Mandatory Training for Gun Owners: Constitutional? Useful?
In many states, to get a concealed handgun license you must complete a training class. Some states have very strict requirements for such classes, which teach not only safe use of a firearm but also the legal use of deadly force. Other states have more lax coursework requirements, often requiring only an NRA class on handgun safety. A few states have no training requirement whatsoever.
It feels a bit like challenging motherhood, baseball, and apple pie to criticize mandatory training requirements. Carrying a gun for self-defense is a serious matter, and I think any gun owner would benefit from a course in the safe and legal use of a gun. I can’t imagine any good reason to not take such a course. Nonetheless, I am skeptical of the utility — and perhaps even the constitutionality — of such mandatory training requirements.
I’m skeptical of the utility of such requirements from the standpoint of accidents. Handguns are very close to being the ultimate point-and-click interface. The instruction manuals for all modern handguns are astonishingly well-written and complete. If the instruction manual isn’t enough, you probably can’t be trusted with a hammer and nails either. About the only subtle safety issue with modern handguns: after you remove the magazine from a semiautomatic pistol, there is still a cartridge in the chamber. You need to rack the slide to eject that cartridge and render the gun safe. (And the manuals are very clear on this point too.)
Non-hunting gun accidents are pretty rare in this country. Once you remove the accidents involving alcohol or teenagers (who can’t get a concealed weapon permit anyway), there aren’t a lot left — and many of those are incidents like this. I’m skeptical that even several thousand hours of mandatory training will give someone like that the good sense that God gives to turnips.
There might be a case for mandatory training to make sure that a person carrying a gun does not use it improperly — for example, in an argument about a parking spot. But I have not seen much evidence that this is a problem. For the most part, people who carry guns seem to realize the very serious responsibility that goes with it. For all the talk about how petty disputes lead to gunfights, in the more than seven years that I have been editing The Armed Citizen, I have been astonished at how few of the more than 4500 incidents we have blogged have fit into that category.
Similarly, while there is good reason to worry about shots fired at a criminal that go astray, it’s not clear how useful mandatory training is for solving this problem. The major use of a handgun for self-defense is as a threat — it causes criminals to suddenly remember an urgent appointment elsewhere. When the victim opens fire, it is often at astonishingly short range, and under circumstances where marksmanship training is quite irrelevant.
In short: mandatory training as a safety measure may be a solution in need of a problem.
no its not constitutional. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Im a gun owner and i practice with my weapon. And yes it is imperetive that you learn how to use your wepon correctly. However, this is nothing more than another gov attempt to circumvent the bill of rights to me. just like the ‘mental competency’ check for handguns. the gov can decide who is ‘safe’*wink wink* enough to be allowed to carry a firearm. The right was written so that we may protect ourselves from eachother and the govt. People think that the govt will just say you cant have guns. They cant because of the uproar it would cause. So instead thay use soft tyrrany methods to convince us to give up rights for ‘safety’ reasons. either people want freedom or not. But we need to get off the idea that anytime the gov does something its for us and that we can be ‘safe’ and free at the same time. We cannot and there is NO middle ground. If there was it would have already been done by now!
Let me ask, how do you learn the self defense laws in your state? You do want to be law abiding do you not. So requiring that you sit down and take a class on State Firearms law shouldn’t be a problem.
“…how do you learn the self defense laws in your state?…”
Well, Bill, a start would be to go on-line and seek out the information.
In Washington State, where we do not have a training requirement, with every carry permit, and with every renewal, we get an updated pamphlet of the relevant law, plus safety advice.
We also have the benefit that the state is required to pay for our defense if we end up in hot water over self-defense.
I’ve been licensed and trained since ’91 to carry a concealed weapon. I got my original permit from a judge that was also the former county prosecutor in a case I handled as a young lawyer. The family of the victim was so worried that my client would “get off” (their words, not mine) that they called my office and threatened to kill both my secretary and me. I’d been brought up responsibly using firearms and even though the judge was willing to grant a “carry permit”, I trained first. I’m glad I did train, and I do it constantly. I’m looking up the WA law that obligates the state to defend a licensed firearm owner. If its as stated, I’ll work to have it in our state of WV (by the way, we have a state constitution that recognizes and protects gun rights that exceeds the fed 2nd Amend.)
Almost makes me wish to move back home. Except for Seattle itself, of course. But I digress.
hhmmmm …Just wondering if the M13 members will have to follow suit….go on line..know the rules…
“Let me ask, how do you learn the self defense laws in your state? ”
I was commissioned at 19 (1981)to carry a handgun in Texas as a security guard. Besides the class being taught by the Irving Police Chief, I sent off to the state for a copy of the Penal Code. Since getting my CHL in ’96, I have used online resources.
About fifteen years ago a man, Thomas Hamilton who lived in the small Scottish town of Dunblane went on a rampage, indiscriminately killing many young children at a youth club he organised.
It turned out that he was a paedophile and an obvious psychopath to boot. His shooting spree ultimately ended with himself so any further analysis would be speculation.
However, as a result handguns were banned in Britain.
Jump to this year and we’ve had two more. A man in Cumbria who in similar fashion went berserk with a couple of shotguns, killing many innocents as he randomly shot his way through a large area.
And another this week, Raul Moat, a steroid abuser again killing, this time people he knew. Both of these ended up the same way as Hamilton, dead by their own hands.
Of course the media has been ablaze. Juicy stories. Psychos on the run. Violence. Police talking heads. And carnage.
Not mentioned at any time is the real story of gun crime ever told.
Since that ban handgun crime has soared. And these lone white psychos are mere episodic spikes in a long and dreary tale of death.
The figures speak for themselves yet we never see media excitement or the outrage these two killers have created.
About fifty to sixty percent of gun crime is commited by urban black youth. They may comprise less than one percent of the population but they sure know how to make up for that in the statistics.
Banning handguns hasn’t prevented that. You think training will make one iota of difference in the US?
The use of targetted profiling of the core group of firearm abusers and a media campaign may but we’ll never know because that would be racist.
So its business as usual. Meanwhile those kids who the liberals refuse to point the finger at are killing each other in large numbers making me think who are the real losers when political correctness makes the rules?
Is it those academics and politicians living and working in the sactuaries of the gated communities and ivory towers or the boys in the hoods they refuse to condemn?
Seconded. The UK gun ban is ridiculous, and possibly harms the innocent more than it prevents wrongdoing.
The way to stop gun violence is a more intelligent way of dealing with those who are likely to commit gun crimes:
1. Since a lot of gun violence is drugs-based, it may be worth considering whether a limited legalization of “soft” drugs like cannabis (never tried it myself, probably never will) might deprive them of anything to fight over, just like the end of prohibition crippled gangsters in the 30s.
2. Gangs, be they organized (mafia) or disorganized (street gangs), usually commit other crimes, such as theft or money laundering. Better policing of these lesser offences means that would-be murderers are in prison and/or the gang is bankrupted, removing the incentive for violence. Cf. New York.
3. In terms of crimes of passion, most would be commited using a knife or something else in the absence of guns. Yes, these are less lethal, but the difference is too small to even come close to the number of deaths prevented by having people capable of defending themselves.
4. In terms of psychos, they’re probably going to do it anyway. If they weren’t shooting everyone in sight, they’d be strangling people. Again, self-defence probably weighs out all benefits from a ban.
5. Usual stuff about criminals getting guns even if they’re illegal applies. At least if people have handguns it makes crooks think twice about mugging them.
What I am prepared to allow is the State to take the ballistic ‘fingerprints’ of every gun – doesn’t really interfere with use, and makes it easier to track and makes people think twice about wrongful gun use. Similarly, preventing seriously mentally ill people, felons and those with a history of non-trivial violence from getting a gun is OK, as long as the net is not cast too wide (depression, chronic fatigue or PTSD should not be enough for denial; nor should a bar fist fight) and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with the presumption being in favor of approval.
I also don’t mind the prohibition of e.g. machine guns, tracer rounds or armour-piercing rounds. Just as fighting words aren’t protected by the 1st amendment, weapons and ammo that cause an excessive amount of risk to bystanders with no substantial benefit to legitimate uses shouldn’t be by the 2nd. Assault rifles don’t cause excessive risk, and should be available. Bullets that go through a wall a mile away and kill a kid watching TV or machine guns that kill a dozen bystanders as well as the bad guy do, and thus should only be available in a military context with all the added laws that affect the military.
Unfortunately, ballistic fingerprints change every time the gun is cleaned. They can be easily ‘disguised’. They are only useful in law enforcement if the gun is capture quickly after the crime before it can have been altered.
Well, now that Heller and MacDonald cases are won, we need to set up a test case of someone crossing state lines with a concealed weapon and a CCW from their home state, to get the courts to force reciprocity of CCW in every state or else do away with CCW licensing altogether. Such a case will help draw the line as to where exactly the courts thinking is about “reasonable regulation”.
