Besides the fact that you are placing qualifications on a right affirmed by the Constitution? What comes next? Oratory classes for those who wish to get involved in politics? Politics 101 courses for those planning to vote? While both would improve politics in general I am sure ;), I am not so sure that they are needed or even wanted.
I do not trust my local officials to be able to offer any classes that would not somehow infringe upon my rights to purchase a gun. Locally, I own a concealed weapons permit. In order to keep that permit active, I need to qualify by shooting every other year at a County sanctioned class. Right now that class is held about every six weeks, costs me $50, and is a serious infringement upon my time. I have to schedule in advance and hope that the class is available PRIOR to my permit expiration. If I miss the class and the next one is held AFTER my expiration date, I’m hosed.
I do not feel that concealed carry is necessarily a right affirmed by the Second Amendment, so I put up with these restrictions as it is the only way that I can keep my permit current. Were every person in my metro area now required to take a 1-day safety course just to buy a gun, the wait times just to get into a class would be significant and to what end? It seems like more feel good legislation and restrictions that will harass more than help.
I’m not sure that hunter safety and scuba certification are a direct comparison. First off, neither are affirmed rights. Second, neither are used in the pursuit of self defense. Third, both activities can take place without the mentioned certifications if one so chooses on private property, etc. I don’t see many similarities other than taking a class and passing a test.
I took my hunter safety course in 1985. Does that make me a safer hunter today? Hardly. The last 23 years of hunting did, but not a class held by the local hunt club.
I do not know how it works today but when I was a kid in the 80’s if I wanted to drive a powerboat in Wisconsin I needed to take classes and a written test (because I was under 16 or 18 [I forget]). Those above the required age, to get their license, sent $5 to the state and stuck the numbers on the side of their boat and they were off.
Years of power boating never seemed to make them better. Because I took the classes I understood right-of-way rules, regulations for boat occupancy and life vests, basic emergency procedures, what buoy markers meant and so on. Most of the Yahoos out there had zero clue about most of that and were frankly downright dangerous. I am a scuba diver and my flag above me tells other boats to stay away a certain distance. I lost count of the number of times that was ignored by boaters (such that I always walked out on shore or right next to my boat for fear of being run over).
A gun is an inherently dangerous piece of equipment. Its primary purpose is to cause damage. I see nothing wrong with requiring people to get at least the basics taught to them. In another thread around here was a story of a 14 year old boy who shot and killed a woman who was wearing a blue jacket but mistook her for a bear. According to posters in that thread the adrenaline rush while hunting makes such occurrences not unheard of. A class impressing such things as the importance of 100% identifying your target AND what is behind it might help avoid some tragedies. How to clean your gun, gun safety and handling and whatever. Surely there is something of value to be learned than to just grab a gun and go with zero clue as to its use.
I find your complaint that having to shoot once every two years as a “serious infringement” on your time amazing. That seems a very small inconvenience and we are used to having to maintain/prove our capacity in many, many things to be able to continue whatever it is (SCUBA diving for instance). Hardly something new or unheard of and makes sense.
I’m glad that you value my time as much as I do. the shooting part is not the problem. I have passed the shooting test every time now for ten years. I don’t think that I will forget how to shoot a 75% score on a man sized target at ten yards before 8/2009 either. The test is just that, shoot 48 rounds and score 75% or better. No refresher, no class work, just show up and be done. It is a complete waste of time and to me, my time is valuable.
The problem lies instead of being able to schedule it when I am available, I have to call, not use a website, to see when the next class is. It is typically during the week at 4:00 so I get to take time off of work to drive the 20 miles to get to the range. I can only take the test up to 30 days prior to my certificate expiration. That is four weeks for those keeping score out there. If their class does not fall within that four weeks, I get to take the CCW class all over again to regain my permit. THAT is another serious infringement of my time.
I put up with it as I said, because I have to. I live in a metro area of 350,000 people. Only a few thousand of whom have permits. Using the same people who manage the current testing as examples of good government, the thought of a MANDATORY class to own or purchase firearms makes me shudder.
Perhaps instead of serious infringement, I should have said major pain in my ass. Either way, you get my point.
