Thoughts on required training for LTCH in Indiana.

[youngda9]

I look at it like this a LTCH is bull anyway. Indiana should be like Kentucky, open carry is legal, no license required, carry in the car in the glove box is ok also, no license to carry needed. You can even put the gun in the seat next to you and no license is required. But when someone wants to carry concealed, then you have to go thru a class, show proficiency on the range, and take a test. That is fine with me, Kentucky is NOT infringing in your right to keep and bare arms, as long as they are out in the open. BUT, they slightly infringe on your right to carry when you want to CC. I am ok with that because you can carry a handgun with you OC without a license, in Indiana you cant have a firearm on you, in your car/RV unless you have a LTCH. To require a person to take a test to get a LTCH is completly ludicris. I like Kentuckys way of licensing individuals, and I think it works well.

INGunGuy

Why do you think CC require training yet OC does not? Please explain...

 

[HICKMAN]

They provided good training for us ... I cannot guarantee the same quality of training for Citizens.

Any required course would simply and effectively restrict our 2nd Amendment right. We need less government - not more. The individual is responsible for his/her training and/or insurances IMHO.

The Gov't doesn't provide the training in Texas, firearms instructors do. The Gov't in Texas isn't any bigger because of their CCW law.

And it's MORE than just how to handle a firearm. It's actually learn the LAW and knowing when you can and can't shoot.

We've already shown time and again these forums that many don't know the law.

 

[jeremy]

It has also been shown that several cities, counties, and LEA's don't understand all the laws that we currently have either.

 

[dross]

The Gov't doesn't provide the training in Texas, firearms instructors do. The Gov't in Texas isn't any bigger because of their CCW law.

And it's MORE than just how to handle a firearm. It's actually learn the LAW and knowing when you can and can't shoot.

We've already shown time and again these forums that many don't know the law.

The government gets bigger every time any law is passed, regardless if the government administers it, or forces someone else to administer it.

 

[dross]

This is a great example of pragmatism vs. principle, which shows up in almost every debate. In some debates, like carry, both are on our side. In this one, it's more clear that pragmatism and principle are opposed.

Is it of benefit if everyone had extensive quality training? Yes. But in principle, we shouldn't have to have training/testing to qualify for a fundamental right.

We don't have to have training to vote, or to exercise speech, or to own private property, or perhaps more analogous, to have children.

Why must we be mandated to take training before we can exercise the right of self-defense?

 

[dburkhead]

The Gov't doesn't provide the training in Texas, firearms instructors do. The Gov't in Texas isn't any bigger because of their CCW law.

And it's MORE than just how to handle a firearm. It's actually learn the LAW and knowing when you can and can't shoot.

We've already shown time and again these forums that many don't know the law.

We've also shown time and again that many of the people who would be the "go to" people for any such classes (LEO's, various "experts") are just as ignorant of the law as the rest of the folk around here.

Considering that I've spoken to several "certified instructors" (yes, really "certified" by one organization or another) who swear up and down that "locked in the trunk with ammo in a separate location" is legal to take a handgun to the range without a LTCH in Indiana, I wouldn't be so sure that the class--unless taught by a lawyer specializing in handgun law (and how much will that cost?)--would provide any better information.

Then there's the simple fact that we don't have any more accidents or legal issues that such classes would supposedly resolve in Indiana than do States which don't have training.

"Mandatory Training" is just like the rest of gun control: when it comes right down to it, it doesn't work. After all, if you've got a guy who's "training" consists of watching Lethal Weapon 47 times, after the class he's still going to be the guy who thinks watching Lethal Weapon 47 times is adequate training. The class itself? In one ear and out the other.

Dross,
I don't think that "pragmatism vs. principle" really applies here because I don't think that mandatory training works. If people are personally motivated to learn, then they'll get training (formal or informal) whether it's mandatory or not. If they are not personally motivated to learn, then they sit through the class, pass the test (if there is one), then promptly forget everything they've learned. I've seen that happen all too often.

 

[dross]

Dross,
I don't think that "pragmatism vs. principle" really applies here because I don't think that mandatory training works. If people are personally motivated to learn, then they'll get training (formal or informal) whether it's mandatory or not. If they are not personally motivated to learn, then they sit through the class, pass the test (if there is one), then promptly forget everything they've learned. I've seen that happen all too often.