While I worked for a company in the Silicon Valley I also performed service for them in Idaho, where I lived. I stopped flying to CA when security became asinine, and I rented a car and drove. I was on the way home and got stopped, yes I was speeding, I have had a CCW for many years and had a weapon in the vehicle in a holster under my seat. I Always put on my hazards, pull the keys from the ignition and place them on the roof and put both of my hands out of the drivers window and roll down the passenger window when I am carrying. The first thing the CHP officer asked was “do you have a weapon”? I told him I did and it’s location. I provided him my ID and other documents (CCW, rental agreement) and gave him my weapon. Shortly he returned with all of my belongings and told me that my CCW wasn’t valid in CA. I told him I knew that, and that if I believed that I wasn’t in any danger of random violence at any time I would not carry at all. And the president (or some one in Federal government) had only days before suggested that we should all carry a weapon for self defense. The officer commented on the same quote and clearly stated he understood and asked me to slow down and sent me on my way. He also told me that a weapon in a holster is not considered a concealed weapon. There is ‘tolerance’ for interstate concealed carry, although it may not be legal, provided judgment and discretion are evident.
I think the purpose in training – while it also teaches skill and knowledge – they are trying to teach the gun user “respect” for his weapon. They just don’t realize it. You are right though because a lot of the problem is in supervision and boredom, and also culture. For instance in Boynton Beach the Mexicans used to sit (about 15 years ago) with guns out by the road on slow nights and have shooting contests and practice hitting the electric lines above them — making the entire area’s electricity go out. This is the kind of culture that is coming into the USA over the Arizona border and the more that comes the more accidents you are going to have. Respect would be something that if they had been taught it – they probably wouldn’t have been even playing around like that. Skills don’t teach that the bullets eventually come back down when you shoot a gun up straight into the air — common sense does. A lot of accidental deaths occur in that manner also.
I hope you don’t think you can teach illegals and the criminal element of the hispanic population to care. They don’t and they won’t.
I live in Texas, we are on the verge of being over run by this lot and we can’t get govt to deal with it here.
Then form a militia AND DEAL WITH IT YOURSELF SARGE.
With rights comes responsibility, but one is most certainly left with the impression that those who impose strict regulations requiring gun owners to pass firearms training classes before obtaining a permit to possess something that is clearly a fundamental American right are more interested in usurping that right for their own ideological designs than they are with public safety.
Just another example of how the nanny state works. You, the citizen, are too stupid to make decisions on your own, so we’ll make them for you. Never mind the clear language of the Constitution.
The very first thing that a citizen exercising his second amendment rights should do is seek training in the proper use of his firearm. But this is something that he should do without the coercion of the state.
Licensing implies that the issuer is giving PERMISSION. Since our rights are ‘endued by our Creator,’ licensing turns rights into privileges; privileges which can be revoked. Driving is a privilege. Weapons ownership is a right.
We as Americans need to DEMAND that the Supreme Court enforce the Constitution IN ITS ORIGINAL INTENT. And if they refuse, then we need to give them a lesson in the REASON for the Second Amendment. Our forefathers would not have put up with this horse-crap for more than the thirty seconds it took them to figure out that it was going on. The fact that we have been putting up with it for years shows that the destruction of the educational system is doing exactly what it was intended to do: MAKE AMERICANS OBLIVIOUS TO THEIR RIGHTS AS CREATIONS OF THE LIVING GOD.
I get so tired of people who claim driving or anything else is a priviledge. No, it is not! Who in hell grants priviledges in a free society? Where is my list of priviledges to be found?
The concept of priviledge in a free society is so anti-ethical, it is bizzare there are people who accept it as fact. Even more strange they would publicly proclaim it. If people allow this concept to take hold in our legal system, it’s over. The list will grow to infinity.
You want a list?
Anything that is not forbidden by law or statute, and that is not listed in the Bill of Rights, is a privilege.
Last time I looked, driving wasn’t included in the Bill of Rights. Maybe the new Obama-2010 version has it, tho. I’ll have to ask my fellow Right-Wing Conspirators to get me a copy.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure a right not to be prevented from traveling between states has been found to exist – I think it’s one of the few things the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been held to include (Saenz v. Roe – decided 7-2 Scalia, Kennedy and O’Connor in majority, Rehnquist dissenting that right exists, Thomas dissenting for the same reasons as he gave in his concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago – he believes that clause has been interpreted too narrowly for over a century). It’s a fairly defensible thing even from an originalist viewpoint; indeed, I wonder if the original point of the Commerce Clause was not to give Congress ridiculous authority over everything, but to stop states from stopping people from other states from traveling to them. Since a right to move around is an important thing that makes a bunch of states into a nation, that is hardly unreasonable.
So there is a limited ‘right to travel’, and if a state decided to revoke a person’s driver’s license to stop them moving to another state it would be unconstitutional.
Of course, that’s only a right which requires states not to stop people without any other reason and requires that the state government itself doesn’t treat the newcomer as hostile or foreign. Not even the most activist judge could construe that as a right to have the state give you a car, or act as your personal taxi service.
Rights inflation, especially of the “government must do/provide X” type (as opposed to the “government must not do/infringe Y” type), is a problem. Preventing states from closing their gates to citizens of other states is a reasonable thing and probably satisfies an originalism test.
more hurdles and added cost are just ways to circumvent our rights. Just like jmz says. I believe in Ireland that even sporting guns must be re-registered every year at a substantial cost. Mayor daly wants you to carry liability insurance. That’s sh$# luck for them but a good way for poor families that can’t afford to move away from the high crime areas to have to rely on the local government for their safety and livelyhood. Funny how that works.
Right now you rely on the King’s kindness for land (Fanny and Freddy hold 50% of the mortgages in the US)
You rely on the King to grant you an education (the government just took over student loans)
When it comes to safety you better hope the king likes you (If you live in Chicago)
All discussions of guns this, control that, training the other etc. etc. are foolish. All that needs be done is pass a law requiring criminals who intend to commit crimes using and illegal gun to 1), Wear a brightly colored badge stating these intentions clearly, 2)Carry all illegal firearms openly and in plain sight, 3) Phone ahead to their targets no less than 15 minutes before committing the crime. Should work very well. No…?
We all know that such infringement is NOT constitutional and that the only point in attempting to make such a law is for the sole purpose of ‘predetermining’ who may and may not have a weapon and there fore the Right to self defense, as well as being able to rescind existing ‘granted’ authority.
“Constitutionalist” has it right. For too long we (Americans) have had the (been given) attitude that “if you have nothing to hide you have no reason to fear” and allowed our Rights to be trampled. But the Founders stated it so eloquently that the ‘tendency of government is always toward tyranny.’ And present day is ample proof of that.
As a Human being we are individuals, given life from God. And there fore are entitled to specific and non specific inalienable individual Rights. It is government that has limitations on it’s authority, not citizens. It is now time, with the advent of new revelations that government is intent on tyrannical domination, that Americans make clear that they will no longer be abused by the government that they created, sustain and empower through our will alone.
While these Rights are individual Rights the only way to effectively be heard is by collective agreement. As long as we allow the government to usurp authority on an individual one at a time basis we permit by acquiescence the back sliding of government into tyranny.
The best way to examine this issue is to substitute any other amendment for the 2nd and see how the argument sounds.
In this case, how would folks feel if cities, counties or states were to require mandatory classes and training before you could speak in public, or write a letter to an editor, or perhaps start your own blog?
All joking aside, it would be deemed ludicrous and rightly so.
Either the Constitution means exactly what it says “shall not be infringed” or it doesn’t, and we’ve morphed into some bizzaro land.
respects,
Well stated AW1 Tim.
Mandatory classes on Libel/Slander laws before you are allowed to go on the ‘net -
I’m sure that is only “reasonable”.
From the article:
Not a good example; As you know ‘freedom of the press’ is being abused; That’s why the most incapable, incompetent, inexperienced, ignorant, ineffective, indecisive individual ever, is sitting as president of the United States. There is death and destruction in the wake of this administration. And due to a serious lack of training and experience. Precisely the reason the Second Amendment is FOR the citizenry; To protect itself from tyrants like these.
If there were ever any missing component to the U.S. Constitution, it’s holding the abusers of ‘freedom of the press’ responsible for their actions or inactions.
Uhm, nope. “Monopoly of the press” is being abused. That’s why the internet is so vital to freedom, and why the left is trying to tighten up the controls.
As a side note, the free press at the time the Constitution was written was pretty much “tabloid”. Mother Jones, National Enquirer, and the Democratic Party news letters I’ve seen would all be regarded as rather restrained and polite.
Freedom of the press at the time of the Constitution was pretty much tabloid? Just where were you educated, Phillep? Your statement is preposterous and NOT true.