There was such a class (hunter education), and he passed it. I’m sure they did not fail to drill him on Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules. He didn’t kill that woman because he didn’t know the rules (I’m sure he did), he killed that woman because he was young, stupid, and excited, and he failed to think about the possible consequences of his actions. I just read in the local paper that he’s probably going to be charged with first-degree manslaughter, by the way. There is also talk of revising the age limits for hunters or mandating adult supervision, which I must say I agree with completely.
I do not care about your time. I do care about my safety. I do not think it unreasonable for me to hope that if you are allowed to carry a weapon in public I have some modest assurance you can actually hit what you are shooting at and not me as an innocent bystander.
The notion that you should be allowed to test once when you are 21 and then never again because it is easy is wrongheaded as well. Maybe you had an accident that impaired your ability to shoot. Maybe you just turned 90, are partially blind, have Alzheimer’s and have a persistent tremor in your shooting hand. Just because you can shoot that target with ease today is no guarantee you can do so for the rest of your life. Once every two years to prove your ability for MY peace of mind I do not find onerous.
That the timeframe they allow the testing to happen is so narrow I agree is kind of crap. I see no trouble with expanding the window to, say, three months or something but that is details and do not trump the overall notion that proving your ability with a gun should be tested on a regular basis.
Do you believe, Whack-a-mole, that having these mandatory training requirements is going to reduce gun crime?
Because that is the usual justification for gun control, and the Assault Weapons Ban specifically. (And that is what the OP was discussing.)
The average criminal will not be forced to resort to using knives to commit their crime because the gun purchasing was made tougher via mandatory training.
They will still steal a gun, or buy one illegally (black market), and skip the training (if they didn’t already take it).
Reasonable people already agree with you that a gun is a dangerous tool, and should be used in a responsible manner.
Whack-a-Mole, are you just talking about concealed carry now? As far as I know, every state that issues licenses requires them to be renewed periodically, usually around five years. However, many states do not require any training at all to obtain a license; Washington is one, and I’m unaware of any significant incidence of CPL-holders having gun accidents in public. In fact, I had never heard of a single one until a recent incident at the Seattle Folk Life festival. (A man with a history of mental illness got into a fight with a drunk and in the process discharged his pistol once, injuring two bystanders. He has since pleaded guilty to two charges of assault.)
I think an easier way for you to achieve “peace of mind” would be to realize that the danger is purely imagined.
No as regards the training thing in and of itself.
What I am trying to establish is the notion that some (not all) gun advocates have it that any regulation of any sort on guns is Bad[sup]TM[/sup]. I am trying to point out that some regulation does make sense, is fair and is reasonable. Sure it is an impediment to a would-be gun owner but a reasonable impediment and not an unduly difficult one versus just plopping $300 on the counter and walking out with a gun and being allowed to carry it around wherever they like (at the other extreme).
If we can establish that some common sense restrictions are ok then there is room for discussion. I doubt few argue that proven mentally unstable people should be able to buy a weapon. To do that you are on to the NICS…no other way to do it but now the government knows you are trying to buy a gun…now you’re on a list.
So which is it? Fear the possibility of shock troops breaking down your door to get your guns in some hypothetical future or allow paranoid schizophrenics to be allowed to purchase firearms? But heck…our schizo person only needs to go to a gun show or just by it from you directly and all those attempted protections go flying out the window. :rolleyes:
Melodrama aside, I agree with your point. The overall issue I am addressing, since I was asked, was my support of mandatory safety or training. My little burb in the middle of Iowa cannot even get a few thousand people tested every other year without making it a pain in the ass. The test itself, and the ramifications of same are really not at issue. Sure, I can shoot, and I can pass the test. I already mentioned that I don’t think that concealed carry is necessarily spoken to in the Constitution so I put up with the inconveniences that arise from permit ownership.
When it is suggested that some sort of mandatory class to purchase or own a gun is reasonable, that is where I draw the line. No safety classes are forced upon those willing to exercise their right to vote, or to free speech, and I would argue the far more people have been killed as a result of those two things than private gun ownership. If the safety classes are such a great thing, and will reduce crime, those cities plagued with gun violence surely could find the funds available to teach their citizens how to shoot, clean and store their guns safely.
If that is not the intent of the classes, what is?
