View Poll Results: How do you feel about an OC training course?

Voters
150. You may not vote on this poll
  • An OC training course is utterly ridiculous, useless, and repulsive.

    65 43.33%
  • Ok to offer a classroom course.

    65 43.33%
  • Ok to offer a range course.

    59 39.33%
  • The classroom course should be mandatory.

    11 7.33%
  • The range course should be mandatory.

    12 8.00%
  • I don't know, don't care, or am otherwise unqualified to answer

    1 0.67%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 154

Thread: Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill?

    It's a multiple-choice poll, so pick whichever one(s) apply. Your answers will remain private.

    This began with an off-topic comment on another thread, here. Essentially, the poster there said he advocates training classes for OC.

    I'm not so sure I support it even for concealed carry!

    Should it ever become mandatory (shudder), I think what I'd rather see is a basic study guide, including key legal references (castle laws, acceptable and unacceptable use of deadly force, prohibitions on types of carry, etc.), followed by a properly-designed test. If you get 80% or greater on the test, carry on. If not, you can retest in two weeks, but if you fail a second time, you have to take the course.

    Or not. I was never a very good test-taker, but I doubt anyone here would seriously argue I'm unaware of the laws, poor at firearms safety, or an off-target knucklehead at the range.

    What's your opinion?
    Last edited by since9; 12-08-2010 at 12:28 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    " Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill? "




    YES
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Yes being forced to get training before you can exercise your 2nd Amendment right is not only wrong but unconstitutional. Show me where it states I must take training to exercise my rights.
    Last edited by zack991; 12-08-2010 at 12:45 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Proove your worthy of the rights you were born with?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581
    It would be extremely wise to spend some time on the range practicing weapon firing, malfunction drills, and maybe even weapon retention.

    It would be extremely wise to learn the legal aspects of self defense for that particular state.

    If someone OC's a firearm with no prior training on the range or in legalities and kills an innocent bystander while using using it for self defense, criminal and civil penalties should be attached.

    Don't make it mandatory. However, the price of failure should be steep.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Raytown
    Posts
    51
    I think it would be ok to offer it because it would be like a get together and talk about a lot of the issues of ocing in your city and surrounding cities and states, also theres nothing wrong about going to the range for some practice.... now remember the key word is offered.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brookville, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    50
    Being required to take any class, or even requiring a license, to practice as right is absurd and unconstitutional via the Supreme Court of the United State in Murdock v PA which states that fees, duties, taxes, or levies on the practice violates the Constitution. And since Heller and Murdock affirmed the 2A is an individual right, and applies against the states - any requirements forced upon you to practice openly carrying would be a constitutional violation. ...well, at least in PA and any state that doesn't require a license to OC.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    302
    My hunch is that many who OC or CC would enjoy taking courses that develop their practical firearms skills, espcially some of the more advanced courses offered by the big training facilities. However, "mandatory" is the stinky word here. As in:
    Mandatory Permit
    Mandatory Fee
    Mandatory Training
    Mandatory Inspections
    Mandatory Gun Locks
    Mandatory Registration

    And so on...
    Last edited by petrophase; 12-09-2010 at 12:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Why should it be any different than the requirements for CC? (other than the obvious being "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED")

    I honestly don't want some inexperienced "Joe" running around "thinking" he (generic) knows what he is doing and can respond to a threat properly, let alone safely. Example: 21 year old inexperienced shooter watches Cops on TV and decides he wants a HiPoint pistol, goes out and legally purchases one. Keep in mind this shooter has NO experience with firearms other than playing Grand Theft Auto on a gaming console. I don't believe it's a safe or smart idea to allow that individual to just slap on a pistol and go. Therein lies the quandry that results in this:

    We stress this all the time: Training is the key.
    Well, if folks are not training and just carrying, then it's going to fail a proper risk assessment.

    That said, I don't exactly want the gooberment stepping in to regulate it as they'll certainly make it a crime to not train or take a training course and bastardize the entire thing. Good for business, but bad due to gooberment involvement. So again, we're here:

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by petrophase View Post
    My hunch is that many who OC or CC would enjoy taking courses that develop their practical firearms skills, espcially some of the more advanced courses offered by the big training facilities. However, "mandatory" is the stinky word here. As in:
    Mandatory Permit
    Mandatory Fee
    Mandatory Training
    Mandatory Inspections
    Mandatory Gun Locks
    Mandatory Registration

    And so on...

    Don't suggest those to ANYONE! The anti's have enough dumb ideas of their own.