Alas, many newspapers in this period are pretty darn ugly–right up there with the Huffington Post. The only restraint was that libel laws (including criminal libel laws) were still vigorously enforced, so lots of criticisms were done in an indirect way, without directly identifying who they were attacking.
sure it is…tabloid meaning “UNrestrained”…
To further substantiate my statement, see Roger Simon’s article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/07/11/liar-liar-why-obama-is-failing/
And, by the way; “All men are created equal”; But, Congress shall enact legislation to deem some more equal than others after this fact; Based on skin color, ethnicity, sex, whom you chose to have sex with, what color your god is, who you might vote for, etc.
Yo Geezer. The stipulation that all men are created equal DOES NOT MEAN THEY REMAIN EQUAL. Men become inequal by actions of their own doing, not by legislation. America is the only country where all people are afforded the SAME TREATMENT BY LAW, regardless of their societal status.
If your following the news, you can see this administration is NOT treating all men as equal.
THEY WANT TO DIVIDE, AND CREATE AS MUCH ANIMOSITY AS POSSIBLE. WHEN THE VIOLENCE STARTS THEY WILL ANXCT MARSHALL LAW, WHICH IS THEIR ULTIMATE WET DRTEAM.
I received my weapons trainning in the Marine Corps years ago, and now I’m told that I must take an authorized firearms safety class and be certified before I can hunt on federal land. These trainning classes have a lot more to do with control then they do with safety.
An interesting analysis.
I’m a former police officer. In my State, in addition to the background checks to purchase a handgun, I am required to have a permit to carry concealed. My ability or knowledge about using it is never questioned. I don’t feel qualified to address the Constitution issue but I agree with the observation that there are not a lot of non-hunting accidents. But…
I wonder if there would be a little less anti-gun push if it WAS required to attend some educational program that reviewed basic stuff like deadly force. I agree with #6. Weapons ownership is a right granted under the constitution. I don’t think a bit of regulation negates that right.
Tom, you make the mistake in thinking that anti-gunners would be appeased by any rational limitation like training. Their hatred of guns is so visceral that granting them any concession would only cause them to demand more.
I believe it was Colorado (or maybe just Denver) where the training requirement was made into a de-facto ban because the class was only offered once a year, only had 30 seats, and the seats tended to go to the politically connected first.
Anyone that reads a daily newspapers can see that our citizens are already trained enough on how to shoot their weapons. Thousands will continue to die every year due to their expertise to be sure. So that tells most of us that more training programs will not do any good. Any other suggestions? Cheaper funeral insurance? who knows….
The adults are trying to have a conversation. Here’s a quarter, go catch the ice cream truck. Oh, after you’re done eating it–outside, please–you can run in the sprinkler.
You know, it’s amazing how many scum bags who have never had formal weapons training manage to kill civilians and cops in a fit of unlicensed rage. On the other hand, it’s also amazing how many professional licensed weapon’s operators have, oops, accidental discharges! I once worked with a dude that managed to discharge his colt 45 government model into his butt cheek, at the range no less. At least he got some vacation time. But, if we’re going have mandatory weapons training, I suggest we bring back the unconstitutional poll tax to provide mandatory remedial voter booth english training, since we don’t requiring english speaking at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles). Isn’t the AK47 the iconic universal weapon of choice among the pray and spray Left?
Now that I give it some more thought, why limit training to “guns.” Remember, the second amendment refers to “arms.” So I gather all those Californian penal code 12020 prohibitions on oriental throwing stars, batons, switch blades, billy clubs, nanchukas, dirks and daggers, and saps, is now unconstitutional. Police officers are wavered on the carry of those weapons, although I can’t recall any required training to use the sap. So I gather we are now going to have licensing for all those instinct users of old fashion low technology deadly weapons, like the common meat cleaver? In the era of declining tax bases, it looks like a great revenue source to me; and liberals get to sell as the retro weapons safety act.
It could be made legal easily. Couch it as mandatory training for members of the state militia – that would at least cover adult males ages 17-45 (following 10 USC 311 – state militia definitions may vary of course). Of course state constitutional provisions regarding the state militia would have to be in place, and other laws as well. Arizona’s practice, for instance, creates in their state constitution an unorganized militia component (again which parallels 10 USC 311).
Hmmmmmmm, a non-problem and non-safety issue that’s searching for a fix? GADZOOKS!! A solution…the author should apply for Gun Safety Czar. Hmmmmmm, is pjm or = msm?? Austrian tarmac revisited.
good article as always,but i have to disagree with most here: for one,not only do i think a firearms course should be mandatory for getting a ccw license but for even purchasing a firearm.
i have been shooting for 17 years,carrying for 16 years (on and off)lots and lots of gun shows,shooting events, gun ranges.the one lesson i can take away from it-without a doubt-is that the gun owning public is as almost as ignorant when it comes to firearms as the non owning.
pistol training for anyone getting their first self defense weapon should be thorough,this requires a hefty sum of money for bullets,range time and classes(IDPA and IPSC can help without destroying your wallet).whether you are engaging a threat(with a concealed weapon) from five feet or twenty still requires the same amount of training.
i do not have the same reservations on long arms;they do not require nearly as much practice to become and stay proficient,plus you are not carrying them around on your person in public.
the current standards of proficiency for my state CCW license(Florida)should be required for anyone buying a handgun and the future CCW course should be considerably more in depth.
If other states want looser restrictions,that is up to them.
Soooo, would you support requiring passing a gun safety and handling course before allowing anyone to graduate from high school?
A strange perspective:
Mandatory training to exercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; but, no one is required to have a driver’s license, or any training on its operation, to buy a car (it only applies if you wish to operate one on public roads).
Will we next need mandatory training on how to speak?
On how to Petition for Redress of Grievances?; the operation of a Free Press?
Where’s that Peaceably Assembling training?
Foolishness this large must be painful.
I’ve attended both concealed carry courses, firearms safety and hunter safety courses. All were brief on the handling of firearms with most of the instruction going to how to stay out of jail.Learning to shoot was always waived due to military service.
No, mandatory training for concealed-carry is not an infringement upon 2nd Amendment. The document says we have the right to bear arms; it does not how they may be carried, nor does it specify handguns that are concealed. Someone who cannot or will not, take/pass training and state issue requirements still has other options under the 2nd amendment: open carry at the hip, slinging a longarm, etc. Mandatory training is less intrusive and (for many people) less of an obstacle than the background checks required for retail handgun purchases. But like background checks, mandatory training serves a purpose of addressing the reservations among the segment of our modern citizens that is nervous about their peers packing heat. If mandatory training furthers our ability to practice responsible firearm ownership and usage, reduces the likelihood of weapon bans and “gun safe zones”, then I’m all for them.
Just because you haven’t blogged much about petty disputes leading to gunfights, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. Last November I was in a disagreement over a seat in a bar which went from from obscene name-calling (his part) to raised voice (my part). Although no threats of violence were made or implied, he decided to draw a .22 revolver, pointed it at me, and declare “I bet you haven’t heard of concealed carry!”. Unfortunately for him I had, having taken Ohio’s 12 hour course twice over the previous five years, and I gave him an a**-chewing in the finer points of responsible carry and the legal implications of lethal force that, hopefully, he won’t forget. Apparently that discussion must have been left out of Tennessee’s paltry four hours of class time, if he had even taken it.
As a result of that experience, I am convinced there are maladjusted individuals out there who can pass background checks simply because they’ve flown under the radar of law-enforcement. If mandatory training allows us to drill the points of ownership, responsibility, and legality into their thick heads — allowing the responsible among us to carry, despite the lack of inherent sensibility in others — I’m all for the mandatory training.
Rubbish!
In one statistical survey of the county’s more than 21,000 handgun carry permitees over a six-year period, there was one known incident of a crime victim having his gun taken away by the criminal. There were no known incidents of a crime victim injuring an innocent person by mistake. In some cases the handgun permit holder was successful in preventing a crime, and in some cases not, but in no case was any innocent person injured as a result of mistake by a permit-holder.
Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.
The most detailed information about civilian defensive gun use has been compiled by Professor Gary Kleck (a liberal Democrat, and member of the ACLU and Common Cause) in his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. In 1992 the American Society of Criminology awarded the book the Hindelang Prize, as the most significant contribution to criminology in the previous three years. In Point Blank, Kleck studied computer tapes from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Survey, for the years 1979-85. Analyzing the data from over 180,000 crime incidents in the National Crime Survey, as well from other studies, Kleck found the following:
- In no more than 1% of defensive gun uses was the gun taken away by a criminal.
- The odds of a defensive gun user accidentally killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.
- For robbery and assault victims, the lowest injury rates (17.4% for robberies, and 12.1% for assaults) were among victims who resisted with a gun.
- The next lowest injury rates were among persons who did not resist. Other forms of resistance (such as shouting for help, or using a knife), had higher injury rates than either passive compliance or resistance with a gun.
