Would you support Required Testing?

[Prometheus]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

+1

We shouldn't need permits or licenses either.

 

[Coach]

Not just NO, But OH HELL NO!

Personally I think I should not need a little piece of paper to exercise my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. ANYWHERE! Airport, courthouse, park school, wherever be damned.

Where is it enumerated that this is a God Given right? If it is why is this right so infringed?

Anyone should be able to own guns and bear them at home without permit. But carrying in public is different and it is not unreasonable that people who carry in public should be able to demonstrate some level of marksmanship. Anyone in the area when Johnny Commando has to defend himself has a vested interest in his ability to hit where he is aiming.

Such a permit should then be recognized by everystate in the Union. The test could be controlled by the state not the Federal government.


The problem as I see it with the argument of gunowners is that we demand our God given right and we want to be able to exercise it when, where, and how we want to do so. We don't want to have to demonstrate any level of intelligence, competency or responsibility. Then we wonder why anti-gunners or the undecided population don't get it. They are obviously crazy.

 

[G McBride]

You guys are assuming that testing would require that you shoot a target. It is my understanding that the OHIO AND UTAH courses are strictly classroom only and no range requirement.

You may correct me but I have been checking into the UTAH courses and the instructor told me that there would be no firing of any weapons, only classes. You do not have to prove you can hit the side of a barn. You only have to prove that you sat through a training class that teaches what ever it is that they require.

Thanks for all of the participation in this post, keep your thoughts coming.

 

[dburkhead]

Let me expand a little bit on what I said before as it seems to have been lost to the rousing chorus of "No".

Where I part company with the more die-hard gun rights advocates is not on the eventual goals (what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand--the only restrictions permitted are those from "due process"--criminal convictions and court findings of mental incompetence) it's tactical. The "all or nothing" approach is a good way to end up with nothing.

And so I favor small steps, just make sure they're in the right direction. And that is the way I would judge individual proposals--is it an achievable (usually small) step, and is it in the right direction?

And so, my answer to a training requirement in Indiana for a LTCH is one of those resounding nos. However, a training option that gives individuals who exercise that option expanded reciprocity would be a step up, IMO. The concept is similar to what Alaska does with concealed carry permits--no such permit is required in Alaska, but one is available to give Alaska residents the ability to carry in other states that recognize the Alaska license (including, in fact, Indiana).

Ideally, I'd like to see the entire US go back to a strict Constitutional position: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, in the real world, that's not going to happen overnight. Too many people take the "that's just crazy" approach based on the false idea that unrestricted weapons ownership and carrying leads directly to increased violence (the "Dodge city"/"Blood in the streets" myth).

Moving in the direction of "shall not be infringed" is good. Moving away from it is bad.

 

[EdC]

I think that most folks would believe that requiring people to receive education about traffic laws and demonstrate minimum comptence behind the wheel before getting a driver's license is a good public policy. However, the big distinction, of course, is that there is no constitutionally protected right to drive a car (to the best of my knowledge, anyway).

So from a constitutional point of view, that would bring us to an analysis of what would be the permissible scope of regulation before the government regulation impermissibly "infringes" on the individual's right to "bear arms?" Some on this board take the position that even to have to request a permit to carry is an infringment, and there is logic to that. Myself, I don't feel that strongly about it. The right is still protected, and I still get to exercise it. I just have to get a pink piece of paper to do it, and I don't feel that my right to bear arms was infringed upon by having to do so. But that's just me. Haven't some ordnances requiring permits for some parades, assemblies, demonstrations and such been upheld constitutionally, and not found to violate the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech?

Personally, I believe that education about gun safety and the laws regarding permissble use of deadly force are great ideas. That's why I obtained the education on my own. That's why I think that many of the members of this site do the same. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and probably many of you know someone who would be the last person you would want to have a gun. (and not everyone has the time or resources to devote get that training on their own).

Which brings us to the unfortunate fact that we live in a society that tries, usually unsuccessfully, to build itself around the least common denominators. However, "you can't fix stupid." Regulations that are put in place that may mitigate the potential for damage caused by the lack of judgment of the senseless among us, wind up being a big PITA for those of us with good judgment and a sense of responsibility. How much good the regulations and requirements actually do, I don't know. I suspect that they don't do a whole lot, but I think that our gov't should at least make an effort.

So on the balance, no, absolutely not, I do not want Indiana to require education, competency tests, or anything like that for a permit, even if it would mean Indiana's license would be accepted by more states. Not on constitutional principles, though. I just don't want more b.s. put in my way.

 

[dburkhead]

I think that most folks would believe that requiring people to receive education about traffic laws and demonstrate minimum comptence behind the wheel before getting a driver's license is a good public policy. However, the big distinction, of course, is that there is no constitutionally protected right to drive a car (to the best of my knowledge, anyway).