    I stand behind Arizona's law, not requiring a permit to carry "within" the confines of the State.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Don't think mandatory would be necessary, but I do think it would be a good idea to have optional subsidized safety courses on top of full price courses (kind of like MSF courses for a motorcycle) to make it more affordable for everyone.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Walt_Kowalski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Prove your worthy of the rights you were born with?
    +1000
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
    -- George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    If you have followed me, you would know I am the biggest supporter of constitutional carry you are likely to come across.

    That being said, I think it would be gracious, and meaningful, for OC classes to be offered for free, or a minimal charge ($1?) upon purchase of a firearm.

    You can decline of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    No mandatory training for a right.....

    Didn't vote because the poll is a little confusing.

    Yes, offer training.
    No, don't make it mandatory.
    Don't make it free training because I don't want to pay for it with my taxes. Buy your own.....freeloaders...LOL
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 12-09-2010 at 05:40 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  15. #15
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    "Offer" and "Require" are so different as to be... oh, I don't know...

    Virginia and Maryland, respectively??

    I can see benefit to a basic safety course... but only as an option to anyone interested.

    A required class would be akin to an entity forcing you to take a nutrition class before allowing you to cook for your own family.

    Sadly, I could see MD heading down BOTH those roads.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Mr H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AA Co., Maryland, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by slowfiveoh View Post
    If you have followed me, you would know I am the biggest supporter of constitutional carry you are likely to come across.

    That being said, I think it would be gracious, and meaningful, for OC classes to be offered for free, or a minimal charge ($1?) upon purchase of a firearm.

    You can decline of course.
    The shop/range where the wife and I go offers a basic class as part of the first-time purchase package. I find that to be a good way to keep purchasers who might otherwise be clueless to get familiar with the whole gun world. Expanding on that concept might help, but of course it would have to be optional.

    Now...

    On the topic of the idjits carrying around weaponry they don't deserve to have??

    It's going to happen. BUT...

    I would be interested in looking at the possibility of some sort of incentive where, on taking various levels of (optional) safety courses, discounts can be applied to homeowner and personal liability insurance policies.

    Have to think on that a bit...

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Why should it be any different than the requirements for CC? (other than the obvious being "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED")

    I honestly don't want some inexperienced "Joe" running around "thinking" he (generic) knows what he is doing and can respond to a threat properly, let alone safely. Example: 21 year old inexperienced shooter watches Cops on TV and decides he wants a HiPoint pistol, goes out and legally purchases one. Keep in mind this shooter has NO experience with firearms other than playing Grand Theft Auto on a gaming console. I don't believe it's a safe or smart idea to allow that individual to just slap on a pistol and go. Therein lies the quandry that results in this:

    We stress this all the time: Training is the key.
    Well, if folks are not training and just carrying, then it's going to fail a proper risk assessment.

    That said, I don't exactly want the gooberment stepping in to regulate it as they'll certainly make it a crime to not train or take a training course and bastardize the entire thing. Good for business, but bad due to gooberment involvement. So again, we're here:
    Any LAC with the wherewithal to purchase a firearm should be able to carry it anyhow (e.g., CC or OC) for any lawful reason, anywhere, anytime, absolutely no training and no permission slips required. That is The Whole Point. It's a right or it's not, we are free or we aren't, we have liberty or we don't.
    If "Joe" can legally own a handgun, what type he owns or what TV shows and video games he enjoys are irrelevant.
    A man is not a criminal until after he commits a crime.
    Last edited by petrophase; 12-09-2010 at 08:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    This keeps popping up. I still think training should not be mandatory unless it can be shown that the several states without a mandatory class have more dangerous carriers than those states that do require training.

    If there is no measurable benefit why even discuss it?

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider116 View Post
    If someone OC's a firearm with no prior training on the range or in legalities and kills an innocent bystander while using using it for self defense, criminal and civil penalties should be attached.

    Don't make it mandatory. However, the price of failure should be steep.
    No the totality of the event should be considered. Incidentally, in Virginia this person would likely be indicted or at least referred to a grand jury. Killing another person is chargeable offense, either murder or homicide. The defenses are either justified or excusable.

    Civil liability automatically attached? Surely, sir, you jest. The very essence of Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground is being denied here.

    The price of defending one's life is already very steep and may lead to untenable extremes.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    No the totality of the event should be considered. Incidentally, in Virginia this person would likely be indicted or at least referred to a grand jury. Killing another person is chargeable offense, either murder or homicide. The defenses are either justified or excusable.

    Civil liability automatically attached? Surely, sir, you jest. The very essence of Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground is being denied here.

    The price of defending one's life is already very steep and may lead to untenable extremes.
    I wouldn't jest about a matter so grave as an untrained gun owner in harm's way using a firearm in defense of himself. Self defense is a basic human right. However, rights come with responsibilities and repercussions.