As for the first figure mentioned (1/26,000), statistics can be (and are often) framed in whatever way the presenter wants them to bolster his argument. I find the X number of altercation results divided by X number of weapon holders a clever way to introduce a very low fraction. What would be more useful to present a ratio X number or altercation results divided by X number of altercations. And better yet, only count those altercations that can be verified through a police report.
Anyway, while the rest of the post contains some interesting statistics, I’ve yet to read how you feel they coincide or correlate with our current system of mandatory CCW-training.
“statistics can be (and are often) framed in whatever way the presenter wants them to bolster his argument”
Or
Do NOT confuse me with facts, My mind is made up.
You’re absolutely correct: your weak, ill-logical, uncited, and transparently flawed ratio does *absolutely nothing* to sway this reader’s point of view. That’s not my reader’s short-coming, it reflects the writer’s failure to present a convincing (and relevent) argument.
For the life of me, I have yet to figure out how the “facts” your presented relate to anything I wrote preceding them… much less what correlation you see between the current mandated CCW training contributes (the topic of the article) and the favorable statistics cited later in your post.
Next time you feel compelled to post a series of “facts”, try addressing a peer’s comments when replying to them… Otherwise it comes across as ill-fitting, like it’s simply been cut and pasted from some other discussion.
Even though I was correct about your small mindedness, I will cite sources.
Citing sources, let’s start with Yale University
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/pdf/lottreview.pdf
Then how about the state of Minnasota, pay particular attention to page 11 and 12
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf
How about byu?
http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm
And finally the statistics I quoted above from the Tennessee Law Revies, but you will have to dig to find the parts I listed.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/shall-issue.html
Others may actually want to read the evidence showing you to be a bag of wind.
Awesome, jd! More cut and paste that doesn’t address our previous discussion or the original topic!
You have still omitted the source for your first, flawed, uncited, and ill-fitting “1/26,000″ number.
And I ask, for the third time, “how do you feel the other favorable statistics coincide or correlate with our current system of mandatory CCW-training?”
Simply amazing.
A person who establishes a trend based on an anecdotal survey of one, himself, in relating a shakey at best account that should have led to the arrest of the perpatrator but didn’t criticizes me for failing to cite sources, but when I do criticizes me for cutting and pasting.
You’re a blow hard and not even a good one.
You have still omitted the source for your first, flawed, uncited, and ill-fitting “1/26,000″ number
No I didn’t.
you’re just too lazy to read.
Now check my post and you’ll see where I said which link (from the Tennesee Law Review – that’s a hint) contains the information I posted.
Oh yes, how the numbers relate…
since those numbers are consistant across states with CCW laws, and since there is NO significant statistical variation between states with Mandatory Training and those without, Mandatory Training is a Solution without a problem.
Oh yes, there are those like you with the Might Be A Problem and no proof, but there isn’t any indication of a problem from reality.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SFNdYJyfIqkC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Silver+%26+Kates,+supra&source=bl&ots=PTNAmY2mzw&sig=Jq-5FwMBJIhY56y-VDqndQw2oRs&hl=en&ei=18Q9TPy7IIXUtQOLgOn-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Silver%20%26%20Kates%2C%20supra&f=false
Source Silver & Kates
Hogwash. “Shall not be infringed.”
Licensing one means of “bear” does not preclude one’s ability to exercise other means of “bear”.
For me, happiness involves sportscars and motorcycles… the faster they go, the happier I get. Does that mean speed limit signs, the legal obligations and financial responsibilities of ownership and operation, the distant location of testing centers or state licensing agencies, or fees associated with coursework, licensing, and use tax infringe upon the “pursuit of [my] happiness”? Or are there other, slightly less convenient, ways I can still exercise my unalienable right to pursue happiness?
If so, the same approach applies to other topics within the Bill of Rights.
That would be called brandishing a weapon, a felony in Florida. Showing a weapon, even accidentally can get you charged with the same.
“…brandishing a weapon…”
Indeed. Which was *precisely* my immediate response when he presented while announcing “concealed”, before reminding him that privilege to carry concealed was not a license to draw during random petty arguments. And that it was a felony (in Ohio, as of 11/09) to carry a concealed weapon into a bar. And that he should never draw unless he intend to pull to the trigger (lest he be disarmed, as someone mentioned above), he should pull the trigger unless he intended to kill in defense, and that he shouldn’t consider killing unless he can prove an assailant had the motive, means, and opportunity to inflict bodily harm… not to mention an inability to exercise his ‘duty to retreat’, which — aside from home and car — remains part of Ohio Revised Code. I told him if he shot me he better kill me (with a .22 revolver no less, judging from the bore) because otherwise I would sue the **** out of him for everything that he currently owned and would ever earn. He was told that if he was still there in three minutes, when the cops showed up, that I would make it my personal mission to have his CHL revoked for good. When he high-tailed it away, I noticed his license plate was from Tennessee… suggesting another oversight on his part: checking the state and local laws of one’s destination before traveling with a concealed weapon.
I’m not a lawyer, I simply took the class and paid to attention to what the instructors were saying. The point of this being: in my eyes, as long as the law allows hot-heads, yahoos, maladjusts, and the frail-ego’d to pack concealed heat, the least the rest of us can do is try to make sure everybody receives standardized and thorough instruction on the basic handling of firearms, and the legal and moral consequences of using them.
The ‘Document’, the Constitution of the United States of America, says “…The Right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
What part of that ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear to you? The Second Amendment doesn’t say “except for CCW, where mandatory safety training, designed to be as onerous as possible, cost lots of money, and requiring trips to other cities” (as in the case of Chicago’s recently revised laws).
“What part of that ’shall not be infringed’ is unclear to you?”
The part where you view your failure to pass a simple test for one of the many means of “bear” as an infringement upon the right a whole. I’ve taken the classes twice now, as the permit is good only five years. At neither time did I feel the subject matter difficult enough to be an impediment. Did you? Which parts do you feel would be difficult for people to pass? Nor did I believe the price of the class — somewhere between a 1/3 and 1/10 of the cost of a decent handgun, depending on the weapon, or equivalent to the cost a couple hundred rounds of practice ammo — served to be a financial barrier of any sort. Did you?
Furthermore… I don’t what know the laws are in your state, but for Ohio if you complete firearms training/qualification in the Armed Forces within a certain time frame prior to your CHL application, you don’t have to take a class.
And finally, opponents of mandated training have yet to explain why the possible inability to carry a concealed handgun is an a infringement of carrying a firearm in general… considering the already mentioned alternative options of belt holsters and weapon slings. Seriously what part of failure to complete CCW-specific training is an infringement to “bear arms” as a whole?
Amendment II
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.
—
Read carefully – ‘keep and bear Arms’
Yes you have the right to keep and to bear Arms.
And you can, just not concealed under your clothing until you pass a test. Until then, you’re free to carry it in as many ways as you wish.
Amendment II
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.
–
Read carefully: “well regulated”.
Nice try Stephen….except for the fact that you failed to factor in the evolution of the English language. You see, well regulated IN THOSE DAYS meant well-trained. Also, YOU need to read it again mon ami. It says well-regulated militia, not well-regulated. Check the word order.
If we were to translate the Amendment into modern English, it would read:
Amendment II
A well trained Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Nation, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be tampered with by regulation.
you failed to factor in the evolution of the English language. You see, well regulated IN THOSE DAYS meant well-trained.
Sorry, C., but at the risk of seeming pedantic, I disagree with your proposed etymology of the word “regulated” and its c.1700 definition. I’ve never seen it used as a synonym with “trained”, but most often applied in manner similar to ‘rule of management’, such as keeping order or adhering to a schedule. While it is likely a body of orderly men are also well-trained (as part of their management), a group of well-trained men are not necessarily orderly (or managed at all).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=regulate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate
Referencing another key word, infringe, at etyonline.com, my contempory interpretation of the late eighteenth century wording differs from yours:
Amendment II — An orderly militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be damaged, fractured, or broken up.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=infringe
Quite honestly, the entire passage makes more grammatical sense when the subject of the sentence is recognized as “Militia”, which is how I believe the writers intended the sentence to be read. However, with our modern-day concern and focus on the bearing arms portion, readers tend to ignore the original subject “militia” and attempt to assign the predicate adjective “infringed” to the dependent clause about bearing arms.
Incidentally, I’m willing to bet that the point of contention between gun rights advocates and gun control advocates is whether the clause about bearing arms is a restrictive/essential/defining clause, or non-* clause — and whether that grammatical interpretation reflects the distilled feelings and intent of the authors.
Regardless: to make the sentence grammatically correct, “infringed” is clearly assigned to “militia”… which explains why the existence of every federal weapon related law (and most state laws, including CCW) enacted since has been consititutionally possible.
Hey, the military gave me mandatory weapons training. Did they violate my Constitutional rights? – I forgive them, they did make me an expert marksman.
