Would you agree to a required class if...

[ATM]

I could see taking a class is if it allows me to carry in every other state in the U.S.A.

If it means reciprocity in more states, which it definitely would, then yes, I'd attend a class. I wouldn't learn anything but if it makes other states feel more cozy and let me CC in their states then I'd swallow that pill.

The question wasn't what perk it would take to get you to merely attend an offered class, it was what would you trade for it to become a mandatory prerequisite to licensing.

 

[JetGirl]

Nobody should own a gun who never had any training.

You can not just purchase a car and pick up a drivers license.

Cars are not a Constitutional Right.
Driving is not a Constitutional Right.

 

[JetGirl]

MANDATORY classes in child development before having children!
Anybody having sex and getting knocked up having not taken the required courses gets their offspring CONFISCATED. Want them back? Mandatory child-rearing workshops & classes. Training, training, training.
You don't have a right to have kids without the proper legislated education and mandated skills assessments to raise them.

Now just how asinine does that sound~

 

[RedneckReject]

I do believe that training is a good idea, but I am against forcing it on someone. Even people who very skilled or knowledgeable in a certain area often take refresher courses. There are many reason why I'm unsure about this scenario. Most of them regarding scheduling, location, the state being generally incompetent in many areas, etc. I'm not going to say I would be completely against something like this if the wrinkles could be ironed out. Although I'm not sure they could. What I am against is making training mandatory. Would it make me feel better to know that everyone who carried had proper training? Yes. Am I naive enough to think that there won't still be idiots doing idiotic things even after training? No.

 

[richieray]

You should not be required to have a permit anywhere in us. That right is already been addressed and confirmed. That said I don't think you should every stop trying to increase your level of competence thru training

 

[Bunnykid68]

Food for thought. Indiana recognizes every permit/license from all other states.

 

[elaw555]

Only if prior military service can be substituted. If you can show your DD214 or NGB23 or whatever the class fee is waived and they hand you a LTCH.

 

[johnny45]

So the general consensus among INGOers (at least the highly vocal ones) is that a required training class is somehow full of badness and evil. The most valid reasons being it is expensive to take a class and off course "rights are free."

What if the current method (months of waiting, $125+ lifetime permit) were traded for something like this:

$175 for a class and permit:
1. Arrive for the class and fill out paperwork for the permit.
2. Take the basic safety class including an hour if range time.
3. The background checks are performed WHILE YOU WAIT.
4. Assuming you don't shoot yourself, the permit is handed to you on the way out the door.

Would you pay the extra $50 and go through a couple hours of instruction for an hour of range time and and immediate gratification of the permit?

My guess is that scheduling may become an issue.

Please, no rants about Rights, thats not what this is about. I'm just curious what people would trade for the perceived inconvenience.

Classes are not full of badness and evil.

Mandates which infringe on a person's ability to exercise his rights are.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At the end of forty posts (one page) these comments come to mind:

I have never taken a class where I didn't learn something.
Additionally one of ther reasons many states don't honor the Indiana ltch is that there is no qualifying safety class, which they require.

I would gladly submitt to a class so long as it is taught by a gun expert not a government flunky just reading text.

There are 21 states that do not recognize our LTCH as valid. CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, KS, ME, MD, MA, MN, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, RI, SC, WA, WV. This means that just shy of 60% recognize us. Of those that don't, ten recognize none other than their own, if that. No matter what training is required, we will not win them over. I consider them a lost cause. That's 20% of the total states. Of the "many (11) remaining states, one refuses to recognize ANY IN LTCH solely because we issue it to people under 21, even though those people would not be legal to carry in their state (WA) even WITH the LTCH. Do we change to whom we issue it and invalidate the licenses currently issued to 18-,19-, and 20-yr-olds to appease them?

A. I can agree with that.

B. That is a very accurate statement.

C. They may do so.

But as a safe operator of a gun, wouldnt you like new people to the gun community/people that will be carrying to have proper training?

(I do know that there will still be accidents obviously and dumb poeple will probably still slip through the cracks.)

Would I *like* people trained? Sure. I'd also *like* a lot of other things, too, but I'll be da*ned if I'm willing to make them mandatory.

If the Gubbmint wants mandatory training, they can start with public school system.

Grades 1-4: Firearms Safety, Firearms Recognition, Constitional History

Grades 5-9: Marksmanship, US History (in depth history not the BS taught today) in addition to the above

Grades 10-12: Advanced Marksmanship. State/National scholarship competitions

At 18 years old: Graduates are provided with a National Constitutional Carry affidavit and a discount coupon for their first handgun.