    Civil liability should be attached if someone with no knowledge of firearms and tactics opens fire and ends up hitting a bystander. Your right to self defense ends at another person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The totality of the circumstance should be weighed; we are in agreement here.

    Training is an invaluable tool when it comes to firearms. Knowing some basic tactical training such as situational awareness, shooting in a stressful situation, knowing what lies behind the target, etc comes through training and experience.

    Taking someone's life is the ultimate seizure under the 4th amendment. I have denied no one's right to self defense (castle doctrine, stand your ground, or make my day laws included). I am championing the innocent's bystander's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider116 View Post
    I wouldn't jest about a matter so grave as an untrained gun owner in harm's way using a firearm in defense of himself. Self defense is a basic human right. However, rights come with responsibilities and repercussions.

    Civil liability should be attached if someone with no knowledge of firearms and tactics opens fire and ends up hitting a bystander. Your right to self defense ends at another person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The totality of the circumstance should be weighed; we are in agreement here.

    Training is an invaluable tool when it comes to firearms. Knowing some basic tactical training such as situational awareness, shooting in a stressful situation, knowing what lies behind the target, etc comes through training and experience.

    Taking someone's life is the ultimate seizure under the 4th amendment. I have denied no one's right to self defense (castle doctrine, stand your ground, or make my day laws included). I am championing the innocent's bystander's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    So, any knowledge would relieve the shooter of civil responsibility for errant rounds? I am sure that is not what you meant. In that case, how much training is necessary before one is shielded from civil liability? Who makes that call?

    Someone picks up a golf club to ward off a knife attack. He successfully wields the club to stop the attacker. In the process, on one of his back swings, he strikes someone else, injuring him. Should he be held civilly liable because he had not been trained in the use of golf clubs for self-defense? If he had taken a class, would he be absolved?

    Once we are in a violent situation, we have the right to defend ourselves with the means at hand, whether we have been trained or not. As long as we act in good faith, any innocent casualties are the responsibility of the person who initiated the violence, necessitating the defensive response.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Palerider,
    What if the person had a ton of training but just made a mistake? It happens every day even by the most trained. The proper way to deal with the outcome is already in place; due process of law. Opening up civil liabilities for those acting within the law could make anyone who defends their life lawfully lose everything they have. If, through due process, one is found negligent; training or no, the penalties should be the same. So once again, training or no training, it doesn't make a difference.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    29
    Thank you for bringing this most salient of questions to the top of the consciousness here on Open Carry Dot Org.

    No, mandatory training classes are NOT overkill, and neither is a mandatory permitting for carry unreasonable as various courts have held on many occasions. Consider the balance between responsible and irresponsible comments and rhetoric here as being similar to the responsibility of armed civilians.

    I know that there are many that believe as I do, many here in Wisconsin and many in national gun control organizations. Thank you for raising the issue.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Bonavia View Post
    Thank you for bringing this most salient of questions to the top of the consciousness here on Open Carry Dot Org.

    No, mandatory training classes are NOT overkill, and neither is a mandatory permitting for carry unreasonable as various courts have held on many occasions. Consider the balance between responsible and irresponsible comments and rhetoric here as being similar to the responsibility of armed civilians.

    I know that there are many that believe as I do, many here in Wisconsin and many in national gun control organizations. Thank you for raising the issue.
    So, I take it that you do not advocate open carry, that you are here to argue the point with us?

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Bonavia View Post
    Thank you for bringing this most salient of questions to the top of the consciousness here on Open Carry Dot Org.

    No, mandatory training classes are NOT overkill, and neither is a mandatory permitting for carry unreasonable as various courts have held on many occasions. Consider the balance between responsible and irresponsible comments and rhetoric here as being similar to the responsibility of armed civilians.

    I know that there are many that believe as I do, many here in Wisconsin and many in national gun control organizations. Thank you for raising the issue.
    Permit requirements for any sort of carry in most states is unconstitutional I suspect. I know it is in my state. The unfortunate thing is that over a number of generations, this most basic of freedoms has been diluted and in some cases, lost to the whims and controls of dictatorial employees of We the People. One only has to do a quick search to prove what I stated in my first sentence. So what does this mean? How do we confront this blatant disregard and outright illegal attempts to punish those who would have the audacity to exercise their God-given and protected rights? What must we do?

    Nothing. Do we license or permit individual freedom of speech, or religion, or maybe some other protected and recognized fundamental right? Yes we do. And that is also unfortunate. Which is a sad statement upon the generations of Americans who have allowed this travesty to fester and grow. Generations of which we ourselves are a part.

    Liberties lost are rarely regained. And those who would gladly rush into that abyss never deserved liberty at all as they are perfectly willing to see its demise.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •