Should Training Be A Requirement For Carrying Concealed?

[opsspec1991]

Should Training Be A Requirement For Carrying Concealed?
.
By R. Erin Lenth
.
As a firearms and concealed carry instructor, I get asked this question a lot. And every time I do, I have to pause before I answer.
.
You see, I’m of two minds on the issue. I do believe in the American constitutional right to own and carry a firearm and am proud to live in a state that honors that right with a “Constitutional Carry” provision. But I also believe that there is an ever-widening disconnect between rights and responsibility in American society.
.
When the generations before mine were children, their parents, community, and schools taught them, not only the rights afforded them, but also the responsibilities inherent in those rights. Generally speaking, people viewed rights and responsibilities as a matched set.
.
Sadly, that does not seem to be the case today.
.
Today it seems that most Americans are far more concerned about their rights, than they are about their responsibilities… more concerned about what is owed them by society, than what they owe to that same society.”
.
And that disconnect is equally, if not more, evident when it comes to the right and responsibility of carrying a firearm is not exception.
.
As laid out in the civil laws of each and every state, American firearm owners owe the highest duty of care to others to avoid harm or damage. The best way I know how to do that is by obtaining the best training you can afford.
.
I wish that training didn’t have to be mandated. I wish that, as responsible Americans, we could recognize the need for it and take the initiative to do it on our own. If we did, we wouldn’t even need to have the conversation.
.
What are your thoughts?
.
Read More: Should Training Be A Requirement For Carrying Concealed? | Concealed Nation
.
My Thoughts:

Considering that there’s a lawyer behind every bullet that is fired, having CCW training really couldn’t hurt. If the training reviews the local and state law’s concerning the what if’s where it comes to using your gun in a defensive situation, what’s the down side to that?

 

[Pufessa]

I really like the idea of training being required for each person to carry. I do not want to limit anyone's Constitutional right to carry, but I do believe that some sort of evidence should be provided to make certain that anyone carrying has at least been exposed to the concept of gun safety.

 

[Embe]

Luckily I live in a Constitutional Carry state; however, I think concealed carry takes things to a different level. The fact your are concealing from others that you are armed adds new responsibilities to what you are doing. Regardless, the fact you are owning/carrying a firearm I think should involve some training. I received my first shotgun for Christmas when I was only nine, but only after my father had given me some serious gun safety training. Upon moving to Arizona I went through a formal hunter safety program. Then in college formal military firearms safety, eventually becoming a military firearms instructor. Training is key to safety and an essential part of gun handling and ownership.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Washington, Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and a few other states have no requirement for training before legally carrying concealed - so I have to ask - exactly what problems in these states do you think need fixing by requiring training? Show me the blood running in the streets from no training requirement here. Like my signature line says - "Those who say they support the 2nd Amendment, BUT"...don't.

 

[JCliff]

While I strongly encourage and advise that anyone who carries a firearm should get quality training (the consequences of improperly using your firearm or being unable to effectively employ your firearm when needed can be dire to you) I do NOT believe that training should be required. Keeping and bearing arms is a natural right, clearly enunciated in the 2nd Amendment to our constitution. It is improper to suppose that you must have training prior to the exercise of any of your constitutional rights. It is manifestly NOT the same thing at all as requiring a driver's license (and its attendant training requirements) before driving a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares.

 

[BigGuy66]

Using a firearm with skill and confidence is not an inherent ability. Unlike other amendments to the Constitution, this amendment has an understood level of competence at the time it was adopted. In 1789, the year the 2nd Amendment, among others, was adopted was during a time that many citizens owned and skillfully used guns to hunt, to protect themselves and heir families, and for sport. SO, our society is very different today. Many fewer families use guns to hunt for food, for example. So, there is a lot less familiarity with guns. I grew up with a grandfather who was a sportsman, participating regularly in the American Trap Shooting Association. He was also a gun collector and trader. He taught me about guns and gun safety beginning when I was about 8. I went shooting and we talked about live fire safety. I believe that I had good training. This is not true today. People should exercise their 2nd Amendment right. People should be prepared for a robbery, a terrorist, a home invasion, etc. But, I believe that proper training will prepare that armed citizen to effectively defend against and repel imminent harm.

 

[TrapperBob]

Considering that there’s a lawyer behind every bullet that is fired, having CCW training really couldn’t hurt. If the training reviews the local and state law’s concerning the what if’s where it comes to using your gun in a defensive situation, what’s the down side to that?

The issue is problematic in my mind. Should training be REQUIRED? I don't like that word. But at the same time I think if you're going to carry a firearm you should at a bare minimum know two things; 1)How to safely handle a firearm, and 2) when you can legally use deadly force. There was recently a news story of a woman who was carrying legally, and shot at a fleeing shoplifting suspect. She was arrested. (Woman Who Shot at Home Depot Shoplifters Sentenced to 18 mos) The fleeing shoplifter posed no immediate treat to her or anyone else, so she was not legally justified in shooting at him. She obviously did not understand the issue of when you can use deadly force.