As long as it's not mandatory to be allowed to own or carry a firearm, I could get behind this.

Playing devil's advocate here, which subjects would you remove in order to accommodate these classes? You propose 3 new items for grades 1-4. Here is my son's (3rd grade) schedule...

Citizenship
Language Arts
Mathematics
Reading
Science
Spelling
Social Studies

The below subjects are in 2 groups and rotate daily, so today he may have Art and World Language, tomorrow he'll have Music and PE.
Art
World Language (Spanish)
Music
P.E.

Now, Indiana already mandates a 180 day school year, and Perry Township has already moved to a "balanced calendar". His day starts at 7:55am and ends at 3:40pm.

What do they actually teach in "citizenship" and "social studies"? If those are what I suspect they are, I suppose those could go by the wayside, or possibly use one class period every week or two to devote to Steve's proposed schedule. Oh, and just so we don't get any butthurt teachers from the anti-gun side, I'm sure there are plenty of people even just here on INGO who would be happy to go into a school once in a while to competently teach those subjects.

There are TONS of new gun owners out there who have made their purchases for self defense, yet have ZERO training. Rare would be the first-time owner who just naturally knows how to properly store, carry, fire and maintain a handgun.

I don't know about anyone else, but I know several of my friends who are as intimate with their handguns as they are with their electric carving knives that they pull out each Thanksgiving to make a mess of a perfectly cooked turkey. If you ask them if they know how to use it, they will confidently assert that they do. But don't ask the turkey.

Back in the olden days (think 1620-1900), everybody except a few city slickers knew how to handle guns. They grew up using them to feed and defend their families. Rare was the man -- or woman -- who couldn't respectably shoot a gun and knew better than to wave it around in public.

However, with the urbanization of our society, the vast majority have never been exposed to firearms and are totally clueless regarding gun safety and manipulation. I chuckle morbidly when I watch the pundits on TV discuss "gun control" from the knowledge and experience bases of their studios in NYC and DC. Nitwits.

Yes, we have a Constitutionally-protected, natural right to keep and bear arms. However, the practical utility of that right must be measured by the competence of those so blessed, and there's the rub -- this current crop of Americans is not worthy of that right because they are ignorant of the accordant responsibilities.

The solution to that conundrum is to mandate rudimentary firearms training for all who have not already received adequate training. That really shouldn't be an issue for anyone. If you have already been adequately trained, you're good to go. If you haven't, then you are a liability to yourself, your loved ones and society in general until you do.

Our founding fathers were brilliant, gifted and visionary men. They wrote inspirational documents upon which our republic was founded and has flourished for 237 years (excepting the last few, sadly.) However, they were not seers. There was no way that they could have envisioned a country where the average man had no grasp of firearms knowledge, any more than they could have imagined a world with cars, TVs, cell phones, computers and Honey Boo Boo.

I'm not one who believes in the Constitution as a "living document," with its content and intent shifting with society's whims. However, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize the practicality of requiring some basic firearms instruction prior to being licensed to carry it in public. Last I looked, nobody gets a driver's license without taking a test and proving that he knows how to drive safely.

Sometimes common sense dictates that we pick our battles and live to fight another day.

I wouldn't normally ask this this way, but... Who the HELL are you to define who is "worthy" of having his God-given rights? Here's a hint: If you didn't have a meeting with a guy named Moses on Mount Sinai and tell a guy named Noah how to build an ark, you're not qualified to do so.

I am astonished that someone with the phrase "molon labe" in his sigline is so ready to deny someone their Rights until they have passed a government-mandated regimen first. As long as you've got yours, that's all that really matters? Rights are inalienable and a person's "worthiness" is entirely irrelevant. Who decides who is "worthy"? You? The anti down the street?

I don't think anyone on INGO denies that everyone SHOULD get training, but there is definitely a disagreement about whether they should be REQUIRED to get training. Personally, I've seen how pointless government-mandated firearms training is. It's expensive, it's hard to get, and it doesn't really do anything to train people with firearms. The only thing it accomplishes is to put yet another expensive obstacle between Citizens and their Rights.

Kirk's idea of making training classes tax deductible is a much better way to go. He didn't say "optional training", but I'm going to add that in there. At the state level, encourage training but do not require it.