Fair enough, and you may be right about mandatory training being ineffective. Still, though, my larger point was that even if it was effective, I'd still be against it because of the principle it violates.

 

[agentl074]

The government gets bigger every time any law is passed, regardless if the government administers it, or forces someone else to administer it.

Exactly! I don't know how many people have taken a university-level political science or criminal justice course, but I would highly recommend it Any restriction or law that is added - is a growth of government rule.

 

[00BlasterResto]

Silly!!! if you need a class take one. I'v had all I can take out of my dad growing up.....

 

[millsusaf]

It would be nice to have the reciprocity with states that we don't currently because our lack of mandatory "training" BUT in the end I would not support it.

 

[printcraft]

NO !!!

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.

No.

That is all.

ALL OF THE ABOVE! (and about 99% of the rest) /\ /\ /\ /\

No.

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

Britney Spears?????????????.................... just sayin'

 

[Turtle]

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.

He said it all. But I would like to add that Offering free or really cheap voluntary classes would be helpful to new gun owners and those not familiar in basic firearms handling.

 

[ATF Consumer]

ALL OF THE ABOVE! (and about 99% of the rest) / / / /

No.




Britney Spears?????????????.................... just sayin'

I wouldn't mind giving Britney some training lessons

 

[youngda9]

He said it all. But I would like to add that Offering free or really cheap voluntary classes would be helpful to new gun owners and those not familiar in basic firearms handling.

On the surface that sounds like a good idea...but getting the gov involved to offer free or cheap classes(funded with taxpayer dollars) sounds like a gateway to manditory to me.

 

[Buckaroo]

First, have we had a problem? This sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
I vote for mandatory gun safety in elementary school and mandatory marksmanship in HS as part of your civics class.

This

Buckaroo

We had archery and BB guns in Jr. High when I was a kid.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

I'm of two minds on this. I see the potential for abuse (keep raising the training standards as a de facto LTCH ban), but OTOH, you have to pass a test to obtain a driver's license. Granted, RKBA is a right and driving is a privilege, but both require personal responsibility and I don't see requiring someone to demonstrate that responsibility to be a bad thing.

 

[jeremy]

The only mandatory training I support is if it included in the school curriculum. Start it around the 3rd-4th grade and continue till graduation.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm of two minds on this. I see the potential for abuse (keep raising the training standards as a de facto LTCH ban), but OTOH, you have to pass a test to obtain a driver's license. Granted, RKBA is a right and driving is a privilege, but both require personal responsibility and I don't see requiring someone to demonstrate that responsibility to be a bad thing.

The big difference is the difference between a right and a privilege, but that's not the only difference.

You need a license to drive a car on the public streets. That's it. On your own property? No license. Want to push the car down the street? No problem (so long as you're not obstructing traffic). Want to have it at the mall? Only need mall owner's permission. Oh, and need to use that car in a bona fide emergency when someone's life is threatened and using the car is necessary to save it (say, take someone with an immediate medical condition to the hospital when you can't even wait for an ambulance) and I doubt anyone's going to ticket you for not having a license.

So the "license" requirement, to be comparable, would be for shooting a gun on the public streets. But the one situation where shooting a gun on the public streets shouldn't be flat out illegal (necessary to handle a bona fide emergency) is exactly the kind of situation where you can get away with not having a license to drive a car.

But that's really only by way of intellectual exercise. The real difference is "right" vs. "privilege."

 

[agentl074]

I'm of two minds on this. I see the potential for abuse (keep raising the training standards as a de facto LTCH ban), but OTOH, you have to pass a test to obtain a driver's license. Granted, RKBA is a right and driving is a privilege, but both require personal responsibility and I don't see requiring someone to demonstrate that responsibility to be a bad thing.

That would be OK - if it were institutionalized at the time of the LTCH. This is really more of a political issue. Any restriction or addition to the firearms laws creates a dangerous situation (politically).

Now, is it bad if the government issues pamphlets on safe and legal use of a firearm? ABSOLUTELY NOT! However, when we start talking about requiring a course - that is not a good political idea

 

[ramick]

I think some sort of training would be a good idea, but im not sure if I like the idea of it being mandatory.