dcmdon
Regular Member
Yes & no, its a fact that firearm accidents are at an all time low, IMO largely because of NRA & other educational resources. I teach 6 to 12 people a month and most benefit greatly from it. Its not a tactical or marksmanship course, though shooting is involved, its more focused on making guns safe & safely handling them, we focus alot on muzzle awareness etc.
Should they be required? Not in my opinion, but it is the law here & while I think it does us good to refuse to do things not required by the law to satisfy local PDs I dont see much to be gained by ignoreing the actual statutory requirements.
Perfectly said.
To fight the fight against what you think are unreasonable statutory requirements while trying to get a PP is pointless. UNLESS you intend to take your denial to court and try to get the requirements ajudicated to be in violation of Article 1, Section 15 of the CT constitution.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
That may be a reasonable approach, but it will take a boat load of money. So if your goal is to get a PP, its a bad path. If your goal is to set legal precedent and create case law, its a great path. I guess it just depends on what your goals are.
Re firearms courses, I can unequivocally tell you that people come out of my PP classes more aware of what it takes to handle firearms safely than they are coming into the course. Is it beneficial. Yes. Should it be statutorily required? No.
In the flying world, there is a colloquial term for your pilots license that implies that you don't know a whole lot. When you get your first Single Engine, Land rating, its called a ***License to Learn.*** The implication being that you have just enough knowledge to safely go out and get more knowledge on your own. I explain to my pistol classes that that is our goal.