I do not know who is allowed to administer the tests today and certainly with a mandatory testing the classes should be accessible enough to not actually be a defacto means of keeping people from getting guns. I would hope private businesses (gun ranges for instance) would be allowed to provide the service then they will meet the demand as it arises. Just a possibility…but definitely the ability to get the test, if mandated, needs to be addressed.
As to the rest I think my response just above yours speaks to what I am on about.
Well, that’s the way it is in Vermont right now. You can literally walk into a gun store, plonk down some money, and leave with a gun on your hip. As I said before, their rate of firearms homicides is nearly the lowest in the country. It’s a bit more restrictive here in Washington; if you don’t have a Concealed Pistol License, you have to wait 10 days from the date of purchase to pick up a handgun. Once you get it, though, you can still walk out of the store with the gun on your hip; unlicensed open carry is legal here. (With some additional restrictions; carrying a loaded pistol in any vehicle requires a CPL.) If you want a license to conceal, you fill out a form, get fingerprinted, and pay $60.
Sure, but remember that “it’s not that much of an inconvenience” does not mean “it’s a common sense restriction.” You also have the burden of proving that the restriction would accomplish some desirable goal, such as significantly reducing the number of accidents or homicides. It has to pass both tests (it does not infringe our rights and it would be effective) in order to be viable. Mandatory safety training is shaky on both counts. On the one hand you have the difficulty of accessible implementation and potential for abuse, coupled with the intrinsic offense of placing a government-mandated test on an individual right. On the other, you have the fact that firearms are just a drop in the “accidental death” bucket already, and the fact that proficiency training and teaching people the rules of safe handling are not likely to cure irresponsibility and negligence.
I don’t see any way it would qualify as a “reasonable restriction.”
This is a common mischaracterization of the alleged “gun show loophole.” It is, in fact, bunk. If you buy a gun from a licensed dealer, they must conduct a NICS check, regardless of the location of the sale. If you buy from them at a gun show, they will check you. If however, you buy from a private citizen, there is no requirement, the same at a gun show as anywhere else. There is no loophole. There would be no way to enforce restrictions on private sales anyway, and it is already illegal to sell to someone if you have reason to believe they are prohibited.
In an earlier post I mentioned a few pieces of legislation that most gun owners consider reasonable. What you are trying to get at is NEW legislation that gun owners will also find reasonable. I don’t speak for all gun owners, but I know a bunch of them. They would say that there is little room for NEW legislation, reasonable or otherwise.
I’ve already stated my objections to any mandatory training. Others have stated their objections to other so-called reasonable measures. Speaking for myself, once we start rolling back some of the unreasonable measures that have been passed over the last few decades, I would be happy to discuss what might actually stop crime or save lives.
I’d say this meets the part about “well regulated”.
There is no state mandated course to get a concealed permit in Florida. Neither local nor state officials need to be able to offer anything. All that is required is that an NRA certified, or CJSTC or State certified instructor has to sign a form that says he observed you “safely handle and discharge the weapon”.
Usually the instructor makes an 8 hour course out of it. Ensuring that the students knows how to keep it safe at home, actually knows how his firearm functions (many dont), gives some tips about storage and transportation… then some even bring in a lawyer to help the students understand some of the firearms laws that are most likely to effect them.
That’s it. Classes can be done almost anywhere. Where an actual range is not available, I’ve known instructors who observes their students safely discharge blanks!. Just because your states does some messed up things with training requirements, doesn’t mean a national law would have to mirror it.
There are even exemptions from the training requirement. Any prior military, any membership to a gun club, hunting club, or marksmanship competition… or pretty much anything else that shows you can safely handle and discharge your weapon, is also adequate to get your CCW in Florida. I would propose that any federal mandate on firearms training be similar.
There are plenty of similarities. You say that you can just go scuba diving on your private property. But where are you going to get your tanks refilled? No licensed dealer can refill your tank unless you are certified. I dont think it would be that unreasonable to do the same with say your bullets. Sure, go shoot on private property. But to get more ammo, you need to be certified.
The reason for the certification is so that you do not endanger yourself or others you might take diving with you. It is also to cut down on the need for emergency response when your ass gets stuck in a cave or something. Speaking of which, dont you need more advanced certs for caves and more advanced dives? Can’t we reasonably do the same thing with firearms?
