Mandatory Training for OC and CC

[ManInBlack]

Nationwide standardization? No thanks. Those of us in free states would inevitably lose out in the compromise with statists and leftocrats to get such a thing done.

I'll take the 10th Amendment for $1000, Alex.

 

[hermannr]

There is a national standard, but no governmental entity sticks by it any more...it is "shall not be infringed" and "the PEOPLE"

IMHO: IF a governmental entity allows unrestricted, unlicensed, OC, then they are abiding the constitution. If there are ANY restrictoins/requirements, then they are not.

Do you need to worry about incarcerated people (penal, or mental)? No. they lost their rights when they were incarcerated...and while incarcerated are now under the (bound) protection of the government. All others must shift for themselves for their own self defence.

If a state government wishes to restrict/license concealed weapons is not a problem to me, as long as there is a mode that the PEOPLE can use for their own personal self defence. As was told me when I was younger (40's-50's) "people up to no good conceal"ed their firearms, so yes, I might go along doing a good chech on those that wish to conceal.

It is amazing what you retain from when you were young...

To our officer friendly's in this discussion....Can you cite (court case with conviction, that was upheld if appealed) one instance where a person (other than Law enforcement) has ever been convicted of committing a felony while Open Carrying a pistol in a proper holster? I'll bet you cannot...Why? It was stated above...people up to no good hide their weapon...

 

[Dreamer]

The statistics bear it out.

People with LOTS of firearms training (LEOs) are actually 5-7 times MORE likely than the general public to kill or seriously hurt an innocent person with a firearm.

So by using the "public safety/greater good" argument, training actually INCREASE the possibility that a person will kill or injure an innocent person, and actually make a gun carrier MORE of a threat to the general population.

WTFU people.

Mandatory Training = Infringement and is clearly unconstitutional. And the statistics prove that the people with the MOST training (on average) are actually a MUCH greater threat to the lives of innocent people than people with minimal training or no training at all...

 

[Citizen]

Some of the comments have pointed out the fact that requiring "mandatory" training "infringes" on a "right", and rightly so. The problem is, without training, they are too great a danger to others and themselves. So, while it shouldn't be mandatory, it HIGHLY ADVISABLE (as well as desireable) for some training.
Some of you may not like this, but I would also suggest that most people that want to carry, should be checked out mentally in the same way they check for barred individuals (felons, spousal abuse, etc.) to see if there are any major attitude control problems that would cause these individuals to be too high a risk to the general public.

Since others have addressed various angles of these sorts of views, I'll just hit one or two angles that seem to be unmentioned to this point.

1. I consider that the deep underlying problem here is posing solutions that leave out a critical consideration. That consideration is that government has proven over and over again, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it cannot be trusted with rights.

As if goverment's infringements are not enough, please also consider what it cost to get the rights we have--800 years of blood and treasure wresting one little right or a piece of a right at a time away from government. Almighty God, but it has been expensive beyond belief. Just based on the cost alone, rights are incredibly valuable.

Also, consider: if government could be trusted with rights, why did it fight so hard against recognizing them? The very fact that government did resist recognizing rights is weighty proof that government cannot be trusted with rights. Weighty proof indeed.

There is a very simple explanation for government resistance to rights. A right is an impediment to government. It limits their freedom. A right is not necessary to govern-ers accomplishing whatever it is they want to do in any given situation. I forget which philospher I learned that last sentence from.

So, to pose a solution involving government oversight or regulation without considering how government might mis-regulate a right, without giving full weight to the evidence that government will mis-regulate a right, is just asking, begging, crying for abuse. And, remember, government didn't give up rights in the first place without a lot of trouble, sometimes only after bloodshed. It isn't going to give back easily whatever right or piece of a right you turn back over to it. Once the abuses and mis-regulation starts, you're not going to get that piece of right back easily. (That one I do know--Patrick Henry in his Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech.)

2. JTHunter,

Who decides what is too much risk? Too much risk relative to what? Why should we turn over to government the power to make those decisions? We already have state laws against arming imbeciles and the insane? Why is more needed? It wasn't needed previously? Is it not too much risk to let government have this additional power?

Its not a question of whether your suggestion has a laudable goal. Its a question of whether we dare give government that power. Slippery slope. First it was NFA. Then in the hysteria of the Kennedy and King assissinations, it was GCA1968. Then the machine gun registry was closed in (1986?) Each little step building on the previous one after the previous one had become accepted in society.