I have a Texas CHL. That required a 10 hour course on safety, conflict avoidance/resolution, gun laws, etc; a thorough background investigation; and range time to demonstrate accuracy and safe weapon handling. It took a day and a half and some money and some waiting time for the investigations to be completed.
I KNOW the Second Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to keep and bear arms, but wouldn’t YOU feel a little more comfortable if you knew that the armed citizen standing next to you had at least some minimum training in marksmanship, safety, and law? – That’s why they require a driver’s license before you can legally drive a car, – you get trained and take a test to prove that you know the driving laws and can safely/properly drive a car on the roads.
And that’s as far as I go. Bring up the subject of registration, gun-control, “assault rifles”, high-capacity magazines, or any other thing that some fool wants to regulate, and I will start using words that will get my comment censored. Thank You.
No, mandatory training for concealed-carry is not an infringement upon 2nd Amendment. The document says we have the right to bear arms; it does not how they may be carried, nor does it specify handguns that are concealed. Someone who cannot or will not, take/pass training and state issue requirements still has other options under the 2nd amendment: open carry at the hip, slinging a longarm, etc. Mandatory training is less intrusive and (for many people) less of an obstacle than the background checks required for retail handgun purchases. But like background checks, mandatory training serves a purpose of addressing the reservations among the segment of our modern citizens that is nervous about their peers packing heat. If mandatory training furthers our ability to practice responsible firearm ownership and usage, reduces the likelihood of weapon bans and “gun safe zones”, then I’m all for them.
Just because you haven’t blogged much about petty disputes leading to gunfights, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. Last November I was in a disagreement over a seat in a bar which went from from obscene name-calling (his part) to raised voice (my part). Although no threats of violence were made or implied, he decided to draw a .22 revolver, point it at me, and declare “I bet you haven’t heard of concealed carry!”. Unfortunately for him I had, having taken Ohio’s 12 hour course twice over the previous five years, and I gave him an ***-chewing in the finer points of responsible carry and the legal implications of lethal force that, hopefully, he won’t forget. Apparently that discussion must have been left out of Tennessee’s paltry four hours of class time, if he had even taken it.
As a result of that experience, I am convinced there are maladjusted individuals out there who can pass background checks simply because they’ve flown under the radar of law-enforcement. If mandatory training allows us to drill the points of ownership, responsibility, and legality into their thick heads — allowing the responsible among us to carry, despite the lack of inherent sensibility in others — I’m all for it.
Hey, I have an idea…
Let’s require mandatory education about fetal development and informed consent for Abortions.
If that isn’t unconstitutional then neither are mandatory classes for Keeping or BEARRING arms.
Pfft…. Choice vs Life = Not my concern. Until society wants to grant men the “choice” of declaring an abortion of their responsibility of a lifetime parental obligations, within the first two trimesters of a pregnancy, I couldn’t care less about a woman’s “choice”. And until I knock someone up, I really don’t care about the “lives” of other people’s fetuses either.
Ahh the egg hatches its snake. You don’t care about people’s unborn children. I got news for YOU boo-boo. If you kill a woman who’s pregnant, you can be held responsible for killing the BABY as well Fetus means baby in Latin Stephen. Get a clue friend.
The problem is that no amount of “registrations”, “background checks”, “sanity checks”, “permits”, etc. will do a darned thing to lessen the amount of discharging of illegal weapons by criminals. Meaning, gun control of any sort is like installing locks: they help keep honest people honest.
Yet it is the honest people who need to take the right to bear arms in self-defense to heart. An armed society is a polite society and statistics prove time and again that crime rates plummet when more people are willing to take responsibility for their own safety against those who don’t give a rat’s patootie about laws or rules or regulations.
I say teach children both the meaning of the 2nd Amendment AND the responsibility that comes with such a freedom. Teach them in the classroom and teach them in the home and put the bureaucrats’ focus back on enforcing existing laws against real criminal behaviors.
frank, “think it should be mandatory,” doesn’t equal that requiring training is constitutional. About all we could do legitimately is re-institute a universal militia and train the militia members in firearms safety. Apply the same logic to other rights, and the logical issues become very clear. Require training to write a letter to the editor? Nope. Require a license to obtain 4th Amendment protections from illegal searches? Nope. Etc. Now I’m not saying that it’s a bad idea to learn the right way and wrong way to use a firearm. In fact, I’d say the opposite. Just that what you propose is not supportable given the plain text of the 2nd Amendment, and particularly so after Heller and McDonald.
Effective July 29, 2010 the Constitutional savy state of Arizona will no longer require citizens, 21 years of age or older to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That really will get the gun-ban nuts in a tizzy.
I’m moving to AZ.
Of course weapons training is a good idea. But I also believe that “Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear. The problem I see is that all certifications become a money making deal rather than a true training opportunity. I’ve attended a number of different weapons training courses and found most are a waste of my time. Those that were really good cost me nothing (military)or cost a near fortune. Perhaps a discount on the CCW if you attend a course would be a better solution. Which BTW is another issue the ever rising cost of the CCW in many states.
Just another perspective.
When I was in Israel last year many of my fellow American tourists, and there were many librarally types whom had never fired or owned a gun of any sort, were amazed at the seemingly casual attitude and open display of weapons. It is no big deal to see a group of teenagers with their guide, a 20 year old in jeans with a rifle casually slung over her shoulder, enjoying lunch together, a group of soldiers with military weapons ordering food at McDonalds, or to have your bag checked by a white shirted security guard with a .45 in obvious sight before you can enter the mall.
What I learned was that there is nothing at all casual about any of that. Most Israelis have military training. They know how to use a firearm the same way most Americans know how to operate a lawnmower. They dont have to think about it. Gun crime is very low but exists. To get a civilian permit there is very difficult. This is a gun culture but far better trained and disciplined than what we have here.
There are no gun shops such as we have where I live. To get a permit either open or concealed requires proof of need, marksmanship and psychological testing. I felt much safer there than where I live where everyone except police have their weapons hidden.
There is a large cultural difference from a nation with a conscript army to a volunteer one. I do not think the US policy needs to mirror that of Israel. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned.
I did the NRA pistol course here along with my son as a way for us to learn firearm operation and safety together. OK and had some fun shooting at the range. Our instructor was full of stories about how he has resisted an extra couple hundred dollars to just issue the certificate without the course, which can be completed in one day. The man did a good job but I still have some reservations about what is going on here.
I would be much more comfortable if there were more open and less concealed permits out there. I would feel better if those who need to carry weapons were as well trained as possible. It may be frustrating for some but hey, even doctors need to always show proof to a state board and hospital review committee of continuing education and a clean slate. That is because medical professionals, not just docs, use dangerous stuff every day. Use of a 9mm or shotgun is no different.
Spindok’
I don’t know about the constitutionality of this issue but I do hope that all legal gun owners are becoming expert shots. Otherwise what’s the point? You don’t want to be wasting ammo by missing, at the time when you need to hit something.
Most of the time that a civilian carrying a concealed weapon uses his gun, it is a threat. Even when fired, it is usually at such close ranges that missing isn’t much a problem. I confess that I would not have guessed this–but an ounce of data beats a pound of theory.
Still, I wouldn’t buy a gun for protection if I wasn’t prepared to shoot someone (as a last resort) and if there is more than one perp. I would want to be a good shot!
The best argument for mandatory training in regards to use/carry/ownership of firearms is the results of an un-educated electorate voting in the present regime.
Too bad that the courts have found educational requirements unconstitutional in the exercise of the right to vote.
Gun control is hitting what one aims at.
In self-defense situations the range is so short
that hitting is easy; Self control is hard, and
a short course in safe use will not teach it.
If one had to provide everyone with a safe firearm
for self-defense, the best solution would be to add
a spotlight to illuminate the target in darkness,
a laser pointer to show the point of impact, and
a proximity safety which unlocked only when there
was a target closer than 50 feet.
Oh, requiring the course is unconstitutional, no doubt in my mind at all.
But, if this training course is so important, why isn’t it offered at the local community college at night? Everyone should something like the Alaska course as it explains what is “self defense”, “assault”, etc. Just as a matter of general life skills, even for people who don’t intend to carry, or cannot carry for some reason.
In NC at least some, maybe all?, of the Community Colleges do offer the course at night.
Had an interesting thought, many on the left make much of the idea that the militia trained and so one must do it today, the premises that the militia was the sole reason for the Second Amendment. It wasn’t in my opinion, many did not qualify to be in the militia, yet they were also armed if they choose to be.
If the people supporting mandatory training think it’s such a good idea, why aren’t they supporting it being a required part of the ciriculum at the local high school? How about offering such training at the local community college?