As usual, Scutter, very well said. Rep added.

Don't see how this is infringing. I see additional cost and time commitment. At the end of the day you still get your LTCH. Don't even tell me a small class fee is prohibitory because a box of 9 will cost you $40 right now. shoot one box less this week. Obviously, as mentioned previously the class fee could be made prohibitory, but then so could the LTCH fee so its a wash.

Want to see those other infringements? well, if things keep going the way they are, you will. I am trying to come up with ideas for a preemptive strike that does no damage. What ideas do you have? I'd love to hear any practical ideas.

I have the choice to travel and thus, the choice to obtain a Utah or an Arizona permit (I have both, and can lawfully carry in 38 states.) If I want to do so where I live, I'm required to obtain an IN LTCH. As unConstitutional as I believe that to be, I jumped through the hoops because I consider it better to fight an unacceptable system from within than from without. Accepting more regulations and more stringent requirements to be allowed by my government to exercise the rights granted me by my Creator is to me both unconscionable and unacceptable. When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost.

I don't see how it can't be. Owning a firearm is inextricably tied to the 2nd Amendment which DOES state "Shall not be infringed".
My question to you is; How do you think "rights" and "required training" could possibly go together? And if they don't, how can you say "That's not what this is about."?

Excellent questions, JG. Viperjock, I see where you think you're headed with this. I fear, however, that you're trying to "win" a deal with the devil. The only guy I ever heard of that did that was named Johnny and won a golden fiddle. Your intentions might be great, but they WILL be perverted by those against us.

On to read the rest of the thread.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JetGirl]

Excellent questions, JG.

Still waiting on the answers, too. Thanks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Most of you missing the point. Should have expected that though. Let the cards fall.

And for those of you who cannot get it over the "Its my gallderned right!" I say, with rights come responsibilities. If all the "responsible gun owners" took theirs seriously we wouldn't have NDs at the 1500 etc etc etc. The second amendment gives you both a right and a responsibility. I know that is foreign concept to many Americans who think they deserve all kinds of rights without taking any responsibility but gun owners, at this time, should be bending over backwards to show that we are responsible with the rights we have. Our actions should be our arguments, instead we get guys blowing holes in their hands. The hammer is going to fall. If you prefer to let the other side decide how its going to fall so be it.

What training did you have to certify competence in to be allowed to express yourself on the internet? To worship (or not) as you choose? To be allowed the privilege of a jury trial or habeas corpus? ETA: You have your Lifetime LTCH, I presume. Presuming you've not got a certification of X, Y, and Z training requirement, should that be revoked because you didn't comply? Sounds an awful lot like ex post facto to me, and last I read, that is clearly unConstitutional.

Ok, you're pro-confiscation. You must also be a liberal gun owner. Only a liberal thinks that government involvement would solve anything.

Statist, not liberal. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle that support confiscation, though on what basis is where they differ.

If like your driver license it is valid in every state.
Nobody should own a gun who never had any training.

Cars are not a Constitutional Right.
Driving is not a Constitutional Right.

Yep. That. And Spike? You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Others have demonstrated that states with mandatory training have neither more nor fewer negligent discharges than states without such infringements, statistically speaking. Sorry, I don't personally have the data for that factoid, but if someone does and will forward it, I'll add it to my file.

MANDATORY classes in child development before having children!
Anybody having sex and getting knocked up having not taken the required courses gets their offspring CONFISCATED. Want them back? Mandatory child-rearing workshops & classes. Training, training, training.
You don't have a right to have kids without the proper legislated education and mandated skills assessments to raise them.

Now just how asinine does that sound~

Actually, you may be onto something there, JG. (That last sentence may need some purple, but my crayon broke.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

I believe the same way. Doesn't this conflict with your willingness to compromise by receiving training?

You should just advocate for eliminating the carry license requirement. Other states are like this. Indiana has relaxed more firearm laws recently than I can remember, I don't thnk it is out of the realm of possibilities in the future.

So you're suggesting I don't have the liberty to advocate plan A but settle for the most I can get?

If I got to call the shots, I'd never compromise on ANYTHING! But I don't. The other 6.5 million people in Indiana have some say too. We've gotten a lot of smarter firearms laws in Indiana in the last couple of years. But constitutional carry is a pretty big hurdle even among gun owners as you can see.

If like your driver license it is valid in every state.
Nobody should own a gun who never had any training.