A person has to start somewhere. What better way to make sure a person knows the pertenant hunting laws and hunting safety than to make him take a hunting class. I dont think it’s unreasonable.
Are there no government regulations governing SCUBA diving? I am pretty sure that if you dive without a certification in which the government deems valid, then you can face consequences. All those hundreds of local, private instructors need to be certified by the government, right? Can just anyone open up a SCUBA school and issue certification? Doesn’t he have to have some sort of credentials required by the government? Even though it is not a government license, the training is mandated by the government.
I see no reason why you shouldn’t be able to go to hundreds of local, private instructors or gun clubs, etc to get your firearms certification. That’s how it works in Florida. You get your certification from any number of places. You mail that certificate and your application, and the government mails you back a license. The training is not performed by the government.
The great thing about this firearm ownder card is that it would be good throughout the country. No more states infringing on your rights. You can get your certification just as easily for your firearm, and you can buy whatever firearm you want. (I think more advanced training hours required to buy more advanced firearms though)
Great. I propose we work that in to the mandatory training I’m calling for.
Hold on a second. I never proposed any registration. I am against the registration of firearms. I am only for the registration of lawful, qualified ownders. The government will be forbidden from keeping any databases on who owns what or how much. Just like it is now!
For those worried about confiscation issues, the government might know you are a qualified gun owner, but if they send the storm troopers to your house, you can just tell them you decided to never buy any. They will have no way to track what you bought. Once you get your Buyer’s License, you are deemed knowledgeable and responsible enough to own a firearm of that level/caliber/type whatever. Dealers are free to sell you anything in that category. If you have an endorsement for machinegun purchasing, then you can buy one. They will keep local records of the 4473, and that’s it. Just like now.
Other than that, the things you states are exactly what I’m proposing. A renewable license from a one time training/safety course available through a myriad of instructors. And in the case of prior military or marksmanship competition or hunting club, it even works like a life experience degree. Just like Florida’s CCW requirements. And just like Florida’s CCW, you no longer have a waiting period to buy a firearm. You still have to have a NICS check for every purchase. (Maybe you’ve committed a felony since last you renewed your license…)
You dont need a new license or class for every firearm purchase. Just one covers it. You also would need this license to purchase ammunition too.
So… do I have your support?
The Supreme Court in Heller banished once and for all any notion that the right to to bear arms is or was tied to membership or involvement in any militia, well-regulated or otherwise, for any definition of the word “regulated.”
As for your proposal, it might have my support if we could guarantee the benevolence of such a program, that it would always be accessible, that it would never be abused for discriminatory or prohibitive purposes, and that it would never be used as a springboard for more regulation. Even with such guarantees, it seems like a lot of noise and bother for nothing. As it is, I cannot place any faith in it.
But it wouldn’t be for nothing. It would unify gun laws across all the states (the way the Feds “forced” unified DUI laws–denial of funding)
It would repel the 1986 ban on domestic machineguns. How silly that you can buy a M16 as long as it or its sear was made 20 years ago. No other difference. All it does is jack up the prices to something stupid. It would allow for a federal CCW. Much less hassle in the long run for gun owners, collectors, people traveling across country, people who carry daily, and travel often.
More trust, more freedom from the government. In exchange, we gain faith and trust by taking some classes, ensuring that incompetent or ignorant people do not buy weapons. Leave all the current methods in place to esure that criminals and those with dangerous mental history are denied firearms.
Strict enforcement of current criminal laws with no tolerance for gun crimes, armed robberies, etc.
As for your caveats, well of course. We would do whatever it took to prevent all of that. If you have ideas to help prevent that, I’m all ears.
I must have missed the quid pro quo nature of your training program. So to institute this training program, we establish a national “shall issue” and repeal of the 1986 MG ban? Yeah, I’m down for it.
There you go Whack… Reasonable control. I still think the training is pointless, but I’ll trade it for the other items.
At last, reasonableness! Repeal all the Federal and State firearms laws and replace them with firearms training required for all high school seniors (and available for everyone else) that will earn them a federally issued firearms license revocable only when convicted of a violent crime and is valid for anything up to and including full autos.
