Would you be willing to take required training?

[Scutter01]

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.

Flying an airplane isn't a right and it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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

Why yes, Evan, in fact I do.

(I thought I felt a disturbance in the Force...)

CA, HI, IL, and NY do not recognize any other state and do not issue non-res permits.
OR and SC require land ownership for a non-res permit.
CT, ME, MD, MA, NJ, and RI all theoretically issue non-res permits, but can be both very restrictive and very expensive for a single state.
That said, obtaining them if for some reason you must go to their states is far less expensive than an attorney and a trial, not to mention less than the cost of your life.

The other 38 states are covered by a combination of the AZ and UT permits with the IN LTCH.
Indiana: AL AK AZ AR CO FL GA ID IN IA KY LA MI MS MO MT NH NC ND OK PA SD TN TX UT VT WI WY.
Arizona: DE KS NE NV NM OH VA WV
Utah: MN and WA
(Do note that for AZ and UT, I listed above only those states not covered in the lists above them.)

I will never go hungry.


I vote for bacon.

This.^^

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

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

Precedent (UT) would say the citizen would pay for it and the .gov would set the standards.

If you would have to take training for reciprocity, would each state be able to set their own qualification standards? Meaning your licence is "valid" for that state as soon as you've taken the training and received the "stamp" for that state?

If each state is able to set their own standards, you run into a situation where you have to get a separate stamp for each state, each requiring a separate $100 training program.

When you start requiring training for anything, I think you run into the slippery slope situation. More liberal states can make the whole process difficult and confusing enough that it would be nearly impossible for someone from out of state to "qualify," thus destroying the intent of the reciprocity bill entirely.

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.

No shoving it down Illinois' throat; from what I understand, we still wouldn't be able to carry in Illinois because they currently offer no permit or licence.

 

[GBuck]

My whole idea would be that you would take the training in your home state, and by federal law be allowed to carry in other states. The training would be set as a national standard and would not permit for states to require further training. Also assume that states (IL) are not allowed to opt out of this program.

Again, I'm not saying I am for or against this, I am just asking the question.

 

[beararms1776]

Sounds kinda cool for those that travel often to neighboring states but your absolutey right about your statement.

When you start requiring training for anything, I think you run into the slippery slope situation. More liberal states can make the whole process difficult and confusing enough that it would be nearly impossible for someone from out of state to "qualify," thus destroying the intent of the reciprocity bill entirely.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Would I do it? Yes, if that is the only way to legally carry in all states. I wouldn't agree with it, but, I don't agree with having to get an LTCH either but I did it anyway because that's the only way I can legally carry in IN. Those of you who say know you wouldn't you might want to give up your LTCH too I guess.

Just to be clear I don't agree with any of it. Training requirement, or requirement of having to pay for a piece of paper and someone telling me that I am aloud to do something that i have a right to do anyway. But I think we need to choose our battles wisely and take the small victories we can get to help build our case and foothold for the big victories that will need to be won.

 

[TaunTaun]

I don't like the feds being the ones to set the standards on this. The whole argument to me is "Shall the government dictate how/when/where you can practice your 2nd amendment rights?" For me, the answer is no.

While I disagree with not being able to carry in federal buildings, court houses, etc. I still plan on following the laws there. But most of that, I contribute to STATE laws and regulations. The second amendement positively prohibits the federal government from over-reaching on this issue. The states get to set the laws there. While I'd like to see reciprocity throughout all of the united states, this should be an agreement of and by the states, and telling federal gov to suck it.

 

[BrianD]

I had to take a 4 hour class and a shooting skills test when I lived in SC to obtain my CCW. It was hard to believe some of the people in the class had never fired a gun. A couple even had trouble trying to load the mag. Scary!!

 

[Bondhead88]

1st People need to understand and remind themselves what infringe means

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2:obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

So when you add rules, regulations or requirements you are infringing.

2) I think this is such a bad idea to give the people in Washington more say in the firearms arena. This will be used one day to take your gun away.

 

[Faine]

I myself don't feel any training is without merit and would welcome it, particularly if the end result was national reciprocity. HOWEVER, I'm an OC'er and I'll be damned if I'm going to CC because some tool in Washington thinks there's a difference or advantage to CC. I'll stay in my state if that's a requirement.

 

[Augustine]

My permit is from North Carolina and we have to take an 8 hour class and pass a shooting test. I certainly don't mind such a small requirement and thought that it was probably helpful for most people in there.