As a few have stated, I absolutely agree that firearm training should be required for anyone of accountable age. My sons were accountable at about 10 years old and they have recieved extensive firearm training on an ongoing basis FROM ME since that time. The same holds true for my wife and any family member or friend that wants to learn proper gun safety and the fun of owning and using firearms safely for hunting or shooting sports.
As most have stated, I absolutely agree that the government has no role in that training. When did we start believing that the government was better prepared or better invested in facilitating our well being in any area?
I believe that as gun rights supporters we need start with our family and friends by getting them out to the range or shooting area and teach them step by step how to respect and use firearms. I have converted 100% of them from varying degrees of fear and kneejerk anti-gun attitudes into comfortable supporters of gun ownership. Across the board they say, “Wow, that was safe and fun!” As Americans, safe utility of gun ownership is our heritage. No where in the world are gun rights woven in to the fabric of who we are more than America. It is up to us to be better stewards of this right.
Remember… if guns kill people then your spoon makes you fat! Guns are to be taken seriously and that’s why we have a brain in our head and not a politician!
In Florida it is primarily to get you familiar with Florida State Laws surrounding self defense. You even get a book with the laws and limits spelled out. So I don’t see any big problem with that.
They have a short qualification with your firearm, but what problem is showing you can use and function your firearm.
If Chicago is trying to be more restrictive, then I say no …
The road to hell was built upon good intentions.
And, licensing is of coarse, good intentions.
Training is available all over the place.
This is just a trap. I’m sorry, but it is.
The freedom of this country is built upon personal responsibility.
So train your kids yourself, or send them to hunter safety.
As soon as the Government makes the mandate, only those it selects will be free to exercise their God Given rights. See the bill of rights. Yep, thats what it says…these rights come from God because he is the only one we can trust.
I oppose any infringement on the right to bear arms. However, I don’t think a requirement to take gun-safety classes unduly infringes. And, having taken gun-safety and shooting classes myself, I have no doubt that they made me a safer owner. I cringe whenever I see a photo of someone holding a firearm with his finger on the trigger. One learns NEVER to do that in gun-safety classes – and I can tell you it takes quite a bit of repetition to drill that simple rule into your head. Gun-safety classes also teach you about the laws in your jurisdiction, so that you don’t get yourself in trouble. Not all states, for instance, have the same laws about what constitutes lawful use of deadly force. In Texas, you can shoot someone to protect your property. In most other states, that will land you in prison – you can only shoot to protect yourself or others from imminent bodily harm.
In short, if it makes sense to take courses for safe driving, it makes equal sense to take them for safe gun ownership.
We had gun safety training IN SCHOOL! ( Alaska, 70′s )
I think all should have a rudimentary knowlege of firearms.
Sooo..an approved safety program for all the kids, it doesn’t consume much time.
Good enough?
This comes down to liberals addressing the wrong problem, as usual. There is simply no evidence that legal and law abiding gun owners are any statistical factor in gun crimes. The vast majority of gun crimes are part and parcel of OTHER crimes, lifestyles in which having and using a gun are normal, a way of surviving and thriving in one’s ‘career’.
I always hear “it’ll be a shooting gallery, the wild west, gunfights day and night, those rednecks are crazy, we’ve got to control them”, yada yada. But in the stats, and in my own experience, crime is MUCH lower in areas where gun ownership is MUCH HIGHER. I would MUCH rather be in a WalMart in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Midland, Texas than in any store in any part of Washington DC. The likelihood that someone is carrying a gun you cannot see is probably about the same… but in Wyoming or Texas, the guy with the gun is probably going to PROTECT you, not try to kill you for your wallet.
No society is perfect, but removing guns from people on specious grounds only hands the advantage to the young, strong, fast and evil. As I am growing older, slower and definitely less evil, I prefer to keep my ‘equalizer’ in my pocket and give myself a fighting chance. 19 years ago my beautiful wife of one year was carjacked, raped and shot in the head with an illegally imported gun bought on the street by her killer. As Charlie Daniels famously said, when you can prove to me you’ve got the guns out of the hands of criminals, I’ll gladly give you mine.
Not gonna happen.
dave in dallas, a true story: a man working under the hood of his truck, said truck being parked just off of I-19, 25 miles north of Nogales, is approached by two Hispanic males, one with a knife in his hand, and coming at him fast when he looks up to see them. So he pulls out his pistol, and by the time he raises the gun, it is by then planted smack dab in the middle of his assailant’s forehead. What shot off like a bullet was the speed at which those two desperadoes turned tail and ran for their lives. It was never reported so is not part of our crime statistic. Things like this happen all the time. Guns reduce crime among the peaceful citizenry.
The training classes proposed to be mandated by the gov’t is nothing less than a means to control who has guns, and to acquire a database to use to confiscate them when the evil b@@t@@ds in Wash. decide it’s time to subjugate us once and for all.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those idiots; they think they’re our rulers! HA!
“It was never reported so is not part of our crime statistic.”
Why not? Why the heck not? My take is: if a incident was never reported it never happened or, quite possibly, at least not in the way it was narrated.
of course, stastically, over 90% of occasions in which a firearm is used to stop/prevent a crime, it is not fired, merely shown/brandished etc. a nice big black hole at the end of a barrel, perhaps a few shiny copper slugs glimmering down in the cylinder holes of a revolver, are often enough to make an uncommitted criminal decide he wants to live. Even guys with guns tend to just tuck and run when they see yours. Level of commitment varies in criminals, with very few of them being committed enough to get in a gunfight or risk being shot.
There is a blog called “The Armed Citizen”, which is an aggregator of news stories from local events all over America, usually smaller towns and newspapers’ local news sections.. the rip n read from the police reports, etc. The blog offers no opinions and writes nothing itself, only republishing actual news stories verbatim or summarizing television stories. And yet, at least once a day, somewhere in america, this blog proves an armed citizen defends himself, his stuff, or his family, or even strangers, against violent crime. How many MORE such occasions are NOT reported at all? This is a HUGE factor. It would be a radical, murderous disservice to the public to restrict and limit and remove the right to self defense. To be armed is to be ‘equalized’ against young, strong, dangerous people. Self-defense with firearms is a daily matter and one can only shudder at how much more bold criminals would be if they knew, for a certainty, that they would never encounter armed self defense.
Oh, I am so sorry — and sorrier still that there are no words in the English language adequate to express the depth of that sorrow. What a terrible, terrible thing to happen. No wonder you are so justly vigilant on behalf of our rights to own and carry an “equalizer” (as Colt firearms were famously described) without hindrance by the government. You’ll be in my prayers, sir.
That’s because the people that typically say things like that are lifelong residents of the lefty bubbles on the East or Left Coast, whose only experience with a firearm comes from TV and movies.
“No, mandatory training for concealed-carry is not an infringement upon 2nd Amendment. The document says we have the right to bear arms; it does not how they may be carried, nor does it specify handguns that are concealed. Someone who cannot or will not, take/pass training and state issue requirements still has other options under the 2nd amendment: open carry at the hip, slinging a longarm, etc.”
I am somewhat torn (much like the author of this article). Now your solution does not hold much Merritt because many states still do not allow for open carry, and many require that you are licensed in the same fashion as you are for CCW.
Instead of forcing someone to train I have long advocated incentive training. Ive been teaching folks to shoot for all of my adult life, and for the majority these watered down classes are just a check in the box. They do well to introduce someone to firearms, but they do not begin to ready someone for their moment of truth. And as long as they are a requirement they will not. Instead I suggest incentive based training. There is a lot of room to move with it, but it is the best way to go about ensuring our fellow Americans are not only well armed, but well trained.
I’m all for a voluntarily Militia requiring some training and ability to hit the broad side of a barn.
Note the word ‘voluntary’ in that.
Any citizen wishing to take up arms, of any sort, is responsible for their use.
If a State wishes to set up guidelines for a voluntary Militia and have some sort of registration in that Militia so as to participate in Militia events and possibly gain tax breaks on such things as ammo, targets or construct ranges for the citizenry Militia, then that is encouragement of a well regulated Militia. You don’t have to join, but joining gets you benefits and responsibilities, like helping out in instances of Article I, Section 10, para iii of the Constitution. Perhaps some emergency or disaster responsibilities also, so as to help safeguard your community after you have done so for yourself and family. I would support the formation of voluntary Militias with guidelines in each State, but those could not infringe upon the right of the general population to also keep and bear arms, as that is a right we get from nature as the positive liberty of war, which is self protection from it.
You cannot take away that right as it is born within us, and even felons who, when their lives are at stake, take up arms and voluntarily come forth after that to say they have are acquitted: no jury would ever think to condemn you for protecting yourself with any means available. By coming forth a felon takes up their civil responsibility and demonstrates their faith in society and society then reciprocates. Removing the right from a felon is but a civil injunction and penalty, not a natural injunction, and is a means to remind the felon they have a long term debt to that society. When society cannot protect you, then you must be able to protect yourself. That is not a thing of governments or society, but of nature itself.
