Thoughts on required training for LTCH in Indiana.

[Hellion_1]

I wanted to get other member's thoughts on this. With the number of Carry permits being issued these days, do you think Indiana should have mandatory classes in order to get a LTCH, like Ohio and other states. I hate jumping through hoops. However, it seems like we are going to have a lot of folks carrying firearms that may or may not know how to correctly use/handle them since even the most basic of firearms training is not required.

Your and why...

 

[cce1302]

No.

Why?
1. It's not the government's responsibility.
2. It isn't even the gov't's right to require training to exercise the 2nd Amendment. It borders on "infringement" as all the other restrictions on weapons do.
3. It would cost more money.
4. It wouldn't reduce crime.
5. It would make the backlog worse.
6. It would add more bureaucracy.
7. It wouldn't increase safety.

 

[4sarge]

NO !!!

 

[inxs]

That's the part I hate about the gun ban panics. You get a lot of people that don't know doing an awful lot. However, we don't have training on how to vote (Hmmmmm.)

I really would be for mandatory gun safety training in elementary school.

 

[shooter521]

Not just no, but HELL no.

1) The RKBA is just that, a right. One should not have to take a test or class in order to exercise a right bestowed by the Creator and affirmed by both the US and Indiana State constitutions.

2) Mandated training will not do anything to make folks safer or more proficient gun handlers. People have to take a class and pass a test to get a drivers license, but there's still tons of folks who operate their vehicle incompetently or irresponsibly. Further, the course would inevitably be geared toward the lowest common denominator, and would not be anywhere near the quality of what you'd find in the private sector. Nevertheless, most folks coming out of the state classes would then consider themselves "fully trained" because the state says so, and would not seek additional (better) instruction on their own.

3) More government involvement is always a bad thing. What the state giveth, the state can also taketh away.

The only upside, and it's a minor one, is that a mandatory training requirement might lead to reciprocity with additional states.

My

 

[mikea46996]

No I don't think we should have to be licensed!!!!

 

[Scutter01]

No!

Who decides what the training requirements are? Once the requirement is in place, what's to stop them from "tweaking" it until no one can realistically pass?

 

[possum_128]

Are you required any training to exersize any of your other rights? I didn't think so. So a strong NO for any required training!

 

[henktermaat]

No.

Why?
1. It's not the government's responsibility.
2. It isn't even the gov't's right to require training to exercise the 2nd Amendment. It borders on "infringement" as all the other restrictions on weapons do.
3. It would cost more money.
4. It wouldn't reduce crime.
5. It would make the backlog worse.
6. It would add more bureaucracy.
7. It wouldn't increase safety.

Yeah! Repped+

 

[jennybird]

No.

That is all.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

No.

Why?
1. It's not the government's responsibility.
2. It isn't even the gov't's right to require training to exercise the 2nd Amendment. It borders on "infringement" as all the other restrictions on weapons do.
3. It would cost more money.
4. It wouldn't reduce crime.
5. It would make the backlog worse.
6. It would add more bureaucracy.
7. It wouldn't increase safety.

What he said.

 

[CulpeperMM]

No.

Why?
1. It's not the government's responsibility.
2. It isn't even the gov't's right to require training to exercise the 2nd Amendment. It borders on "infringement" as all the other restrictions on weapons do.
3. It would cost more money.
4. It wouldn't reduce crime.
5. It would make the backlog worse.
6. It would add more bureaucracy.
7. It wouldn't increase safety.

i will go with this answer^^^

 

[Scutter01]

The only upside, and it's a minor one, is that a mandatory training requirement might lead to reciprocity with additional states.

My

So you remove the LTCH requirement altogether, but offer an OPTIONAL class for those who want a resident permit that will be recognized by other states.

 

[shooter521]

So you remove the LTCH requirement altogether, but offer an OPTIONAL class for those who want a resident permit that will be recognized by other states.

The Alaska model. Works for me!

 

[OneBadV8]

I don't feel it should be required, but I would rather have people volunteering to take classes so less accidents happen. I'd even volunteer to help. I don't think we need accidents happening that give the dirty media excuses to push the anti-gun agenda.

just my

 

[Bubbajms]

I'm with Alaska - I'd take a course if it would allow my permit to be accepted in other states that don't accept it now, like Ohio. But I don't think it should be required..

 

[redneckmedic]

Goes hand in hand with needing training to buy a handgun...or training/license to have a baby...........

 

[inxs]

I'm an instructor and would also take a class if offered- probably never will be though.

 

[ATM]

No to requirement. Yes to optional. Encourage folks to train and leave it at that.

 

[Lucas156]

NO!!!