 

[LionWeight]

This one is kinda touchy for me. I grew up around guns and was always taught firearm safety. I was also in the military and carried in the line of duty. About 4 years ago I decided to take a hunters safety course as a refresher. I lived in Michigan at the time. Our hunting camp is at best 45 minutes from a hospital in the upper peninsula. That weekend class was the biggest mistake I have ever made when it comes to firearms. We had a DNR approved instructor and his son teach the class. When they brought their firearms in for the hands on session, they both swept the group 7 times with guns that had not been cleared. Several of us spoke out over this and were promptly told "I'm the instructor, I know what I'm doing". We disagreed. The next day was range day. You went to the range and fired a couple shots at clay birds. One of the range volunteers was showing a 12 year old boy how to sight down the barrel of a loaded model 500 12ga while standing in front of the gun with the muzzle pointed at his mouth, and the shotgun in the kids hands.

These were instructors approved by the DNR. I snet the DNR an email concerning this class, but still saw his name listed as an instructor for months after. I also would be careful of the "training" requirements. Would there be a possibility of failing the training and not getting the license? If it would have to be approved by every state, can you imagine what Illinois, DC and so on would require? A nice back door into gun control. To answer the question, no I would not be for it.

 

[Lodogg2221]

It was a really tough choice between training and bacon....but since I had bacon today, I picked training. Now that I think about it though, more bacon sounds better.

BTW, Scutter mentioned on the first page if we would support training to be able to vote. To that, I say HELL YES! Test time before poll time! Maybe then we could get rid of the idgots that thought Palin was Obamas VP candidate.

Of course then we get into the whole, whos test, etc, and then it doesnt sound so good...but hey, in a perfect world we wouldnt even need this discussion.

 

[Lodogg2221]

I still have to ask though, whats the difference with this and a drivers license? Test wise I mean, not Constitutionally. All States dont have a standardized test between them, so couldnt the Gov (States preferably) just agree that a certain number of "points" needs to be covered, and then a test taken, then license issued.
Same as the DL, and its good anywhere.

 

[GBuck]

1st People need to understand and remind themselves what infringe means

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2:obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

So when you add rules, regulations or requirements you are infringing.

2) I think this is such a bad idea to give the people in Washington more say in the firearms arena. This will be used one day to take your gun away.

No one is arguing what the Constitution says or the definition of infringe. Get past that. This is a hypothetical that is requiring a little further thinking than that. Do you carry a gun? Do you have a LTCH? That's an infringement too.

 

[Drakkule]

Since i want more training, because i think everyone should be well trained, i would have no problem with it.

 

[Bondhead88]

I did more looking into this and saw a great article on the NRA website that made sense.

The idea behind this is just to get states to recognize each others licences across the board, very similar to how an Indiana driver's licence is recognized, in all the states but there is no federal driver's licence. Each state still sets the requirements for licencing it's residents and recognizes other licences but expects those licenced drivers from other states to abide by the driving laws of the state they are visiting or passing through.

 

[Bondhead88]

No one is arguing what the Constitution says or the definition of infringe. Get past that. This is a hypothetical that is requiring a little further thinking than that. Do you carry a gun? Do you have a LTCH? That's an infringement too.

I do not need to get passed that and I am obviously way more forward thinking than that. You better have a better grasp of strategy if you want to understand politicians. This is more than just national reciprocity on both parties. There are moves going in behind the scenes for future control. This is nothing new. It has been going on since the founding of this great nation.

While yes I have an LTCH and yes I agree that is an infringement I am not in favor of constantly allowing for further infringement for ease of access.

 

[cosermann]

I don't and won't support any training requirement in Indiana, ever, even "optional" training for potential reciprocity with more states. "Options" have a way of becoming "requirements." This would be a step in the wrong direction, imho. It's a right, not a privilege.

If you want to carry in more states, FL, UT, etc. non-resident permits/license are available options. I see no reason to change the current situation.

Edit: And no, I wouldn't do it just to pick up the few states that I don't have. It's just another reminder to not support liberal states with my resources. IL, NY, CA, etc. can all rot.

 

[protias]

Why make things more strict when we can make them less strict?! Our right to bear arms and defend ourselves was given by God (even if you don't believe in Him), and reiterated by our Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights. I'll take all the voluntary training I want, but if the government is going to force me to take training, then they should pay for it.