• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are mandatory training classes for OC overkill?

How do you feel about an OC training course?

  • An OC training course is utterly ridiculous, useless, and repulsive.

    Votes: 65 44.2%

  • Ok to offer a classroom course.

    Votes: 62 42.2%

  • Ok to offer a range course.

    Votes: 56 38.1%

  • The classroom course should be mandatory.

    Votes: 11 7.5%

  • The range course should be mandatory.

    Votes: 12 8.2%

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

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Total voters
    147
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:
Z

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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:
P

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
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.
 
T

Teddybear

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
51
Location
Raytown
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.
 
K

knight0334

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
52
Location
Brookville, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 
P

petrophase

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
300
Location
Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
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:
R

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
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: :banghead:

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: :banghead:
 
R

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
petrophase said:
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...
Click to expand...


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.
 
O

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 
S

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
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.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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:
Mr H

Mr H

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
286
Location
AA Co., Maryland, USA
"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.
 
Mr H

Mr H

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
286
Location
AA Co., Maryland, USA
slowfiveoh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
P

petrophase

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
300
Location
Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
REALteach4u said:
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: :banghead:

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: :banghead:
Click to expand...

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:
Jim675

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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?
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
palerider116 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Grapeshot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top