Again, slippery slope fallacy.

Do you feel the same about a hunters safety course? It is required to get a license, and it hasn't let to government inspectors or classes for ammunition purchases. I don't see any consequential difference between that and a permit to carry a weapon.

Hunting, like driving a car is not a RIGHT .... My ability purchase, own, and use a gun is my RIGHT. Hunter safety course is required to get a license and you are correct in stating it has not lead to government inspectors or classes for ammo purchase - Could it? My response would be YES. It could easily pass as a need for stricter enforcement because it has been reported that we have individuals who are hunting without every taking the class - as an enforcement measure. A law or prohibition without enforcement in useless. An example is road blocks checking for license, inspection stickers, and proof of insurance. Again, an enforcement measure.

Most everything of this nature starts off "little" and "insignificant" in the minds of most people. Just ask those in locals where gun locks are required - look at CA, IL, MA, NY ... Once the "little" and "insignificant" restrictions take hold, the anti-s do not stop there. It is on the next step on the ladder for them.

The bottom line for me here is that individuals must be responsible for their actions and held strictly accountable if they are not.

Certainly, more legislation COULD occur, but that doesn't mean that it WILL.

I would have to disagree with you that hunting isn't a right. Hunting for food is a basic right of all humans. It has been only in the last 150 years that we haven't had to hunt to feed ourselves. But I digress.

I agree totally that the best government intrusion is none at all. But I also see that since there is a certain amount of oversight that is reasonable. I would support a basic test, maybe about 15 minutes worth, prior to issuance of a permit that would show that the person can handle a weapon safely.

 

[captain-03]

..There are also a lot of people that have a permit and know nothing about firearms. They have a permit to carry it, but do not understand any firearms safety, how to load/unload, have never heard of sight alignment, trigger pull, and many other things that some of us have learned thru our military /LE training, or what dad taught us as we grew up.
308th_sps

A great discussion going on here. Lots of logical thoughts and deeply held beliefs. My fear is -- There are also a lot of people that own firearms and know nothing about firearms. Should they, too, be required to complete a class of some sort?