Would you agree to a required class if...

[lovemachine]

My wife's uncle teaches Shooting Sports for 4H. Teaches safety, marksmanship, what to do and what not to do with firearms for kids.

I would rather see the Government reward parents to send their kids to classes like that.

Rewards = tax deductions and/or discounted firearms.

 

[kludge]

The main problem with this is the corruption that will ensue, we just need to look to our neighbors to the east to see that it happens there.

Here's what I would trade for...

1. Decriminalize carry. (VT/AZ style carry) No license needed open or concealed. Keep the laws that enhance sentences for using a deadly weapon in a crime.

2. Offer an enhanced LTCH if you take the safety class and undergo an extended background check, and include legal ramifications of using a weapon in self defense.

This would allow two things to happen.

A. People will be able to exercise their constitutional right to carry with no interference from the .gov within the state of Indiana.

B. The IN LTCH would be valid in far more states. Perhaps as many as Utah and/or Florida.

 

[kludge]

Having spent 7 years in the military, I would disagree. Just because you were in the military does NOT mean you know what you are doing with a gun. In fact in a lot of cases they have no freaking idea how to be safe and or operate a gun. Most jobs in the military, Air Force specifically, you only get to shoot once every 2 years. I have seen this in the Army as well but I highly suspect it is an issues across all branches of service.

I agree with you, but for a different reason,

I disagree on the grounds that we don't need special classes of citizens with special privileges.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

B. The IN LTCH would be valid in far more states. Perhaps as many as Utah and/or Florida.

Not necessarily so.

During the Texas-Indiana reciprocity agreement, Texas did not raise Indiana's lack of training requirement, not a single objection to Indiana's lack of training was raised.

 

[reesez]

doesnt texas accept like 41 of the states ltch though?

 

[N8RV]

Having spent 7 years in the military, I would disagree. Just because you were in the military does NOT mean you know what you are doing with a gun. In fact in a lot of cases they have no freaking idea how to be safe and or operate a gun. Most jobs in the military, Air Force specifically, you only get to shoot once every 2 years. I have seen this in the Army as well but I highly suspect it is an issues across all branches of service.

Perhaps they have changed the requirements (I certainly hope so!), but during the 4 years I was in the USAF, I was never required to touch a gun after basic training at Lackland. 25 rounds on semi-auto to qualify and that was it.

 

[ViperJock]

Ok, one more time. A class does not change any rights. You already have to have an LTCH. And this is not about making an actual difference in statistics. This is about creating an image. Its creating political capital.

Clearly this is a concept that is foreign to many posters. Perception is reality. Create the perception that we gun owners are doing SOMETHING about the perceived problem not just yelling "I needs my guns!" at the opposition.

 

[Scutter01]

You've already made me eat a crap sandwich and now you're offering a glass of deer urine to wash it down. I'm saying that not only do I not want the urine, I would like to see to it that no one else has to eat the sandwich, either.

The entire premise is flawed from the beginning. If I reject your basic premise, how can you claim that anything that follows is not also flawed? I completely disagree with your notion that required training is not an infringement on my Rights. If I have to prove to some government bureaucrat that I'm "qualified" before I can be given permission to exercise a Right, then it's not a Right, it's a privilege. I am not even slightly interested in jumping through more hoops just to make anti-gunners feel better about themselves. We have 20,000 gun laws on the books already and they're still not happy.

 

[ViperJock]

You've already made me eat a crap sandwich and now you're offering a glass of deer urine to wash it down. I'm saying that not only do I not want the urine, I would like to see to it that no one else has to eat the sandwich, either.

The entire premise is flawed from the beginning. If I reject your basic premise, how can you claim that anything that follows is not also flawed? I completely disagree with your notion that required training is not an infringement on my Rights. If I have to prove to some government bureaucrat that I'm "qualified" before I can be given permission to exercise a Right, then it's not a Right, it's a privilege.

YOU rejecting my basic premise does not make it untrue. ITs just your opinion. You are entitled to it. I guess you are lucky that I'm not the supreme world leader enacting all kinds of tyrannical laws but rather just asking questions about what people would be willing to do to gain political capital.

