• 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.

Mandatory Training for OC and CC

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Personally, I think firearm safety training should be taught in grade school, as well as a basic introduction to the law and constitution.

The goal is laudable, but this is a terrible idea.

Testing shows that the government schools don't teach anything well except for political correctness. Why would I want to entrust them with teaching our most fundamental freedoms to a captive audience for 8+ unsupervised hours per day? This seems like a recipe for them teaching their own opinions ("this is a bolt-action rifle, and is the only firearm any responsible sportsman would ever want to own"), bad law (if private ccw instructors do it, why should be expect government mind-laundry technicians to be immune?), and bad constitutional principles ("the 2nd amendment is about target-shooting and hunting" no mention of personal protection or defense against tyranny).
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Personally, I think firearm safety training should be taught in grade school, as well as a basic introduction to the law and constitution....

I actually just read through this thread because I wanted to say the same thing. As for ManInBlack's comments, he is right as well, but it is the fundamental change in public education that fixes both problems.

Teaching the Constitution, as well as state laws is just as vital to everyday living as the 3Rs; as well as teaching basics of household electricity and other stuff that everyone is in constant contact with everyday. The fundamental change that needs to occur in public education has to be at the administrative and educator level. None of them are currently qualified because none of them possess the education they need to be passing on.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I actually just read through this thread because I wanted to say the same thing. As for ManInBlack's comments, he is right as well, but it is the fundamental change in public education that fixes both problems.

Teaching the Constitution, as well as state laws is just as vital to everyday living as the 3Rs; as well as teaching basics of household electricity and other stuff that everyone is in constant contact with everyday. The fundamental change that needs to occur in public education has to be at the administrative and educator level. None of them are currently qualified because none of them possess the education they need to be passing on.

Government education employees will not and can not teach true constitutional principles because it is directly hazardous to their economic interests. There is an inherent cognitive dissonance in trusting that government employees can ever be capable of faithfully teaching a document that is designed to restrain them.
 

SGB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
50
Location
Tallahassee, Florida, USA
For all the curb side lawyers...

You may want to look at what the 4th US Circuit thinks of some of that kind of police work.

Fourth Circuit Won't Tolerate Terry Search Abuses


United States v. Powell

cpr0026.gif
 
Last edited:

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
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?

No. That would be unconstitutional.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Hit here.
I think LEOs are trained enough to fulfill their positions. There's no need in violence.

Troll? "Hit here." and "there's no need in violence." don't really make any sense. Not to mention that your flac->mp3 bit is actually a part of your post and not a sig and that this is your first post and your post looks more and more like a troll/advertisement post. If it isn't please clarify what you mean.
 

kimbercarrier

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
721
Location
hampton, Virginia, USA
The reason for this thread was that the general public needs training so as to not be threat to themselves or others. Where are the statistics that show civilians are shooting innocents? Or that we are a risk to the general public. I've heard this before but no one ever has shown any stats to back them up. It's just like the argument that open carrying a gun will make you a target. I can only think of 1 or 2 incidents that that can be shown and that is not a justification to only conceal carry.

I believe you should get training but in no way support mandatory training to exercise my right.
 

XD9mmFMJ

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
82
Location
Florida
Should someone have to take training to carry a gun? NO. NEVER. EVER. No discussion. A right isn't debatable. It's not something that is GRANTED by anyone, or comes with any conditions. I seriously don't see why there are pages of discussion. There is NOTHING TO DISCUSS. It's not YOUR business what someone else does with themselves. Rights are naturally ours, and don't require your consent, training, or anything else.

All of this banter back and forth is useless and unproductive. Anyone looking to debate about RIGHTS can only be seen as an enemy with ulterior motives, because there is nothing to talk about. I know many of you think this is all just friendly conversation, but it's not. Be careful who you decide to engage in conversation about things like this, because anyone even making mention of going against your rights is trying to take them away. Many of you may be naive to it, but there is a very real threat to our freedoms being carried out daily, and those trying to invent another side to "rights" are part of it. I won't say anything more, but I will leave you with this:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through...all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero
 

DWCook

Activist Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
432
Location
Lenexa, Kansas
Okay I'm seriously confused, how can you "check a weapons serial". How does that work when in Kansas private gun sales are legal and honestly the history of the firearm can still be tacked to the previous owner who purchased it from an actual dealer. For example; I bought a used 1911 from another individual, not a dealer. How would it work if when they "look up" the serial if my name is not tied to the firearm only the previous owner? This may be a dumb question by some mean, but I am just confused.

When buying from an actual dealer when purchasing the firearm, correct me if I'm wrong but that serial is now tied to you. I am confused so don't take my questions as me being a dumb dumb.
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
Ryan, I think you're doing a good job here. You're presenting your side of the issues very well and for the most part, respectfully.

Personally, I'm glad an LEO is here presenting their opinions and trying, at least, to fit right in with other gun owners on that level. Some may see the "big badge" sign over your head and use it as an avenue to vent and others may not. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. I'd rather deal with the LEOs here simply as fellow gun owners and define them by our mutual interest in that than define them by their chosen profession. Sadly, there are some that simply cannot let it go at that, and there's a certain part of the population who are simply not going to allow for that lol.

