The statute, Virginia Code § 18.2-308(G) says that the following is a "demonstration of competence"":
3. Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;
In my view, watching a dvd or taking an online course, where there is no interaction between the student and the teacher is not a "firearms safety or training
course", because a "course" as used in the statute, requires "instructors".
So I've changed my mind about the legal requirements.
Furthermore, I do not share the opinion that everyone should be able to carry a concealed weapon or that minimal exposure to safety training is sufficient. Even people experienced with guns fail to recognize how dangerous they are, and in some cases, the more experienced, the more overly confident. General George Patton shot himself in the leg re-holstering a handgun, after all.
Secondly, when a person is openly carrying, then other people are able to be on their guard, if they feel it necessary, in case the person with a gun should become a threat. They are at least in a position to be aware of the presence of the gun and be on alert. People who are carrying a concealed weapon do not communicate the same level of required awareness, and other people let down their guard assuming that the strangers they're with are unarmed. Therefore, a higher level of training and responsibility must be required of those who intend to carry a concealed weapon, because we have a duty to the public to ensure minimal standards for competence, reliability, and safe handling knowledge.
The background check is a good thing, and I'm in favor of fingerprinting, too, as a means of checking for outstanding warrants and felony convictions in other states. But I can't support the idea that a person who receives
either safety
or proficiency training, especially by an instructorless course, is sufficient.
Now, that's my private opinion. If I were representing a client's interests in court, I'd argue the broadest possible interpretation of the statute as it is, because my personal opinion about shoulds and oughts simply doesn't matter in that situation. If I'm hired to speak for another person whose liberty or property are at stake, I owe it to him, as well as to the system, to represent his interests as he sees them, not my own.
But if I get the ear of a legislator, I'm going to try to talk him into an amendment. I wouldn't trust someone behind the wheel of a car who's had
either safety
or proficiency training by means of a course taught by a machine and without interaction between students and instructors.
[/font]
