Mandatory Training for OC and CC

Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

The reason I ask is because I believe the greatest argument against open carry/concealed carry is that the training requirements for open/concealed carry is severely lacking. Even obtaining a CCP is but a simple written test (sometimes multiple choice). Being a LEO, I attended a six month academy, where I was trained paramilitary style in shooting, retention, case law, situational awareness, defensive tactice, medical, and a range of other areas that I had to pass in order to be able to carry openly. This is accompanied by requals and yearly inservices of all skills. Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty, even though I'm covered by H.R. 218. Constrast this with Joe Citizen who can simply buy gun and holster and carry throughout his state without any type of physical or legal training. I know many citizens (especially on this site) feel it is their duty and responsibility to train and learn about legal precedent as to what they can and can't do, but its not required. So should there be mandatory training for citizens who wish to carry?

Did you have training to type on this forum? Did you have training to not allow police in without a warrant? A right is just that a right. It is not a conditional right.

RyanC1985 said:

Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

Click to expand...

No. Which part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?

RyanC1985 said:

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

Click to expand...

Only if you also support mandatory training to vote, pray, and not testify against yourself.

RyanC1985 said:

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

Click to expand...

No.

The reason I ask is because I believe the greatest argument against open carry/concealed carry is that the training requirements for open/concealed carry is severely lacking.

Click to expand...

It is a RIGHT to keep and bear arms; not a right to keep and bear arms only if you have certified training.

Even obtaining a CCP is but a simple written test (sometimes multiple choice). Being a LEO, I attended a six month academy, where I was trained paramilitary style in shooting, retention, case law, situational awareness, defensive tactice, medical, and a range of other areas that I had to pass in order to be able to carry openly. This is accompanied by requals and yearly inservices of all skills. Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty, even though I'm covered by H.R. 218.

Click to expand...

Depending on your state. Every state has different requirements for obtaining CCPs, CWPs, CHLs, whatever. Being a LEO, how often do you train with your firearm? How often do you shoot, and how much do you shoot?

Constrast this with Joe Citizen who can simply buy gun and holster and carry throughout his state without any type of physical or legal training. I know many citizens (especially on this site) feel it is their duty and responsibility to train and learn about legal precedent as to what they can and can't do, but its not required. So should there be mandatory training for citizens who wish to carry?

Click to expand...

Again, NO. And the way you say "Joe Citizen" comes across as if you believe in a class seperation, a "us versus them" mentality, if you will. Cops are citizens too. Or should we all be referred and defined by our professions rather than as American citizens?

To sum up: NO, no and NO. Personal responsibility is a great thing, and most people use it when left to their own lives.

It's a difficult question.

On one hand I'd want the people who are members of the same community as me to be responsible when using various tools such as weapons or vehicles and government mandated licenses seems like the straightforward and the most practical solution. On the other hand I abhor the thought of being a slave to someone else's rules and permissions to do whatever and hold the strong belief that everyone should be free to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt anyone else or their property.

If we didn't have a government I believe through evolution the OP's question would get solved by insurance companies. At first, when people had a misfortune with any tool in public and caused an injury or damage to property these people would need to get sued and the victims substantially financially reimbursed. The financial burden of accidental damage should be so grave that it would force people to buy insurance before using the tool. Insurance companies could then offer different price for different kind of insurance packages. There could be a package that would financially incentivize the insurers to obtain some sort of proof in proficiency in the use of a given tool such as a weapon.

So in a perfectly free society everyone would be free to carry a gun but if they messed up they'd be significantly financially liable therefor it would become prudent to seek insurance for the use of a gun and if one wanted to get the insurance cheaply one would have to take classes in proficiency in the use of a gun mandated by the insurance company.


I realize this answer is not really what the OP was looking for but I wanted to share it anyway because I see to many people stuck in this false paradigm of either government tyranny or complete chaos which of course is a complete fallacy and a false choice.

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

This is all I need. Section 13 of my state's constitution. I do spend time and money training and learning about my state's laws regarding the carrying of firearms and their use in my defense. But the bottom line is what the Founders deemed to be written and cast in stone.

