" Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill? "
An OC training course is utterly ridiculous, useless, and repulsive.
Ok to offer a classroom course.
Ok to offer a range course.
The classroom course should be mandatory.
The range course should be mandatory.
I don't know, don't care, or am otherwise unqualified to answer
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?
" Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill? "
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
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; 12-07-2010 at 11:45 PM.
Proove your worthy of the rights you were born with?
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.
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.
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.
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 Gun Locks
And so on...
Last edited by petrophase; 12-09-2010 at 11:11 AM.
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:
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.
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.
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 04:40 PM.
Lex malla, lex nulla
"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.
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...
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 07:16 PM.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lex malla, lex nulla
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.