“I’m all for a voluntarily Militia requiring some training and ability to hit the broad side of a barn. Note the word ‘voluntary’ in that. [...] If a State wishes to set up guidelines for a voluntary Militia [...] You don’t have to join, but joining gets you benefits and responsibilities, like helping out in instances of Article I, Section 10, para iii of the Constitution. Perhaps some emergency or disaster responsibilities also, so as to help safeguard your community [...]“
I have to admit: that sounds like an interesting and viable concept… if it were ever put into place, we could call it something like “ARNG” or “Army Reserve National Guard” or precede it with the name of a state or something. Maybe, if a person receives firearm training there, the requirement to pay for commercial CCW training could be waived.
“You cannot take away that right as it is born within us, and even felons [...] By coming forth a felon takes up their civil responsibility and demonstrates their faith in society and society then reciprocates. Removing the right from a felon is but a civil injunction and penalty [...]“
Hahaha. Nice try, but wrong. A convicted felon is socially recognized of having made a conscious decision to willingly infringe upon the constitutionally unalienable rights of safety, happiness, and well-being of his fellow law-abiding citizens. Said felons should be glad they once they are free of incarceration, and grateful they are not being forced to physically work off the costs of their jail room and board. Said felons should really stop and think harder about the consequences of their criminal actions, unto themselves and those around them. Those considering felonious activity should view the curtailed privileges of felons as a consequence (and hopefully deterrent) of crime.
Summary: provide honorable military service to your country and community makes obtaining a CCW permit easier, while becoming a criminally pestilent burden to society makes obtaining CCW permit harder (if not impossible). Sounds reasonable to me.
We sure do a lot of arguing about the simplest sentence in the Bill of Rights. I don’t need to argue. I exercise as much gun control as I can. That is how to shoot more accurately. Now to my point. What do the words gun control infer? Well guns are armaments and control implies a controlling authority. So gun control is the authorities regulating how armaments are permitted. Now what do the words shall not be infringed imply? You can use as many mental masturbations as you would like but your government is not permitted to control your arms, and that includes your cannons and surface to air missiles as well. So, I think this discussion is now over. Next subject. Sheesh.
The problem is not enough armed citizens. Anyone ever hear of someone going to a shooting range, going bizzerco and killing a bunch of people? Hmm, I didn’t think so.
You know jacksonian – Benjamin Franklin did just what you proposed in Pennsylvania in 1747 – and founded the Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia. Nowdays, the SPLC will denounce you and the DOJ thugs will come knocking at your door (in the middle of the night with full-autos and jackboots). It would be good to change that.
Ultimately, this may be solved through a combination of the free market and overzealous liberal prosecutors looking to curry favor with some voter bloc or another.
If gun owners have difficulty getting personal liability insurance [and that is not an "infringement"] unless they have gun safety courses, then more and more responsible gun owners will take the courses.
If a gun owner realizes that he/she might be prosecuted for inappropriate or dangerous use of a weapon, he/she will realize that the prudent thing to do would be to prepare a defense based on presenting a documented list of courses on gun usage, safety, and legal issues.
I live in New Hampshire, where I could have obtained my CCL without having taken any courses. Nevertheless, for my own protection, I take courses regularly [just took 4 hours of tactical shooting this morning].
One important note. It is accepted that an attacker can close 15 feet within two seconds. To be able to react, draw, and fire accurately in those highly stressful circumstances takes training: there is no such thing as being so close that skill is not required. Police and FBI reports have noted that even for law officers, 70% or more of shots fired miss the target completely. The only solution is training, training, and more training. Even forgetting the legal consequences, what is the point of carrying a weapon if the odds of my using it successfully are not maximized?
Which is why TX wrote it’s self-defense laws so that in a reasonable shooting the goblin’s friends and relatives have no standing to sue. And if liberal prosecutors bringing cases just to harass law-abiding citizens is your idea of how to achieve de facto gun control, we have far larger issues requiring Mr. Jefferson’s recommendation for watering the tree of Liberty….
Hardly my idea of how to achieve “de facto gun control”, since I am strongly against gun control as grossly unconstitutional and morally repugnant [and I have a rather significant collection of guns]. I’m just saying that it’s going to happen [viz. the Holder DOJ, or rather DO"J"].
Which brings up another issue: how to deal with prosecutorial discretion and immunity becoming prosecutorial malfeasance and misfeasance. Could Holder be prosecuted for perjury for violating his oath to uphold the laws of the US? In any case, I suspect he would be immediately pardoned by our constitutional-law professor president. But then, I’m paranoid. We all know that the current government would never act unethically.
Excellent point; I agree whole-heartedly!! There are many dangers to living in the modern world, aside from the possibility of being the target of violent crime — one of which is the threat of having the pants sued off us for some asinine reason or another.
Training, classes, insurance, and of course practice are excellent ways of preparing to defend yourself not only in a dark alley, but in a court of civil law as well.
May I take all this one step further? My reading of the lit is that if an attack is launched from 21 feet and the target’s piece is hostered virtually zero were able to deploy their weapon and shoot said attacker.
One more step. There are only three reasons an attacker is “stopped.” One, his central nervous system is disrupted: He immediately goes down and stays down. Two, a major artery is severed: Attackers not on drugs have been known to continue the attack for up to 10 seconds and lads a lot of bad can be done in ten seconds. Third, psychological: “Oh, I’m shot,” and he lays down.
And yet another. Imagine you getting a shot off and it hits an attacker, much larger than you, who continues on and starts to grapple with you. He not only targeted you in the first place but now he is more angry because you shot him.
More. You want a full jacketed bullet of major caliber. Because you want penetration; at least twelve inches. There is no such thing as “shock” or expansion of projectile being better unless said bullet has enough power to expand and pass the twelve inch mark and that ain’t likely. I’m sure I’m going to be told that more people are killed with .22LR than another bullet, true but I don’t recommend it for self defense. My definitive source for this is Dr. Fackler, Google him.
Another. Imagine that you get off a clean shot at 21 feet just as he begins to launch his assault and it hits right between the eyes. Now imagine yourself in a courtroom (criminal perhaps but certainly civil in a wrongful death suit) where the prosecuter/opp lawyer begins, “Sure Mr. Jones was angry and yelled but ladies and gentlemen he was twenty-one feet away from Mr. Smith who was armed with a large caliber weapon. Twenty-one feet, allow me to pace that distance off for you… “ You know the rest. Everyone knows from movies and television that one shot and “the guy” goes down, period.
Shakespeare had it right.
Hey – I’ve got an idea! How about mandatory training for voters? Since there’s no constitutional right to vote, we can impose all kinds of restrictions on that! First, in order to vote, one must be at least ~ this tall. Second, one must know how to cast at least two ballots; that is, one for yourself and one for the dead person you knew before he died. And third, one must not be intimidated by a Black Panther standing at the polling place doorway with a night stick. Those Black Panthers can be a tad pesky when trying to enter a polling place. Offering the Black Panther who stands in your way a glass of fresh, cold lemonade will often ease any tension that might exist. If he still won’t let you in, then giving him a coupon for a free Frosty from the local Wendy’s usually works.
Finally, voters must be taught how to eventually become poll workers so numbers can be (wink, wink) mistakenly “switched.” This is done by grabbing a partner to call out the numbers, and when s/he calls out “328″ for someone you don’t want elected, you mark it down as “238″ and if called on it later, like in a recount, simply say, “Oh, that was a mistake.” Keep doing this until the desired result is achieved.
ConservativeWanderer here it is
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“More. You want a full jacketed bullet of major caliber. Because you want penetration; at least twelve inches. There is no such thing as “shock” or expansion of projectile being better unless said bullet has enough power to expand and pass the twelve inch mark and that ain’t likely. I’m sure I’m going to be told that more people are killed with .22LR than another bullet, true but I don’t recommend it for self defense. My definitive source for this is Dr. Fackler, Google him.”
While you are correct in saying that you do want good penetration, in civilian defense you want controlled penetration. The FBI standard for ballistics testing is 12 to 18 inches in gel. This is because very few shots in real life happen straight on. There is a saying that no officer has ever been killed because his bullet penetrated too deep, but many have been killed because they did not penetrate enough.
However you have to think about others around you, and your loved ones. Not all hollow points are created equally, especially in the thousands of different types of firearms. So you have to know your firearm and its capabilities. Many of the compact, sub compact and snub nosed pistols will not preform the same as the same round fired from a full sized gun. Most of the time when an ammo MFG tests their ammo they do so with full length barrels. So know the testing methodologies used when you pick a defensive ammo. And test it yourself from your carry gun.
+p and +P+ from a full sized gun does not mean that you will get better penetration, and “normal” rounds do not mean you will get acceptable penetration from compacts and the like.
Penetration is boss, but in rounds that do expand and penetrate, (baring proficiency) the larger the better.
I have to disagree on the “penetration is boss” statement. While it is an important factor, ultimately, the primary factor is the same as in real estate: location,location,location.
I don’t have time to read all of these things but whenever I hear about mandatory gun classes I think about the tests they use to give people before they could vote. If I remember my history correctly didn’t some southern states institute a literacy test to make sure you where smart enough to vote. Thus making it nearly impossible for the uneducated blacks to vote. If we all agree that owning a gun is a constitutional right, and that protecting each other with deadly force is something that a citizen should do as a part of their civic duty. Then isn’t the job of our public education to teach the proper use of this right? We teach civics classes and we tell kids that they should write their congressmen yet we can’t teach kids how to handle a gun at school. A few months ago my extended family was sitting around talking when the subjects of hunting and guns came up. My Aunt, who is starting to get up there in age and I cant imagine ever shooting anything said that when she went to high school, everyone had to pass a shooters safety class in order to graduate.
This sounds like one of the few things that public education SHOULD be teaching.
I’m late to this party, but I’ll add two cents anyway.
Two questions: constitutionality and utility.
Utility first: I see one utility in requiring training AND periodic range practice that has not been mentioned here. If you use the weapon regularly, you will be less likely to over-handle it. When you aren’t very familiar with an instrument of any kind, you are tempted to handle it almost like a child with a toy. Mandatory familiarization and some training in how to care for the weapon will greatly reduce the desire. Whether it will do anything about the cretin who goes around loading and unloading a weapon while he wanders through a department store is less sure, but it is more likely to help than to hurt.
As to constitutionality: if you force a person who needs the weapon for self-defense to wait, you are probably treading in bad waters. But if you require the training within a reasonable period AFTER the purchase (30 days, say) and if the training is not conducted directly by government agents and is not reported to the government except on issuance of a warrant, the law probably would pass muster–so long as the training is widely and readily available.
You may have the right to bear arms, but refusing proper training is simply naive, at best
That is correct, Tyler. But the question is whether we want the government to force people to go to training classes? If you are forced to attend such training classes you are identified by the government as a gun owner, and government can use that information to make confiscation of armaments next on its agenda. The only thing protecting your first amendment right to free speech is your second amendment right to bear arms. So, beware of the politician who wants to pass any legislation by calling it a public safety act.
If you don’t want a your name on a government list, don’t practice concealed carry where the law requires a permit. Life’s full of mitigations, including those of risk. Which do you think is more likely: being a victim of a violent assault, or the government renegging on a 230 year old document and come knocking on your door to confiscate your firearms?
Identify which is more likely to happen to you and make your choices accordingly.
The real issue is about how mandatory “training” can be abused, not just for CCL but for owning or buying a gun in general. If you have to take a course each year that comes at a cost of $30,000 it will effectively ban gun ownership. This is what its all about. Once the “progressives” establish the constitutionality of mandatory training for gun ownership, look for this to happen.
Don’t let them get their foot in the door.
The alternative theory is that training courses aren’t really about training at all. They are simply another hurdle to be put in the way of ownership. An obvious trick is to require an official course, then simply fail to offer the course, or offer it once a year and limited enrollment. This seems to have been the way they did it here in Massachusetts at one time. The other trick is to charge a great deal for the class. This discourages “the poor” from getting licenses, and of course “the poor” is a euphemism for you-know-who. This trick dates back to Reconstruction days.
Claims that the fancy training only applies for concealed carry licenses don’t really hold water. Here in MA one can only get a concealed carry license. Open carry is generally not legal. And one needs a carry license even if one never carries. Even gun collectors need the full-boat carry license.
And that’s where Justice Thomas’ 14th amendment concurrence is so important. It can be used to justify fees low enough and a training system available enough to not infringe on the right to keep and bear. With his concurrence, these things CAN be attacked.
This has nothing to do with how useful the training is or what safety results. It is simply a device to make owning a gun more obnoxious and to reduce gun ownership. If, to buy a gun, you have to take hours of a boring class, at inconvenient times, at your own expense, you’re at least somewhat less likely to buy a gun. Legally, at least.
Its all about gun control without actually naming it that.
Much of it is, yes. But I think the subjects of this – mandatory training on use and the law, are defensible. What DC did – creating multiple hoops to jump through, is not.
As far as mandatory training goes, I see the utility. The state (and it’s citizens) have an interest that its legal carriers have the knowledge and ability to properly use a weapon. You could say it’s “militia training”, as proper gun control (hitting what you aim) is crucial to success in warfare. So, the “Well regulated militia” clause could be used to justify mandatory training of some sort. Firearms safety and use training is a basic part of the curriculum. I should know, I’m recently retired military (Navy – and they STRESS safety as most of us don’t ever fire a weapon except on the range).
Regardless of that, I think it is important to everyone concerned that firearms owners are fully aware of the law concerning deadly force. They are different for each state, and it is in the interest of the state and the firearms owner to be fully aware of the rules. It’s less of an infringement than a responsibility of both parties to understand the law. That should be required, and Washington’s issuance of a pamphlet upon license issue is perfectly acceptable. The owner should be motivated enough to understand their rights, and it’s not the state’s responsibility to ensure he does beforehand, only after the fact.
Tcobb,
You are correct, this has been used before to limit political opponents. I also agree that firearm safety must be learned before you use one. The only solution I can think of is to teach it as a public service. We as a society have concluded that a citizen should know how to read, write, and do simple math. As much as they despair about how much public education has failed, in many ways it really hasn’t. Most citizens can indeed, read, write and do simple math. If they so choose, they can even learn to do much more then that. These being a foundation for a civil society I think we need to add one more thing to that list. How to safely handle a gun and what the laws and consequences of its miss use are. Maybe the gun community should ask for this every time someone asks for gun safety training as a preliminary to getting any gun permit.
Liberal Congressmen “We need to add a reasonable restriction addendum to your concealed carry permit law, that states that the person must go to 50 hours of training. We need to make sure these people are trained in the safe use of guns.”
Gunny Congressmen “Oh of course, you are absolutely correct. We will add that to the requirements for a High School diploma. That should be only one semester.”
Freedom and Responsiblity are synonymous; one can not exist without the other. Freedom and a God given right means that it is. Does one require training or a safety course to speech? Maybe it should be required by Office Holders in Article I and II office. Government should also be required to have a safety course in what a right is, and how quick they will be voted if they tamper with freedom.
Citizens and Voters need not a safety course. After all, a course in safe sex does not does not seem to make a difference or is it reqiired to fulfill that act? People Know how to use it, and a weapon too.
A little side note here: Remember seeing a police shooting at a criminal. Fifty two shots were fired with zero hits. Tells me the safest place was in in front of the business end of those police weapons. Now, who needs training or a safty course.
Looking at my past post’s, I need a safety course in spelling, grammer, and read before sending!
Even though you’ve established I am right and you are very small minded, I will cite some sourcing. Ohters may be interested.
So; citing sources, let’s start with Yale University
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/pdf/lottreview.pdf
Then how about the state of Minnasota, pay particular attention to page 11 and 12
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf
How about byu?
http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm
And finally the statistics I quoted above from the Tennessee Law Revies, but you will have to dig to find the parts I listed.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/shall-issue.html
In Federalist 23 a well regulated militia is clearly one that meets and trains.
I believe that all members of gangs in southern California should be required to take firearm classes including on range lessons in accuracy.
That way innocent bystanders including children would be much safer and hopefully the gangs would kill each other off.
Then it would be much safer for the rest of us to live here.
In Puerto Rico the law obligates me to take training in fire arms. I do not have to belong to a shooting club. The cost fluctuates between $45 and $60. If I do not have a criminal record or am crazy then I’m good to go. I have to do this every eight years. Oh, I almost forgot. I have to pay a lawyer $25 and pay the gov. $200. And if I forget to renue on time I might loose the rights to oun a gun for life. By the way, this has been going on for a long time. Long before the continental USA issue on gun control. Our laws were based on Spanish law. The only thing that changed recently was the $200 gov. fee and the training. I retired as a law enforcer for 34 years. I remember the Katrina crises and how the police there took forcible from a little old lady her gun, which she had for her personal protection because she knew that in an emergency the police would not be there to help. Man was that an abuse of power. I felt for the poor woman. If I were order to do that I would have refused. I was told later on that the courts favored the little lady but when they had to give back her weapon they could not find it. I don’t have info if they gave her another. I only wish that would never happens again.
In Federalist 23 a well regulated militia is clearly one that meets and trains.–DaveL@63
Moreover, the training was mandatory as was the purchase of the small arms being used.
Clayton Cramer is an erudite author but he shot wide of the mark here.
“Moreover, the training was mandatory as was the purchase of the small arms being used.”
This would be a strong point if the unorganized militia had not been allowed to molder into nothingness.
Our product provides safe, instant access to your shotgun exactly when you need it most.