Why the prior restraint? Why not wait until a crime is committed? When will we begin testing fiances to prevent domestic violence? "Hey, you can't get married until you pass our mental health test." When will we begin testing restaurant cooks because, you know, they use long knives?

And, none of that speaks to the uselessness of the psycho-babblers information. Do we dare let them decide what the test is? What pass//fail is? They can't even agree amongst themselves whether person X is competent to stand trial, likely to re-offend, etc. They make up their mental diseases by committee vote (no joke, check out how mental conditions get listed in their DSM--Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). One of the representatives of National Institute of Mental Health is on record in front of Congress actually saying they do not know what causes mental illness. Huh!?! But you guys (shrinks) talk in learned tones and say "this is what's wrong with you" and suck down vast amounts of money. Without actually knowing the cause of mental illness? And, they "treat" people on this basis? Meaning, they can't really know whether their "treament" is going to succeed or is even appropriate because they don't know the cause. This is not a reliable bunch into whose hands we want to place the self-defense rights of other human beings, nor our own.

 

[Citizen]

The statistics bear it out.

People with LOTS of firearms training (LEOs) are actually 5-7 times MORE likely than the general public to kill or seriously hurt an innocent person with a firearm.

So by using the "public safety/greater good" argument, training actually INCREASE the possibility that a person will kill or injure an innocent person, and actually make a gun carrier MORE of a threat to the general population.

WTFU people.

Mandatory Training = Infringement and is clearly unconstitutional. And the statistics prove that the people with the MOST training (on average) are actually a MUCH greater threat to the lives of innocent people than people with minimal training or no training at all...

You sly devil.

That is a great argument. Until you factor in that cops go around with daily scares from their LTs to "be careful", "there is no such thing as a routine stop, they are all potentially lethal", "make sure they keep their hands on the steering wheel", etc., etc., etc. Then, your regularly scheduled trainers reinforce it. Then police magazines and journals reinforce it. And, on and on.

Of course they're jumpy. They have danger! drummed into them. Even though what? 50? out of 900,000 cops are killed on the job each year. And, plenty of those are car wrecks and people hitting them while traffic stopped--stuff that doesn't involve gun play. Meaning the actual level of danger is so low cops didn't even make the top ten most dangerous professions in the Bureau of Labor Statistics last year.

A steady diet of scare seems to me a curiously dangerous way to solve complacency. That's what I think is going on---the commanders and trainers are trying to solve complacency. By scaring them. Rather than just saying, "Stay relaxed, stay alert, and pay attention and 99.9% of the time you'll see it coming in time, except for deliberate ambushes."

 

[Gil223]

This certainly seems to be a "hot button" issue...

And it seems to have take a slight divergence from "Mandatory Training..." toward age, maturity, and (somehow) the rights of convicted felons. Maturity does not neccessarily come with age, although for most people it does appear to... at some point and in varying degrees. "Maturity" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the quality or state of being mature; especially: full development". The term "full development" may be a bit ambiguous for some folks here because it is somewhat all encompassing - a "big picture" kind of thing. Full development is not dependent upon age, but age is a part of the equation. As for 12 year olds OC'ing, here's a tidbit fresh off the presses:
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas authorities were investigating the death of a 16-year-old girl as a homicide after her younger brother confessed to fatally shooting her this weekend, a local sheriff said Monday."
The sheriff went on to say that it did not appear to be an accidental shooting, but that her 15 year old brother gave no motive for the shooting. How little provocation does it take for one sibling to take the life of his/her brother or sister? One characteristic of maturity is acting responsibly, and another is the ability to control one's emotions. Should this 15 year old have had unsupervised access to a firearm? Apparently not. Are there 15 year olds who are "fully developed" enough to have unsupervised access to a firearm? I'm sure there are. But, who makes that determination, and who pays the consequences - besides the victim(s) - if that decision is wrong? Does anybody remember Columbine? Children are not expected to always make good decisions. Poor judgment is an inherent part of being a child! It's part of the process of growing up, and hopefully, of eventually becoming "fully developed".
It has also been suggested here that convicted felons should be allowed to OC. I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of an "aggravated crime of violence" should be allowed to even own a firearm, much less OC or CC! By their actions they have proven that they are volatile, untrustworthy and a potential danger to others. While we're at it, let's just ignore public safety and the responsibilities of living in a society, and allow the mentally ill/mentally challenged and mentally insufficient to carry firearms too! Society's rules are just too pesky and inconvenient... total anarchy should cure that. And yes, sarcasm is just one of a number of services I freely offer...