RyanC1985 said:

Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

Click to expand...

If this is OK, then I expect that people shouldn't have a problem with a training and certification requirement to own a laser printer, a camera, a religious text, a printing press, a webcam, an internet connection, a PA system, a karaoke machine, or a guitar amplifier.

They can have my letterpress and type when they pry them from my cold dead fingers...

Yes. Except even training wouldn't make a lot of people on this board fit to carry.

donny said:

Yes. Except even training wouldn't make a lot of people on this board fit to carry.

Click to expand...

The same could be said about 1A rights, and certain people on this forum...

donny said:

Yes. Except even training wouldn't make a lot of people on this board fit to carry.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you've appointed yourself to determine who is fit to exercise their inalienable rights.

The one right that says " shall not be infringed" and even some gun owners want to stomp all over it!

RyanC1985 said:

Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

The reason I ask is because I believe the greatest argument against open carry/concealed carry is that the training requirements for open/concealed carry is severely lacking. Even obtaining a CCP is but a simple written test (sometimes multiple choice). Being a LEO, I attended a six month academy, where I was trained paramilitary style in shooting, retention, case law, situational awareness, defensive tactice, medical, and a range of other areas that I had to pass in order to be able to carry openly. This is accompanied by requals and yearly inservices of all skills. Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty, even though I'm covered by H.R. 218. Constrast this with Joe Citizen who can simply buy gun and holster and carry throughout his state without any type of physical or legal training. I know many citizens (especially on this site) feel it is their duty and responsibility to train and learn about legal precedent as to what they can and can't do, but its not required. So should there be mandatory training for citizens who wish to carry?

Click to expand...

No it shouldn't be required. It is a right and by REQUIRING training it is no longer a right, but instead a priviledge. Also this starts down the "slippery slope" of gun control. After all, who decides what training should be required? And then what happens when another person comes along and thinks that much training isn't enough? And then who starts paying for all of this training? You very quickly end up with a situation where the "right" requires too much "training" and is too costly for most people to exercise. I mean my parents raised me from a child in dealing with guns. I knew more about firearms at age 18 than many cops/military members. But yet if "training" were mandatory then all of that real training I got wouldn't count and that's another issue with mandatory "training;" it doesn't count anything that isn't "official."

Now, you're a cop. You should be trained on these things as part of your profession. After all you are more likely to need to use it and you couldn't do your job if you can't properly use it. But this is an issue of your profession, not of exercising a right. Just as how a journalist "should" be trained in journalism (though this isn't the case anymore) not because they are exercising their 1A right, but because their profession needs the training. Also as someone who is "supposed" to uphold and enforce the laws you should be better trained than the average citizen. After all, how can you enforce the laws if you don't know them? Oh wait, that would be "qualified immunity" but that's a different issue and I digress. But don't let the fact that you had to have training to become a cop jade your view on exercising one's Constitutional right.

Finally, the fact that there has to be so much training on all the laws is another issue. The only laws on the matter should be using a weapon (ANY weapon or "arms" and not just a gun) in a crime gets you extra time and that you are authorized to use your weapon when you feel reasonably threatened for your life or grievous bodily injury. Outside of that the only other law that I can see being "needed" is if one is allowed to defend property with deadly force and if defending others extends to pets (I'm all for deadly force for defending one's property/pets but others aren't and it is something to be left to the states imo). All of these various laws on where I can't carry, GFSZ, etc are BS. And if I'm not able to carry somewhere that is public property (private property falls under property rights and doesn't conflict with 2A rights) then they had better provide PROPER security and not just a sign saying no guns.

jayspapa said:

The one right that says " shall not be infringed" and even some gun owners want to stomp all over it!

Click to expand...

That should tell you something.

If it is a matter of training than why do police have a higher ratio of collateral damage than those acting in pure self defense or are not in the position of a LEO?

Just something to mull over.

Absolutely NOT!

LEOs are trained to go into situations where they are more than likely to encounter violence and the need to at least draw, if not shoot, their firearm. Very few "ordinary citizens" (as opposed to just what makes LEOs or anybody else "extraordinary"?) intentionally go into a situation that is known to be dangerous. A small number do find themselves in such a situation in spite of their desire and attempt to avoid it.