 

[Stschil]

So you're suggesting I don't have the liberty to advocate plan A but settle for the most I can get?

If I got to call the shots, I'd never compromise on ANYTHING! But I don't. The other 6.5 million people in Indiana have some say too. We've gotten a lot of smarter firearms laws in Indiana in the last couple of years. But constitutional carry is a pretty big hurdle even among gun owners as you can see.

Part of the Problem there, IMHO, is that we continue to let the lefties frame the debate. Many Gun enthusiasts sit in the corner, quietly hoping that the Grabbers won't go here, won't go there, won't try this, that, or the other. Only in times such as they are today, does the Nation see just how many gun owners there really are.
NRA get 100,000 new members, GOA, NGRA, get some too. The lefties ask for the moon, threaten, cajole, scream, cry, moan, and trot out the kids and the Gun Lobby Fights it all. And then, When its all said and done, the politicians cave, compromise, and call it a win because "Look!, they wanted this and all they got was that!! Ain't we good?" Gun owners are left, again, holding another biggie sized order of fecal fettuccini and a thin plastic Spork to eat it with.

It's past time to appeal to that anal head gear of the left. Past time to appease, past time to make deals.

 

[jamil]

Part of the Problem there, IMHO, is that we continue to let the lefties frame the debate. Many Gun enthusiasts sit in the corner, quietly hoping that the Grabbers won't go here, won't go there, won't try this, that, or the other. Only in times such as they are today, does the Nation see just how many gun owners there really are.
NRA get 100,000 new members, GOA, NGRA, get some too. The lefties ask for the moon, threaten, cajole, scream, cry, moan, and trot out the kids and the Gun Lobby Fights it all. And then, When its all said and done, the politicians cave, compromise, and call it a win because "Look!, they wanted this and all they got was that!! Ain't we good?" Gun owners are left, again, holding another biggie sized order of fecal fettuccini and a thin plastic Spork to eat it with.

It's past time to appeal to that anal head gear of the left. Past time to appease, past time to make deals.

Progressives know how to win. We only know how to be "principled".

Sandy Hook has swung the pendulum further in their direction than anytime in recent history. But even so, they know they can't go for total ban and confiscation, which is what they really want. Not wanting to lose any battles, they push only a calculated distance beyond what the political climate will yield so that we'll capitulate thinking we've won something.

Accepting lesser but achievable outcomes doesn't make them traitors to their cause. It makes them win all the little battles, which gains them ground towards the goal.

I think we need to be more pragmatic and stop bringing Nerf swords to their gunfights. We do let the lefties frame the debate. We can't sit in the corner quietly. But we need to fight more like they fight. When the pendulum swings our direction, push towards our goal, just beyond what we can achieve, and take what we can get without giving anything up. When it swings in their direction, at least give up no ground.

Trading a mandate for training to gain convenience is a net loss of ground. But making it optional and privately handled concedes no ground, and we gain the convenience; a net win.

But if you think constitutional carry is achievable in this political climate, go ahead and write your state representatives. I'm sure they'll get right on that.

 

[traderdan]

I think that there are several who have been commenting on this,that need to stop believing the bull promoted by the socialists...I STILL believe that the majority of Americans are believers in the Second Amendment...A strong offense is always the best defense,The NRA and others should be pushing for "constitutional carry"!

 

[BrianD]

I had to take a 6 hour class while living in SC to get permit. 4 hours spent going over mostly laws, and some gun safety, then 2 hours on the range. Was well worth it, especially for the laws of where and where not to carry. Was tuaght by a NRA certified guy. Also liked the license. It was similar to your DL, including picture.

 

[Excalibur]

I would take the class if the class wasn't prohibitively expensive. If a standardized kind of class like driver's ed that we do for driver's license that is simplified and won't cost me an arm and a leg to take it.

 

[2A_Tom]

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...

because incrimentalism does not read fron left to right like normal people.

COMPROMISE is always the right bowing to the left.

 

[Icarry2]

I could see the requirement for training, take a test, etc to make sure all carriers were aware of the law. I educated myself because I am a law abiding person who didn't want to accidently break the law and loose my rights.

I would also see no issue if I had to prove that I was proficient enough with my weapon to carry it. Why not make it a 4-6 hour day, classroom, learn th elaw, test, pass the test, some simple training and shooting.. All for the same price..

TJ

 

[2A_Tom]

Food for thought. Indiana recognizes every permit/license from all other states.

And foreign countries.