 

[Citizen]

SNIP "LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas authorities were investigating the death of a 16-year-old girl as a homicide after her younger brother confessed to fatally shooting her this weekend, a local sheriff said Monday."
The sheriff went on to say that it did not appear to be an accidental shooting, but that her 15 year old brother gave no motive for the shooting. How little provocation does it take for one sibling to take the life of his/her brother or sister? One characteristic of maturity is acting responsibly, and another is the ability to control one's emotions. Should this 15 year old have had unsupervised access to a firearm? Apparently not. Are there 15 year olds who are "fully developed" enough to have unsupervised access to a firearm? I'm sure there are. But, who makes that determination, and who pays the consequences - besides the victim(s) - if that decision is wrong? Does anybody remember Columbine? Children are not expected to always make good decisions. Poor judgment is an inherent part of being a child! It's part of the process of growing up, and hopefully, of eventually becoming "fully developed".

If you accept the anti-gunner's "reasons" without a super-thorough inspection, you've already lost half the battle.

A very good question to ask yourself is why suddenly (1990's) start restricting guns from kids--by law. It wasn't all that many years ago kids took their .22 and went hunting, or guns were left loaded around the house. Yes, there were tragic events. But, people seemed to realize you can't prevent tragedy by passing laws.

Now, look where the kids-and-guns thing has gotten to. Zero tolerance. Kids suspended from school for holding a chicken tender like a gun and going "bang." Or, making a drawing of a gun. Or, his green army man diorama having guns. Some adults are so bent on preventing tragedy, and using government to do it, that we've reached a point where...words fail me.

The issue is not whether the goals are laudable--they are. The problem is using government to do it.

 

[JoeSparky]

It was suggested earlier that the Prepurchase qualification check is "training". I disagree! It is merely a check to see if the purchaser is not a member of the "prohibited" class or rather one whose right to keep and bear as has already been infringed!
Manditory training before one can carry? Hell no! Have training available? Absolutely! And encouraged!

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Require? Absolutely not.

Highly suggest? Absolutely.

 

[readyfire]

I second Techno Weenie Require NO-Do I suggest HEAVILY!!!!!And I express Heavily

 

[Aknazer]

And it seems to have take a slight divergence from "Mandatory Training..." toward age, maturity, and (somehow) the rights of convicted felons. Maturity does not neccessarily come with age, although for most people it does appear to... at some point and in varying degrees. "Maturity" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the quality or state of being mature; especially: full development". The term "full development" may be a bit ambiguous for some folks here because it is somewhat all encompassing - a "big picture" kind of thing. Full development is not dependent upon age, but age is a part of the equation. As for 12 year olds OC'ing, here's a tidbit fresh off the presses:
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas authorities were investigating the death of a 16-year-old girl as a homicide after her younger brother confessed to fatally shooting her this weekend, a local sheriff said Monday."
The sheriff went on to say that it did not appear to be an accidental shooting, but that her 15 year old brother gave no motive for the shooting. How little provocation does it take for one sibling to take the life of his/her brother or sister? One characteristic of maturity is acting responsibly, and another is the ability to control one's emotions. Should this 15 year old have had unsupervised access to a firearm? Apparently not. Are there 15 year olds who are "fully developed" enough to have unsupervised access to a firearm? I'm sure there are. But, who makes that determination, and who pays the consequences - besides the victim(s) - if that decision is wrong? Does anybody remember Columbine? Children are not expected to always make good decisions. Poor judgment is an inherent part of being a child! It's part of the process of growing up, and hopefully, of eventually becoming "fully developed".
It has also been suggested here that convicted felons should be allowed to OC. I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of an "aggravated crime of violence" should be allowed to even own a firearm, much less OC or CC! By their actions they have proven that they are volatile, untrustworthy and a potential danger to others. While we're at it, let's just ignore public safety and the responsibilities of living in a society, and allow the mentally ill/mentally challenged and mentally insufficient to carry firearms too! Society's rules are just too pesky and inconvenient... total anarchy should cure that. And yes, sarcasm is just one of a number of services I freely offer...