But REQUIRED? Morally required to understand the issue of deadly force, yes, but legally required, that's a difficult thing. I must, with a good deal of hesitation, say a requirement for basic training on safe gun handling and the use of deadly force is not unreasonable. The problem arises because governments can set what are unreasonable standards as to what constitutes 'basic training' on these issues.

 

[steveksfc]

My uncle and I got our CCW by showing our DD214 and paying the fee after the background check. But we both followed up with actual training which included firing at the range. I encourage everyone to go through formal training, even those who received their training in the military. I know i was rusty and even I picked up some things I knew but had not brought to the front of my mind. The big thing I do see is the lack of outdoor ranges available, Even indoor are few and far between. Since i live outside of the city limits I was allowed to set up a 25 meter range in my back yard.So now whenever the my boys come down one thing they always do is go shoot on my range before they leave. Out of 4 boys 2 have served or are serving in the military and the other 2 are armed security guards and have to reclassify for their job twice a year. But the actual training is so important.

 

[BluesStringer]

My philosophy on every important subject can be summed up thusly:

If "government" is the answer, then, "What is the dumbest, most vapid and slavish answer anyone could possibly offer on any subject?" must be the question.

Any other questions?

 

[DavidWhite]

Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

 

[Nadir Point]

...exactly what problems in these states do you think need fixing by requiring training?

Absolutely! Let's wait until after some dumb-ass kills somebody before we recognize lack of training as a preventable problem.

 

[BluesStringer]

Washington, Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and a few other states have no requirement for training before legally carrying concealed - so I have to ask - exactly what problems in these states do you think need fixing by requiring training? Show me the blood running in the streets from no training requirement here. Like my signature line says - "Those who say they support the 2nd Amendment, BUT"...don't.

Absolutely! Let's wait until after some dumb-ass kills somebody before we recognize lack of training as a preventable problem.

How about addressing the question that was actually raised (in bold)? Show us statistics that tend to show more unlawful shootings or accidents in states not requiring training compared to those that do. Add Alabama to Navy's incomplete list too. There are others, but it is true that a majority of states require something that they call training. In reality though, most of those requirements amount to nothing even approaching real defensive handgun training. An NRA Basic Pistol course is not defensive handgun training, and somewhere between 9 and 50 rounds fired under the "performance standards" that most states mandate won't make a single newcomer to firearms a proficient marksman.

In order to have credibility attempting to mock someone for their stated position on what you describe as a "preventable problem," you first have to establish that there is a problem in states that don't require the same minimum amount of "prevention" as those who do mandate it. Let us know how that works out for you, or consider your post in reply to Navy to be WAY more mock-worthy than his post was.

Blues

 

[txfilmmaker]

The issue is problematic in my mind. Should training be REQUIRED? I don't like that word. But at the same time I think if you're going to carry a firearm you should at a bare minimum know two things; 1)How to safely handle a firearm, and 2) when you can legally use deadly force. There was recently a news story of a woman who was carrying legally, and shot at a fleeing shoplifting suspect. She was arrested. (Woman Who Shot at Home Depot Shoplifters Sentenced to 18 mos) The fleeing shoplifter posed no immediate treat to her or anyone else, so she was not legally justified in shooting at him. She obviously did not understand the issue of when you can use deadly force.

But REQUIRED? Morally required to understand the issue of deadly force, yes, but legally required, that's a difficult thing. I must, with a good deal of hesitation, say a requirement for basic training on safe gun handling and the use of deadly force is not unreasonable. The problem arises because governments can set what are unreasonable standards as to what constitutes 'basic training' on these issues.

I think you are absolutely correct. We "should" all get as much training as we can. This should include "If/Then" training. If this happens, then I will... I work on a show called "Stop The Threat." It goes over a lot of that kind of thinking. It's not a perfect show, but I think it's helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BigGuy66]

But REQUIRED? Morally required to understand the issue of deadly force, yes, but legally required, that's a difficult thing. I must, with a good deal of hesitation, say a requirement for basic training on safe gun handling and the use of deadly force is not unreasonable. The problem arises because governments can set what are unreasonable standards as to what constitutes 'basic training' on these issues.

I am opposed to any training which would generate a list of names containing people who have been trained in the use of firearms. The Weimar Republic (read Germany) had a law, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. This law preceded the rise of Hitler. Gun owners who possessed guns prior to the adoption of the 1928 law did not have to get a license to keep ownership of existing guns but DID need a licenseto carry the gun out of the home. Licensing was not required to have a gun in the home unless it was part of cache of guns. (Cache = more than 5 guns or more than 100 cartridges.) But, one of the provisions of that law was that an ordinary citizen had to have a license to purchase ammunition. So, if one purchases ammunition, it must mean that he has a gun. The names on these licenses were kept as a list. As time moved forward, more licensing was imposed and more lists were generated. These lists were used by the Hitler government to oppress and to incarcerate the citizens. I am opposed to any list that could be used in the future by a government that seeks to rescind our rights.