Obviously, there are going to be differences in opinions as well as citations from all over the many states. In the natural course of conversation, some of these things get very specific and often times confusing. I would hope that all posters would do their best to understand the dynamics of such topics and understand that different laws are in effect in different jurisdictions, while also respecting the nature of federal laws and cases which affect these procedures.

But, and I'm simply observing now, when you use terms like "curb side lawyers", you're going to set of brush fires. Just sayin'...

When you use terms like that I guess we can assume that you've passed the bar exam in your state and are actively working as an attorney. That is the case, right?

If not, then I'd ask that you don't attempt to brush aside other people's knowledge like that. Some of us are simple helicopter mechanics with an interest in self-presevation. Meaning, we like to stay informed of current and past laws concerning gun ownership, as well as the establishment of case law and legal precedent as they apply. Others, however, actually do have their law degrees and are actively working as lawyers.

It's pretty simple, really. If you don't like people assuming that you are a statist pig robot who mindlessly brutalizes innocent citizens with your night stick, then others don't like to be denigrated and have their knowledge dismissed while being described as "curb side lawyers".

Other than that, I do wish to convey my thanks to you for your chosen profession. There's many who appreciate LEOs who do their jobs well. I also am glad you're here as a fellow gun enthusiast. In that regard I think you'll find this a decent enough place.

Don't worry about the ones who are going to come at you simply for being an LEO. The ignore feature works pretty well here if you haven't used it yet. :)

well said. im glad to hear from LEO on here.
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
There is not breach of search or seizure there...I didn't take the gun from person, I'm just ensuring the gun hasn't been placed on the stolen firearms section of the NCIC database...same procedure used to ensure the vehicles are declared stolen.

How can you check to see if it hasn't been placed on the stolen firearms section without (Taking it from me) seizing it? I'm certainly not going to place my hand on my firearm while being questioned by an LEO. Given that, YOU have TAKEN it from ME. What if I have the serial number taped over? That's not defaceing it and I believe you can do that in some states (But I could be wrong on that). The vehicle being stolen? You probably already know that before you come to my er, uh the drivers window.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
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.

First, I have to ask what academy is doing paramilitary training?

So much for all that training.
http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...21st-century-deadly-force-training-for-police

One large agency’s officers scored a gunfight hit rate of just 11 percent during a 10-year period I analyzed. That’s a staggering statistic, but another number was even more shocking. Though the sample was admittedly small, the bad guys in those incidents also scored an 11 percent hit rate.
Their Academy Commander summed it up perfectly: “My officers get a hundred hours of firearms training in the academy and quarterly qualifications thereafter, but are hitting at the same rate as felons with no formal training? We should save all the ammunition, because our training program seems to be worthless!”

http://www.policeone.com/close-quar...Own-Guns-Likely-Will-Not-Change-R-I-Policies/
There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.


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 [it].

This sounds like projection to me. Just because you are uncomfortable you believe other should feel the same and or should have to undergo special training.
So, are you saying the badge/radio make you comfortable (brave) while on duty?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty,...

In that case, I question your personal fortitude to carry a weapon at ANY time.

That said, I will defend to the death your right to choose to disarm yourself. The corollary is obvious.
 

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
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?


wow i didnt actully see how much flack you were catching till i started reading more post. to be honest the idea really wouldnt work anyway. being that your a cop whos had trainning and i have been in military service i think you will know what im talking about when i say trainning isnt done when you walk out of the door. you have to keep trainning every week. so you want one manditory trainning class and qual for me to to carry a gun? thats cake. its like crammin for a exam. you know just as much as i do there officers after 6 months of weapons trainning they think they are good and dont have to train anymore. not putting you down cause theres people in the military that do the same. catch my drift? so basically to answer your question mine would be no. whos going to make up these qual courses?
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
wow i didnt actully see how much flack you were catching till i started reading more post. to be honest the idea really wouldnt work anyway. being that your a cop whos had trainning and i have been in military service i think you will know what im talking about when i say trainning isnt done when you walk out of the door. you have to keep trainning every week. so you want one manditory trainning class and qual for me to to carry a gun? thats cake. its like crammin for a exam. you know just as much as i do there officers after 6 months of weapons trainning they think they are good and dont have to train anymore. not putting you down cause theres people in the military that do the same. catch my drift? so basically to answer your question mine would be no. whos going to make up these qual courses?

The CC class I took was given by an LEO LT. . The LT. stated how it is so important to practice, practice, practice and train. He said he spent many hours on the firing range and that many officers only practiced a couple times a year (usually before having to qualify).
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
I think that anyone who wants to purchase and use a printer, or have an internet connection should have to take First Amendment Training, to ensure that they are safe in their use of free speech and the Press.

Also, anyone who joins a church should have to take a test to ensure they understand the religious rights of all people, and are conversant and knowledgeable in their own religion.

And lastly, anyone who wants to practice a religion but NOT belong to a church should be classified as a "domestic terrorist", and be put on a watch list so they can be monitored to make sure they are only engaging in religious practices that are socially acceptable and don't frighten the soccer moms in their neighborhood...

<sarcasm OFF>
 
Top