The point of prison/jail isn't just to get "justice" on one who has committed a crime; it is also to rehabilitate that individual and have them be a productive member of society. As such if someone is expected to just commit another crime after prison then the "justice" system has failed and that person should not be free.

So the issue isn't in believing that a prior felon should have all of their rights restored, the issue is in our government not properly rehabilitating these people prior to their release. Two other points; how well have current laws prevented "prohibited persons" from getting weapons and when did you last hear of an OCer (or properly holstered CCer) who wasn't a cop commit a crime? As such, why are you so scared of a prior felon choosing to OC after they have served their time?

 

[Gil223]

The point of prison/jail isn't just to get "justice" on one who has committed a crime; it is also to rehabilitate that individual and have them be a productive member of society. As such if someone is expected to just commit another crime after prison then the "justice" system has failed and that person should not be free.

So the issue isn't in believing that a prior felon should have all of their rights restored, the issue is in our government not properly rehabilitating these people prior to their release. Two other points; how well have current laws prevented "prohibited persons" from getting weapons and when did you last hear of an OCer (or properly holstered CCer) who wasn't a cop commit a crime? As such, why are you so scared of a prior felon choosing to OC after they have served their time?

Thanks, Aknazer - you made my argument for me! You state the point of prison "is also to rehabilitate that individual and have them be a productive member of society." And how's that workin' for us? With an 80% recidivism rate, the rehabilitation seems to be less than successful (and I'm beinng kind with that evaluation - it's an abyssmal failure)!. And, I'm not "scared of a prior felon choosing to OC" - if there should be a problem there I can handle it. To save you the effort of re-reading, what I said was "I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of an "aggravated crime of violence" should be allowed to even own a firearm, much less OC or CC!" The key to my reasoning there is the phrase aggravated crime of violence. The generally accepted definition of an "aggravated crime of violence" (aka: aggravated felony) is "a crime in which a deadly weapon is used". You can't honestly believe that upon completion of a violent felon's sentence, he should be re-issued his weapon(s) as he departs the prison campus... or can you?
Then you ask, "...how well have current laws prevented "prohibited persons" from getting weapons". The majority of "prohibited persons" are de facto criminals, and they are called criminals because they commit crimes - like ignoring laws.
For many people, anything that may - even on the most distant horizons of possibility, stretching the imagination to the point of incredulity - slightly infringe upon our sacred right to own and carry our handguns is an abhorrent thought. These are the folks who put the fan in the word fanatic, and they frequently do more harm than good, by not recognizing that there are opinions in the world that will conflict with their own.
"In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king..."

 

[Aknazer]

Thanks, Aknazer - you made my argument for me! You state the point of prison "is also to rehabilitate that individual and have them be a productive member of society." And how's that workin' for us? With an 80% recidivism rate, the rehabilitation seems to be less than successful (and I'm beinng kind with that evaluation - it's an abyssmal failure)!. And, I'm not "scared of a prior felon choosing to OC" - if there should be a problem there I can handle it. To save you the effort of re-reading, what I said was "I don't believe that anyone who has been convicted of an "aggravated crime of violence" should be allowed to even own a firearm, much less OC or CC!" The key to my reasoning there is the phrase aggravated crime of violence. The generally accepted definition of an "aggravated crime of violence" (aka: aggravated felony) is "a crime in which a deadly weapon is used". You can't honestly believe that upon completion of a violent felon's sentence, he should be re-issued his weapon(s) as he departs the prison campus... or can you?
Then you ask, "...how well have current laws prevented "prohibited persons" from getting weapons". The majority of "prohibited persons" are de facto criminals, and they are called criminals because they commit crimes - like ignoring laws.
For many people, anything that may - even on the most distant horizons of possibility, stretching the imagination to the point of incredulity - slightly infringe upon our sacred right to own and carry our handguns is an abhorrent thought. These are the folks who put the fan in the word fanatic, and they frequently do more harm than good, by not recognizing that there are opinions in the world that will conflict with their own.
"In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king..."

I'm on my phone so I'm not going to try and edit/explain everything. Yes I agree that the justice system has almost completely failed the people. But I disagree with you on the aggravated felon never getting their rights back. With a properly working justice system (key word being working) they should get their rights back. That isn't to say that they shouldn't serve a probation period after being released but still a part of their sentence, but someone who has been rehabilitated should get their rights back.