 

[TrapperBob]

In reality though, most of those requirements amount to nothing even approaching real defensive handgun training. An NRA Basic Pistol course is not defensive handgun training, and somewhere between 9 and 50 rounds fired under the "performance standards" that most states mandate won't make a single newcomer to firearms a proficient marksman.

Blues

Won't argue with that, however making the newcomer a proficient marksman is not the goal of this training. Its not intended to teach the student anything at all about what to do in a deadly situation. Introducing the very basics of gun safety, and making sure the student has a good understanding of when deadly force can be used are the goals. The live fire is not to test marksmanship but rather to insure that the student demonstrates basic safe handling of an actual firearm and is at least familiar with the sound and feel and other sensations of discharging a weapon, which they may in fact have never done before. (Several people in my CCW class had never fired a gun in their lives.) Just as a hunter's safety course teaches the student very little about hunting, but concentrates on safely handling a firearm and knowing the laws.

 

[BluesStringer]

Won't argue with that, however making the newcomer a proficient marksman is not the goal of this training. Its not intended to teach the student anything at all about what to do in a deadly situation. Introducing the very basics of gun safety, and making sure the student has a good understanding of when deadly force can be used are the goals. The live fire is not to test marksmanship but rather to insure that the student demonstrates basic safe handling of an actual firearm and is at least familiar with the sound and feel and other sensations of discharging a weapon, which they may in fact have never done before. (Several people in my CCW class had never fired a gun in their lives.) Just as a hunter's safety course teaches the student very little about hunting, but concentrates on safely handling a firearm and knowing the laws.

The title of the thread contemplates "training" in pursuance of "concealed carry." Classroom sessions, whether about legal aspects of carrying, or how a gun works, is not "training" to be prepared to be a carrier. Only defensive handgun training prepares one for carrying a gun. But in any case, the kind of state-mandated "training" that you're referring to, and apparently supportive of, is meaningless to preparing anyone to be a "good" or "proficient" or "safe" carrier of guns. In all cases the requirement stems from nothing more significant than feel-good mandates placed on people whose God-given rights acknowledged by the Second Amendment to the Constitution identifies the government as prohibited from imposing.

If the question posed in the Title and/or OP of this thread was, "Should concealed carriers seek training?" - my answer would be an unequivocal "YES, Abso-freakin'-lutely!" Should it be "required" though? No. Free men and women need no more government mucking their lives up than the bare-bones minimum of what is adequate to maintain order, which is exactly how the Constitution is written, which is precisely why I demand as much freedom from my government as the Constitution provides for. "Require" me to get training before I'm *allowed* by government to exercise the rights that God Himself endowed me with? Sorry. Politicians hold among the lowest places in my list of people to trust with my interests, and even if I granted them a higher standing on such a list, they will never exceed the Authority that our entire culture is based upon, "...the laws of nature and of nature's God."

If "government" is the answer, then, "What is the dumbest, most vapid and slavish answer anyone could possibly offer on any subject?" must be the question.

Blues

 

[TrapperBob]

It would be much more productive if we can converse as civilized gentlemen; it is not necessary to emphasize your distaste for government in each of your posts, anyone reading this forum for even a modicum of time is surely aware of your position.

Training has a wide range of applicable meanings in the context under discussion. Making sure one knows the basic laws for use of deadly force and the basics of safely handling a firearm is certainly ‘training’ that would be useful to someone carrying a gun, and this interpretation of ‘training’ is within the range of reasonable interpretations of the word as used within the OP’s post.
The alternative is to propose to allow someone with no understanding whatsoever of how to safely handle a gun and with no knowledge of when lethal force is legally justified to carry a deadly weapon with no idea of what he or she is doing. Advocating that position is irrationally irresponsible, and I would expect that upon reflection a reasonable person would have difficulty doing so.

If you re-read my first post in this thread you will note that I am not in favor of governments requiring training, but I do concede that the issue is not cut and dried, it is a multi-faceted issue, and it is not as clear as simply taking the stand that ‘The government can’t tell me what to do’ implies.

 

[Blueshell]

Should Training Be A Requirement For Carrying Concealed?

Maybe training for owning a gun in the first place, but there's nothing about concealment that requires a class.

Like you, I also don't like mandating classes as a condition of exercising rights. I support making gun safety/familiarization a part of the high school curriculum along with first aid and driver's ed; a kind of 'life skills' class. This way everyone gets the information, there's no condition in order to carry, and there's no list or registry beyond who has a high school diploma.

 

[Blueshell]

I am opposed to any training which would generate a list of names containing people who have been trained in the use of firearms.

Such a list is useless if everyone is on it

 

[TrapperBob]

Maybe training for owning a gun in the first place, but there's nothing about concealment that requires a class.

Like you, I also don't like mandating classes as a condition of exercising rights. I support making gun safety/familiarization a part of the high school curriculum along with first aid and driver's ed; a kind of 'life skills' class. This way everyone gets the information, there's no condition in order to carry, and there's no list or registry beyond who has a high school diploma.

This is an excellent idea.