That's one distinction. Another is that the license is for driving a car on the public roads. There is no license required for ownership or for taking your vehicle from one location to another (mind you, it's much harder to take a car without driving it, or driving something like a tow vehicle, from one location to another than it is a firearm, but there's no law against it--you can push it, tow it with horses, or whatever, so long as you don't drive it), nor is there any license required for driving a car on private property.

The analog would be requiring a license for shooting a gun on public roads. However, just like an unlicensed driver would not likely be ticketed for driving a seriously sick or injured person to the hospital (in a situation where even waiting for an ambulance might be too long), bona fide emergencies are a different beast.

Thus, the "licensing cars and drivers" comparison fails on several levels. The analogous situations to where a driver needs to be licensed (driving on public roads without a bona fide emergency) are situations where shooting should be illegal anyway (shooting in public without a bona fide emergency).

 

[dburkhead]

Oh, as far as education on firearms safety and laws being a great idea: if it's so great then have it taught in school. If it's so great, teach it to everyone rather than making it a requirement for folk to obtain/possess/carry a gun.

 

[indyjoe]

This question has come up many times in pro/anti gun discussion.

Someone wanting to grab the guns, but knowing nothing about guns: "Well, don't you think training should be required for those that carry in Indiana?"

Me: "Before you even start about asking if training should be required, show me where any sizable number of the hundreds of thousands of the Indiana LTCH holders are acting in an unsafe manner that would require training to fix. Otherwise, shut up."

The only response I've ever gotten from that is "Well, I probably don't know enough to truly discuss this with you in a way you would understand." Sorry, but there is no way to twist the truth so that I would ever see your point.

 

[Bigum1969]

I think we would all agree that firearms training is good for everyone. But mandating it in order to receive your LTCH opens a giant can of worms.

As others have said on this issue, where are the examples of the problems created by Indiana issuing LTCHs without mandatory training? I don't believe they exist.

The older I get the more I realize that once something becomes required by government, its all downhill to the abyss from there. Eventually things become more and more regulated until you've lost a freedom.

 

[usafshark]

I see it this way. If the situation occurs where someone has to use a firearm to defend themselves I want to make sure they can do it well, because if someone walks into a Wal-Mart and starts shooting and a guy plops down next to me with a pistol and we decide to attempt to take the target I want to know his level of training. If my life may depend on his ability level I want to know his basic ability level before I trust in him. In the military thats easy because everybody has a pretty good basic training level but in the civilian world that guy may have put 100 rounds down a static range and that is all the training he has or he may have been to a Blackwater class last week. Regardless I would want to know his basic level of skill.

It would be possible to require an 8 hour class with about 4 hrs class time and 4 hrs range time with more than just static firing taught. We require a basic level of skill to be taught before we give people the ability to wheel 3000 pound vehicles at 80 MPH on the interstate, why don't we require a basic level of ability to be shown before we allow people to purchase/carry items that can pose the same amount of danger to others if not operated properly. Yes a small fee will be applied to acquiring a "firearms license" but why not replace our LTCH with a license (no individual weapons registering of course) that allows the purchase and CC of firearms. I would however require that gun free zones go away. If we allow driving on school property with a license and training there is no reason to disallow firearms on school property with similar licensing and training. Also those who can produce paperwork of firearms training get their license without having to attend the state mandated training (military service, prior firearms training from other companies, etc.). JMHO

 

[singlestacksig]

As the Heller case pointed out, the right of self defense pre dates the formation of the U.S.A.
Just because someone can not pass a written test should not be a reason to strip a person of that right..
The supossed risk of a "untrained" guy having a shoot out at wallmart does not hold water..
howmany lawful guns are carried into wallmart every day?
how many shootout have happened?

in the past 20 + years i have carried i can only think of a few cases where a lawful gun harmed anyone in public..
A guy dropped a gun out of he pocket & it went off because it was a SA that he did not have on half cock..

i believe someone who carries withouut a holster would probably do so even if they took a class that said not to...

 

[jeremy]

I find the very thought that I need to prove to the powerst hat be that my knowledge and ability with firearms to be an attack on my integrety. I think after a lifetime of handling weapons, not just firearms, it would be a waste of my time and money both for this course.

While we are on the subject of revenue, this would cost MILLIONS just to set into motion.

 

[dburkhead]

An armed citizen (a statement that should be redundant, but, sadly, isn't) is not a police officer and should not be a police officer. Indiana law is pretty specific on when an individual may use deadly force, and that is to protect people, not property.

If I were in that walmart situation, frankly, I'd rather have a guy next to me willing and armed who hadn't taken any formal classes or passed any state-mandated tests than someone who wasn't armed because those selfsame tests/classes generated a higher barrier to carrying.