The issue is that the system doesn't rehabilitate people.

 

[RyanC1985]

Wow, when I posted this I didn't think it would get the attention its getting...not too bad for my first thread on the site. It looks like the majority seems to favor no mandatory training for law abiding citizens for OC or CC for that matter but highly encouraged. I guess the middle of the road approach would be to find ways to encourage gun carriers to become proficient with their weapons without going as far as to make it mandatory. Any suggestions on how to accomplish this? Obviously a very heated topic...Thanks for participating.

 

[William Fisher]

I've not rad all 114 posts so I may be repeating something here. A big problem I see with it (at least the mandated course for OC) is that it would justify an LEO to question anyone SHE/HE sees OCing just for the Hell of it.

 

[RyanC1985]

I've not rad all 114 posts so I may be repeating something here. A big problem I see with it (at least the mandated course for OC) is that it would justify an LEO to question anyone SHE/HE sees OCing just for the Hell of it.[/QUOTE

It probably depends on the officer and the situation. I've never stopped someone simply for carrying. The individual either had to be acting suspiciously or I knew from previous encounters with the individual that he or she had a felony record.

 

[William Fisher]

I've not rad all 114 posts so I may be repeating something here. A big problem I see with it (at least the mandated course for OC) is that it would justify an LEO to question anyone SHE/HE sees OCing just for the Hell of it.[/QUOTE

It probably depends on the officer and the situation. I've never stopped someone simply for carrying. The individual either had to be acting suspiciously or I knew from previous encounters with the individual that he or she had a felony record.

Then you are the 99%. It is that 1% (IMHO) that behave like Despots that I'm concerned about.

 

[rotorhead]

I've not rad all 114 posts so I may be repeating something here. A big problem I see with it (at least the mandated course for OC) is that it would justify an LEO to question anyone SHE/HE sees OCing just for the Hell of it.[/QUOTE

It probably depends on the officer and the situation. I've never stopped someone simply for carrying. The individual either had to be acting suspiciously or I knew from previous encounters with the individual that he or she had a felony record.

I truly thank you for your discretion and honesty within the realm of your job. Great job, and I ask that you continue in much the same manner.

Sadly, this isn't always the case with other officers and the standards for others are much lower, depending on their personal feelings, the color of the individuals, the ages of the citizens, etc. A system of protections was created to prevent abuses- we call them rights. The exercising of rights should never depend on a government approved test as it is the government for which the rights were named to protect against in the first place.

 

[RyanC1985]

Then you are the 99%. It is that 1% (IMHO) that behave like Despots that I'm concerned about.

I agree, its a problem...but like I said, a few bad apples in every bushel. As a citizen you do have the right to call the department and make a complaint if you see an officer sleeping in a patrol car. Alot of the problem is organizational too. Too few officers working 16-17 hours shifts 3 days in a row, underpaid with wife and kids at home.

 

[SovereignAxe]

Wow, when I posted this I didn't think it would get the attention its getting...not too bad for my first thread on the site. It looks like the majority seems to favor no mandatory training for law abiding citizens for OC or CC for that matter but highly encouraged. I guess the middle of the road approach would be to find ways to encourage gun carriers to become proficient with their weapons without going as far as to make it mandatory. Any suggestions on how to accomplish this? Obviously a very heated topic...Thanks for participating.

ahah! He sees the light!

A good way to start would be in schools. IMO, all high schools should have a marksmanship class available to any student that wants to take it. I had to wait till college to have that opportunity.

Another thing you'd need to do would be to take the boring out of safety. Don't make it sound like something from a health and safety beaurocrat. Here's a good way to start:

*slightly NSFW*


edit: I just realized that picture is too small to really see what going on. If you can't, the point of the picture is that the soldier holding the M9 has his finger on the frame/slide, not in the trigger gaurd.

I agree, its a problem...but like I said, a few bad apples in every bushel. As a citizen you do have the right to call the department and make a complaint if you see an officer sleeping in a patrol car. Alot of the problem is organizational too. Too few officers working 16-17 hours shifts 3 days in a row, underpaid with wife and kids at home.

An even bigger problem than the bad apples is the blue wall of silence. Too many cops have this dillusion that they must protect the bad apples over some sort of honor. Well the honor is misplaced. The honor should be to uniform. Protecting those that stain the uniform only serves to stain it more by making the force look bad.