And don't knock deer urine til you've tried it.

 

[poptab]

Ok, one more time. A class does not change any rights. You already have to have an LTCH. And this is not about making an actual difference in statistics. This is about creating an image. Its creating political capital.

Clearly this is a concept that is foreign to many posters. Perception is reality. Create the perception that we gun owners are doing SOMETHING about the perceived problem not just yelling "I needs my guns!" at the opposition.

I understand what you are saying... but I dont think you will win a propaganda war with the liberals and that is really where that sort of strategy breaks down.

 

[Hdfb03]

And don't knock deer urine til you've tried it.

 

[eldirector]

I just don't see a reason to "throw a bone" to anyone on this issue. Why give up more, especially JUST to change perception, and not actually change anything meaningful?

The Libs don't want us to take classes. They want us to slowly but surely give up all of our guns (and any other weapon, for that matter).

Give them an inch, and they will take a mile, and all that jazz.

Rather than give away more and more, why can't we ask for (edit: INSIST ON) what we really want?

 

[Scutter01]

Rather than give away more and more, why can't we ask for (edit: INSIST ON) what we really want?

Exactly. Let THEM compromise for once. Tell them we want a repeal of all gun laws and let them say "We won't agree to that, but how about if we repeal these ten?" And then do the same thing next year, and the year after that, and the year after that...

 

[cosermann]

...This is about creating an image. Its creating political capital. ...

With whom?

Liberals? Will never matter. Can't be done. They don't care. Won't effect their view or goals. It's not the point. Crime, safety, the children, etc. - none of it are the reason. It's all just plausible political cover for them.

Low information voters? They're too stupid and uninformed to know the difference. That is, if they're paying any attention.

I think the Democrats are seriously underestimating the political capital that exists on OUR side of this issue.

 

[jamil]

I would support something like this with a few modifications.

It would have to be outsourced to private ranges, training schools, etc who certify to provide the class, otherwise it would be turned into a BMV type experience.

It would have to be optional with some kind of special designation saying you had the training. You could still get your LTCH the current way but without the training designation. Perhaps states that don't reciprocate because we don't have the training requirement might honor the extra-special one.

For example, you want your LTCH, you don't want to wait, you sign up for the next class at your favorite range certified to offer the service, show up for class with a box of WWB, count out your $175 in pennies, get fingerprinted, background check done while in class, get your extra-special lifetime LTCH issued after passing the class, then the pussies in charge of Ohio recognize your extra-special LTCH (it could happen) because you're "trained". I'd pay for that.

 

[Scutter01]

For example, you want your LTCH, you don't want to wait, you sign up for the next class at your favorite range certified to offer the service, show up for class with a box of WWB, count out your $175 in pennies, get fingerprinted, background check done while in class, get your extra-special lifetime LTCH issued after passing the class, then the pussies in charge of Ohio recognize your extra-special LTCH (it could happen) because you're "trained". I'd pay for that.

You can already do that. Go to a Utah class (they are held in Indiana) and get your non-res Utah license and you can carry in Ohio. It's still crap that you should have to do that, but the option is already there.

 

[Classic Liberal]

No compromise.

 

[VN Vet]

When my nephew was getting into firearms and I gave him his first pistol as a condition he had to take a NRA Pistol Safety course with me. He did well in the course. It was a great refesher course for me too. Now we both need to take the next level NRA Firearm Training course.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't care about what the other states do. I care about what my state does. And I will not concede yet another Right in exchange for a convenience. Why not petition those states to recognize our carry method (or Constitutional carry) rather than try to restrict me further?

This ^

 

[danil]

I'd go along with a training mandate provided that the State farms it out to the private sector and that these private sector trainers are available at the ranges a lot of us already go to now. The training does not have to be connected to the ownership side of the question, i.e., submit list here. For the majority here, I understand that it will be review and many here are likely to be a certified trainer. But, to the masses that recently decide to exercise their right-- some training would be beneficial.