Unless someone can show me real evidence that training/classes/tests make me safer--that's real evidence, not "common sense" (which is just another way of saying agreement with one's own prejudices), not theories, not scare tactics of blood running in the streets or Wild West/Dodge City, I'm just not interested. And even then, one would have to show that the evidence is so overwhelming and the level of difference in safety is so great to justify Constitutional Amendment for me to actually support it.

 

[kludge]

If it were similar to Alaska's option: You don't need a license/permit to carry in Alaska, but they offer one so that you can have reciprocity with other states.

Permitting one to be able to take a course and get a certification to that effect on one's license and, thereby increase reciprocity options is one thing. But requiring such a course to get the license in the first place (when you shouldn't need the license anyway)? A step back is still a step back no matter how you justify it.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[kludge]

If the situation occurs where someone has to use a firearm to defend themselves I want to make sure they can do it well, because if someone walks into a Wal-Mart and starts shooting and a guy plops down next to me with a pistol and we decide to attempt to take the target I want to know his level of training. If my life may depend on his ability level I want to know his basic ability level before I trust in him.

"I'm da only one profeshno 'nuf to handle dis Glock fo-tay."

BANG!

And I couldn't help but post this this one. No resistance at all from the perp. BANG!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Pc_3L71Gk[/ame]

 

[slacker]

The basic "First steps" NRA handgun course isn't to bad. Its only about 3 hours long and covers all the basics of safe gun handling etc. I took it before buying my first handgun as an introduction since I didn't have any friends that shoot handguns to learn from.

For the most part it was common sense, but it did have some good points, and the range time was a great intro to shooting handguns of various calibers etc (.22, 9mm, .40, .45 is what we had).

Again it all goes back to who is a law-abiding citizen and who is a criminal. the criminal will carry without taking the course or having a permit anyways.

What they should really do is have a "National LTCH" that requires a 3 hour class and is valid any where in America.

 

[jeremy]

What they should really do is have a "National LTCH" that requires a 3 hour class and is valid any where in America.

We have tried that already. It was called the Bill of Rights.

 

[cosermann]

Where is it enumerated that this is a God Given right?

Well if you start with the Declaration of Independence you'll find: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to life includes the right to defend that life and the means to do so.

Of course, the Framers didn't come up with this out of thin air. You could go back to the Bible if you want. The 6th Commandment is "Thou shalt not kill [i.e. murder]". All the commandments, whether those stated positively or negatively, require certain things and forbid others. The 6th Commandment obviously forbids the unjust taking of life. It also, however, requires all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life and the lives of others (including the means to do so).

It's not a right that is only a right in your bedroom or in your home or in your yard. It's a right that is yours, where ever you are.

There's more, but that's enough to illustrate. One can trace this idea back a long, long way.

 

[usafshark]

Robbery victim accidentally shot bystander while firing in self defense
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=275

Not a firearm incident, but one where the mental training of the robbery victim can certainly be called into question
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/nyregion/30murder.html

Two cases where a victim of crime, while using a firearm in self-defense, shot an innocent bystander.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3478360

People vs Hernandez...the investigation found that the officer that was killed was accidentally and unfortunately killed by another officer, meaning that even with adequate training we could not completely eradicate the possibility of not hitting the target while firing in self-defense
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3478360

from http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nye/pr/2005/2005mar07.html
On May 19, 2004, crew members robbed Big Jake's Jewelers in the Bronx, New York. MICHAEL HARRISTON and EARL HARRISTON are charged with conspiring to commit this robbery. In connection with this robbery, a security guard chased and shot at fleeing crew members, inadvertently wounding an innocent bystander.

I am not posting this so we can argue wether or not these shootings were in self-defense, but to illustrate the point that those that use weapons in response to an unprovoked attack do not always hit their target and can hit innocent people who had nothing to with the the attack. Don't we owe it to ourselves to make sure we have the training needed to repel an attack without injuring those not involved and don't other armed citizens owe it to us to be as well trained as possible so we don't have to worry about our loved ones being injured by someone just trying to defend themself? If we don't require the training, how can we be sure that those who carry can defend themselves without posing a larger threat to innocent bystanders than to the criminal?

If I were in that walmart situation, frankly, I'd rather have a guy next to me willing and armed who hadn't taken any formal classes or passed any state-mandated tests than someone who wasn't armed because those selfsame tests/classes generated a higher barrier to carrying.

I disagree. Maybe my standards are too high, but I want to be sure of that guys skill level before relying on it. I don't want his training to consist of watching the movie SWAT 20 times and putting 100 rounds down range last year.

 

[G McBride]

I never meant to imply that we should be required to take a class to get our LTCH. I am asking "If the option of taking a class could be added and your LTCH would then be recognized in all States, would you pay extra to take that class and get your permit marked so?"