Constitutional Carry

[DannyBear71]

I've been trying to catch up with Matt Canovi's 'THE GUN SHOW'. The topic was Consitituational Carry.

The question came up... If Missouri were to institute constitutional carry, like Arizona, should safety training be encouraged or required to carry? And how do you guard the publics welfare without overly infringing on the publics right to carry if they choose under such legistlation.

The example given was Missouri's Hunter Safety Course and the dramatic decrease in firearm related hunting accidents since its creation. An 80% drop when comparing the first year to the latest numbers.

Could the state use a carrot and stick approach. Having firearm safety and use of deadly force training limits your civil liability after an inclident. While failure to obtain such training would offer no such protection.

What do you think?

 

[NavyLCDR]

should safety training be encouraged or required to carry? And how do you guard the publics welfare without overly infringing on the publics right to carry if they choose under such legistlation.

The example given was Missouri's Hunter Safety Course and the dramatic decrease in firearm related hunting accidents since its creation. An 80% drop when comparing the first year to the latest numbers.

Could the state use a carrot and stick approach. Having firearm safety and use of deadly force training limits your civil liability after an inclident. While failure to obtain such training would offer no such protection.

What do you think?

If training was made a REQUIREMENT to carry, then it would not be Constitutional Carry.

In the states which do not require training for their permit, or allow open carry or concealed without a permit, firearms accidents and incidents simply are not any more common than states that do require training. Currently, the following states do not require any sort of training before issuing a permit or allow carrying a firearm openly without a permit:

Alabama
California ( No state rquirement)
Georgia
Indiana
Mississippi
Montana
New Hampshire
Washington
Oregon
Nevada
Arizona
Alaska
New Mexico
Colorado
Nebraska
Kansas
Wyoming
South Dakota
Idaho
Kentucky
Virginia
North Carolina
Ohio
West Virgina

and I am sure I missed a couple.

I think carrying a firearm while hunting is vastly different in many ways than carrying a holstered handgun for self protection, and comparing the effects of safety training between the two is comparing apples to oranges.

I think that if a shooting is deemed to be in self-defense in a criminal trial, then the shooter should be immune from civil liability, regardless of their level of training. Self-defense is self-defense, it doesn't matter what level of training the shooter has.

 

[fied1k]

I don't like the idea of people carrying without some kind of training. Of course people have to pass a drivers test too and a car is a much deadlier weapon and look at the dopes on the road everyday. I don't like the idea of pilots carrying onboard at all, but that is a different thread...

 

[Iteach4U]

I've been trying to catch up with Matt Canovi's 'THE GUN SHOW'. The topic was Consitituational Carry.

The question came up... If Missouri were to institute constitutional carry, like Arizona, should safety training be encouraged or required to carry? And how do you guard the publics welfare without overly infringing on the publics right to carry if they choose under such legistlation.

The example given was Missouri's Hunter Safety Course and the dramatic decrease in firearm related hunting accidents since its creation. An 80% drop when comparing the first year to the latest numbers.

Could the state use a carrot and stick approach. Having firearm safety and use of deadly force training limits your civil liability after an inclident. While failure to obtain such training would offer no such protection.

What do you think?

For those who might want to know what DB is referring to, here's a link to the podcasts.

Link Removed


I personally believe that training will be a positive thing, mandatory might be a dangerous route but options are out there (see below). Granted folks will resist it, but once people understand that it becomes very difficult to accurately dictate a justification without the training AND that someone can place uninvolved others in harms way by not having the hands-on firearms training it will be much easier to get folks on board with a training requirement.

That said, to what extent should the government become involved is the big question. It would be much easier to allow dealers to join forces with instructors and get the State to allow a tax-break on 1 firearm purchase in exchange for their attendance (one time) of a training class. If the classroom is the same as the CCW class, then all it takes is the CCW qualification requirements for the range to be met and a person can obtain their permit. There would be no need for that person to sit through another full classroom for the CCW class that way AND it gives the shooter options.

 

[weekendskp]

If training was made a REQUIREMENT to carry, then it would not be Constitutional Carry.

In the states which do not require training for their permit, or allow open carry or concealed without a permit, firearms accidents and incidents simply are not any more common than states that do require training.

Mississippi doesn't require training to obtain a permit/license to carry concealed, but they just passed "carrot-n-stick" legislation that IMO is a good thing. Starting July 1, 2011 if a licensee does obtain training cert. from a nationally recognized organization, he can carry in more places like courthouses and schools.

 

[Lance39]

Mississippi doesn't require training to obtain a permit/license to carry concealed, but they just passed "carrot-n-stick" legislation that IMO is a good thing. Starting July 1, 2011 if a licensee does obtain training cert. from a nationally recognized organization, he can carry in more places like courthouses and schools.

I'd go along with this.
Rather than additional restrictions for no training, it adds benefits for those who are trained.

 

[rudiepop]

The idiot factor

I guess I have been exposed to too many idiots not to be a supporter of (minimum) safety training.
I leave the gun range sometime if I feel that an irresponsible gun toter is around.
I spent a lot of time training my wife, picking the right firearm for her, making sure she knows what to do in a crisis situation. for one reason: I wanted HER safe and capable of handling various situations.

Where training is concerned: It is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
That being said, there should be some waiver of this requirement for certain military, ex military, ex law, fish and game, etc.

There are just too many people with NO DAMN COMMON SENSE out there!
and common sense gets less common every day.

I did not want my wife to carry because she was completely ignorant of firearms and there use and would have been a danger to herself and definately to other had she needed to use a weapon. I don't want some clueless dip sheeut carrying a weapon around me and mine until they can prove they know how to use it.

Training can only be a good thing and there should be some creative way to make it available for free.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I don't want some clueless dip sheeut carrying a weapon around me and mine until they can prove they know how to use it.

Don't come to any of these states: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virgina.

The "clueless dip sheeut"s are allowed to roam free with guns in these states. Obviously the news media in these states must be asleep or incompetent because they sure are not reporting on all the firearms accidents these "clueless dip sheeut"s must be having with their guns.

Or, maybe, the danger just is nonexistent in real life in these states :secret:

I do think training in the safe use of firearms, with range time should be required in America, though..... to graduate the 6th grade.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I guess I have been exposed to too many idiots not to be a supporter of (minimum) safety training.
I leave the gun range sometime if I feel that an irresponsible gun toter is around.......
There are just too many people with NO DAMN COMMON SENSE out there!
and common sense gets less common every day.......

.

Unfortunately common sense is not a requirement for carry (or purchase) even in a mandatory CCW training state like Arkansas.

In fact, no common sense is required to drive a vehicle, either.:hang3:

Every CCW training session I have attended, there has been at least one idiot who is "living in the movies".

Open carry will allow even more wannabes out in public.

I gotta do what I gotta do for me and my family.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I do think training in the safe use of firearms, with range time should be required in America, though..... to graduate the 6th grade.

When I was in 6th grade we took loaded 22s or shotguns to school so we could hunt on the way home. We just set them with our coats at the rack.