That (among many other reasons) is why cops go through the sort of training the OP describes. Some states require that the basics of self-defense law be covered in a formal training process before you get your permission slip to carry concealed. No state (that I am aware of) requires any training to carry openly. It all seems to go back to the notion of who intentionally goes into situations and who tries to avoid situations where it may become necessary to shoot another person.

While I would rather that everyone (not just gun owners, or just gun carriers) receive training in the skillset of shooting a handgun at a human being who is actively trying to cause death or serious bodily harm, I understand that it aint gonna happen. Seeing as how low the probability is that any given non-LEO gun owner will get into a them-or-me life-or-death shooting situation, I'm OK with them winging it. At least the non-LEO can be helf both criminally and civilly liable for bullets that go where they should not. LEOs, with all their vaunted training, get a free pass.

LEOs train regularly to do stuff they encounter regularly. Some gun owners/users train at some competence level and some frequency to do stuff they may never in their lives encounter. Which group "needs" to train?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

SNIP

...No state (that I am aware of) requires any training to carry openly...

Click to expand...

Per the OCDO map there's plenty of states that require a License to OC. So while they might not require OC specific training, they still require training (CC permit) to be able to OC.

Outside of that I agree completely with your post.

Aknazer said:

Per the OCDO map there's plenty of states that require a License to OC. So while they might not require OC specific training, they still require training (CC permit) to be able to OC.

Outside of that I agree completely with your post.

Click to expand...

this is true. TN doesn't make a distinction between OC and CC, which is reflected in the name of our license: Handgun Carry Permit. The literature and laws make no mention of CC, and we must have the license to do either.

I would love for it to be like MI, NC, WA, VA and many other states where they at least have constitutional OC, but alas, here I am.

"Infringed" seems to mean different things to different people...

The question was, "Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?" It seems most of the folks here believe that to require such training would violate Amendment II of our Constitution, and I can understand their concerns in that regard. However, my life has been dedicated to playing 'devil's advocate', and why should today be any different?

Definition of INFRINGE (courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

2: obsolete: defeat, frustrate

My problem would be that there are those who would drive themselves - and everybody around them - absolutely nuts trying to define (or, in some cases, redefine) the word "standardized"... but, I'll come back to that later.

I don't see requiring training ("standardized" probably at the state level - it would be a 10th Amendment "States rights" issue) as an infringement upon our right to "keep and bear arms". Most of the things we keep, we keep in or around our domicile. If I am "keeping" guns, I certainly won't have them all on my person. And, in this instance anyway, the "bearing of arms" is synonymous with "the carrying of arms" (the available definitions of the word "bear" deal primarily with large, fur-covered omnivores). I don't see anything in Amendment II that protects, permits - or even encourages - the unskilled presentation and discharge of those arms. Do we simply assume those abilities are invisibly included, or 'understood', in 2A? I would support standardized training of some kind, HOWEVER... there would have to be a stipulation that no goverment agency (at whatever level) may charge additional fees or taxes for the conduct of such training and certification, above those already paid for government services. As I see it, to charge for such training and certification is where the 'infringement' would come in. Such training would have to be provided pro bono (for public good, not to be confused with Cher's late ex) and therefore supporting our 2nd Amendment right.

Now, back to the word "standardized". If the word itself were standardized, there would be little discussion over its meaning! But, it ain't, so there. Here's what I believe comes closest to what we would take as our meaning when used with the object word "training": Standardized: verb (used with object) 1. to bring to or make of an established standard size, weight , quality, strength, or the like. (Color added for emphasis - we would be looking for consistent quality in this type of training). The language which we generally refer to as "English" is actually American English, but it is no more or no less complex than is British English and - because of its complexity - we lean toward disagreement over the semantics of an argument rather than its intent.

Anyway, my bottom line on the question is, I don't believe a training requirement alone would be an 'infringement' upon 2A for the above reasons. I do believe that placing any sort of fee or tax on that training would then make the requirement an infringement. Pax!