I agree with that statement:shock:
Thread: Firearms training, Yes and No
I was surfing the web looking for any new information on permit to carry reform in Iowa. One link led to another and I stumbled upon this article by Jeff Knox:
I found this article very appropriate for the current debate going on in Iowa. There is an effort right now by the NRA to have a bill introduced that would replace the "may issue" permit to carry with a "shall issue" permit. That bill would require that people obtain training before being issued a permit. That training requirement is a bad idea.
This may not have been stated explicitly by Mr. Knox but the advocacy of government mandated training before being allowed to carry a self defense arm is self defeating. We cannot advocate a training requirement now, out of political expediency, and expect that the training requirement can be removed at a later time when the politics are more favorable.
Currently in Iowa there is no requirement for training by many sheriffs in this state to obtain a permit to carry. There is no training requirement, or even a requirement to have a permit, to carry a firearm openly in rural areas. There is also no training requirement for the ownership of a firearm or the carry of that firearm on private property. Even though we do not have this requirement of government approved training Iowa has very few firearm related deaths and injuries compared to other states.
I'll put it this way, if we as a state do not have a problem of untrained individuals handling firearms unsafely then what problem is the training requirement supposed to solve? I've heard one answer from IowaCarry and the problem they pose is that few states recognize Iowa Permits to Carry since Iowa has no consistent training requirement to obtain that permit. Their solution is to have a training requirement as intensive as most other states.
I don't like the solution that IowaCarry proposes. The solution I propose is to get a permit or license from another state. I don't want to see Iowa go backwards in the fight for our rights just because some other states are more backwards. Florida and Utah offer permits by mail and an industry has developed around that fact. It seems that few people in Iowa are more than an hour drive from someone in the state offering training that is certified by either Florida or Utah. It seems some of these places even offer notary and photo services so that the permit process is a nearly one stop shop. (One would still have to get fingerprinting done by a law enforcement agency.)
One thing I noticed about the NRA written bill is that the training that is required can be obtained from the NRA. That is a very self serving bill. It also assures that the NRA can not be relied upon in any future endeavor to remove that training requirement since that would require the NRA to bite the hand that feeds. I would hope that the leadership and membership of IowaCarry is wise enough to realize that if this proposal becomes law then any future support from the NRA will be hard to get. I believe the NRA only got involved in Iowa because the Iowa Gun Owners endorsed "Alaska Carry" proposal got so much support. If Iowa had "Alaska Carry" then the market for NRA training would not likely improve.
We can say "yes" to training and still say "no" to government training requirements.
I agree with that statement:shock:
Much of what I wrote above may just become moot, depending on the signature of the governor. The main point remains, we don't need the government dictating the training we need to exercise our rights.
I had other comments in mind to add but I'll keep them to myself, at least for now. There is much that could change in a short time on how, and if, the permit to carry regulations change.