Would you be willing to take required training?

[GBuck]

Not to thread-drift again, but what's so great about "national reciprocity" compared to what we've currently got?

I don't see it as a major benefit comparatively. As it stands, I can already take a required class and get non-res licenses from other states that would allow me to carry just about everywhere anyway.

I was reading on another thread when this question came to me. In that thread they were mentioning that you could only get up to 35 or 37 states, depending on which licenses you had. Also, I would like to go to Chicago with MrsGBuck, but I refuse to go unarmed. Also, it would be nice to shove it down Illinois' throat.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Not to thread-drift again, but what's so great about "national reciprocity" compared to what we've currently got?

I don't see it as a major benefit comparatively. As it stands, I can already take a required class and get non-res licenses from other states that would allow me to carry just about everywhere anyway.

The only advantage I can see is the ability to carry in states that do not recognize any other State's resident or non-resident permits, and don't allow non-residents to obtain a permit in their state.


A good example would be South Carolina. The only way to carry on your person there is to have a resident permit, and the only way to get that is to own real property in South Carolina.

 

[esrice]

In that thread they were mentioning that you could only get up to 35 or 37 states, depending on which licenses you had.

The only advantage I can see is the ability to carry in states that do not recognize any other State's resident or non-resident permits, and don't allow non-residents to obtain a permit in their state.

We need BoR in here-- I think he has the reciprocity lists memorized.

 

[jblomenberg16]

We need BoR in here-- I think he has the reciprocity lists memorized.

Only reason I cited SC is because we vacation down there. I can carry the entire way from Indiana down to the SC state line. From there it can be in my car, or in my personal accomodation (time share) but I cannot carry it on my person.

I usually do try to hit up a local range while I'm there though. I figure that while on vacation, I might as well do something I enjoy!

 

[ckcollins2003]

Would previous military training count? If not then would law enforcement officers have to take this training class in order to carry off duty as well?

What kind of training would it be? A basic class that shows you how a firearm works and how to use your firearm? Or an advanced class that teaches you speed reloads, multiple target engagement, etc.?

My overall answer would be "no" I wouldn't take it. However I do feel that anyone who owns a firearm should know how to properly use and maintain their firearm from a basic standpoint. However I also feel that if you have children and no job to take care of your children then said children should be taken away and given to a proper home and we all know what really happens...

IMO there are much bigger issues in this country than whether or not someone should take a class to carry nation-wide. For where you cannot carry a firearm because the state does not recognize your permit, there are other means of protection.

 

[VERT]

Mainly posting to follow the discussion. Yes I would take the class and follow the rules.

Honestly I would rather see work done at the state level to increase reciprocity agreements.

 

[Hoosierdood]

I'm not going to vote, because I dont think I could reduce my answer to either a Yes or No. I think Scutter01 described my position fairly well.

I would not accede to it. It's wrong and it's unconstitutional. If it passes that way and I'm required to do it in order to be allowed to have my "rights", then I'll do it, but I will not vote to put that measure into place. You're asking me to accept something that I believe to be wrong in order to be allowed to exercise something I (theoretically, at least) already have.

 

[Scutter01]

I'm not going to vote, because I dont think I could reduce my answer to either a Yes or No. I think Scutter01 described my position fairly well.

Interestingly enough, your own sig line sums it up even better:

Giving bullies your lunch money ensures that you will always go hungry.

 

[ATM]

I will never go hungry.


I vote for bacon.

 

[Sticky]

The only required "training", acceptable to me, would be to require every gun owner to sign a statement saying that they have read and understood Cooper's "Four Basic Rules of Gun Safety". The NRA version is ok too.

Or, just include a printed copy of it with all licenses/permits. Including a copy of relevant statutes on self-defense with each license might be a decent idea. I wouldn't require it though. Maybe include a short pamphlet on "Common Myths About Self Defense"; maybe not.

 

[RBrianHarless]

Who supplies the training? Who defines the curriculum? Would you support required training to be allowed to vote?

This is exactly what I am wondering?

 

[GBuck]

You guys seem to be missing the point. If it was passed, would it be worth it to you to comply?

 

[Hayseed_40]

Did you take a test to be a parent?

That is a test I would not mind studying for...

 

[Hayseed_40]

You guys seem to be missing the point. If it was passed, would it be worth it to you to comply?

What do you mean "worth it"? As in no comply - no free time?

 

[GBuck]

What do you mean "worth it"? As in no comply - no free time?

No, would you jump through their hoops in order to carry in every state or would you only carry in Indiana?

 

[Sticky]

You guys seem to be missing the point. If it was passed, would it be worth it to you to comply?

Oops, I misunderstood in my first reply. If it passed, I agree with Scutter's reply.

I would not accede to it. It's wrong and it's unconstitutional. If it passes that way and I'm required to do it in order to be allowed to have my "rights", then I'll do it, but I will not vote to put that measure into place. You're asking me to accept something that I believe to be wrong in order to be allowed to exercise something I (theoretically, at least) already have.

 

[Hammerhead]

The only answer I gave is Bacon. None of the others fit.

No, I would not take any required training.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you* over my 2A Right to Keep and Bear Arms.



*general "you" not specific "you"

 

[JohnP82]

I have had this same discussion with several people. It is a very slippery slope and a double edged sword.

If hypothetically something to this effect was ever passed then I suppose yes I would do it, but would not fully agree with it. Pretty much the same as it is now. I feel we have to jump through more hoops than we should have to, but I still do it.

My issue has always been what others have stated already in this thread: who sets the standard, who supplies the training...and so on.

I do not agree with the comparisons of it to that of required training to drive a car because driving a car is not a constitutional right, but the two always get compared so my arguement has always been ok yes you are required to pass a test to drive a car. So what?! How many bad and unsafe drivers do you see on the road everyday? That test didn't do crap! They studied just enough to pass the written and did the whole 10 & 2 hold on the wheel and whatnot for the driving test and got their license. Doesn't mean they are a good driver or a safe driver, just means they passed the "test"

I do think firearm trining is a very good thing and should be done, but it can't be forced. Sure it sounds good, but they will not get results. As a responsible firearm owner you should seek the proper training willingly. All too often I see the "idiot" gun owner that doesn't know what the hell he is doing and needs training, but forcing them into it will not do much good in my opinion.

 

[Pitmaster]

Would I take it? Yes, because I would have too. OTOH, I would fight like hell against the requirement and would only stop fighting if it was the last resort to pass a reciprocity act. I would want training to be minimal. Frankly, I would rather have short test similar to a written drivers license test. No proficiency test though. Way too many people may want to carry just in case. But they don't have to be Gabe Suarez skilled either.

 

[Leo]

I took the training in Texas and the required skills demonstration live fire test. There were some that did not pass the test. They did not get the sign off for their License. I know it should be their right, but if someone is not self disciplined enough to learn to operate a firearm, I really do not want them around me. It is my right to fly an airplane, but we require skills demonstration for that too. I can fly a Piper 140 cherokee, but you really don't want me flying the next 767 you take on vacation.