[jsaund22]

At the risk of getting flamed, what is wrong with requiring training to carry a potentially lethal weapon? I understand "....shall not be infringed..." but with rights do responsibilities not follow?

Scenario: You're a 23-year-old single mother who works three jobs just to make ends meet. Many nights you don't eat supper so your kids can. You live in a really shady part of town, because that is where the housing you can afford is. You finally scratch up enough cash to buy a .22 Jennings or a Hi-Point to protect your home and kids. Then, a few months later, you scrape up enough to pay for the carry license. Now they tell you that you have to take eight hours of time you don't have and pay money you don't have for mandated training before you can get the permit you can barely afford as it is.

Is that fair to that struggling mother - someone who likely needs that protection more than most of us combined?

 

[MouserGun]

And even if the training was free, some Mary Margaret Olivetree, legislative do-gooder, might restrict the times she could get training.

Most all well reasoned replies. Thanks

 

[mygunstoo]

Such instruction shall include instruction on the features of a handgun and a brief explanation of loading, firing, and unloading of the weapon; provided, however, that live firing shall not be required.

There is the meat of the bill.

Anybody could do that by reading the instruction manual that came with gun.

 

[45_Fan]

At the risk of getting flamed, what is wrong with requiring training to carry a potentially lethal weapon? I understand "....shall not be infringed..." but with rights do responsibilities not follow?

Other than a training requirement in TX, TX and GA have similar requirements to obtain a carry license. There is no reported difference in overall safety. There is a huge difference in issuance rates.

TX: ~826k licenses, ~27M residents, ~3%
GA: ~650k licenses, ~10M residents, 6.5%

As you note, rights do come with responsibilities. Responsibilities don't bar one from the exercise of rights (right to carry denied until _______), but restrictions sure do.

 

[CoffeeMate]

Then why even bother with a bill?

'Cause ya' gotta "do something" before you can say you did something.

Once we get all the armed robbers trained, all that will be left are the potential nutjobs.

 

[MouserGun]

Other than a training requirement in TX, TX and GA have similar requirements to obtain a carry license. There is no reported difference in overall safety. There is a huge difference in issuance rates.

TX: ~826k licenses, ~27M residents, ~3%
GA: ~650k licenses, ~10M residents, 6.5%

As you note, rights do come with responsibilities. Responsibilities don't bar one from the exercise of rights (right to carry denied until _______), but restrictions sure do.

Thank you, I was actually fishing for well reasoned and thought out arguments to the "A deadly weapon with no training!!??" from a Texas friend and NRA instructor. I highly respect him and did not want to flame him in the least.

Your argument cites TX directly even! \\/

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Anybody could do that by reading the instruction manual that came with gun.

Yep.

 

[MouserGun]

Should you have mandated training to carry a pocket knife? How about a hammer at work? A screwdriver? Before you can use a gas stove? Heck even a bath can be deadly, should you have mandated training on not drowning people? All these are potentially lethal weapons.

This is what I expected pages of but on the contrary, the rest were reasoned arguments.

A pleasant surprise with one easily ignored fly speck in the ointment.

 

[Tallbloke]

Yep.

But RTFM is difficult for most people it appears.

 

[smn]

Is there any other fundamental right for which we must get training? Does anyone receive training for their first, fourth, fifth, six, and 14th amendment rights? Just that question alone must be answered before I can take a permit system seriously. No police officer has approached an individual requesting to see their fourth amendment training card (although many would fail a simple encounter).

 

[Gunstar1]

Then why even bother with a bill? This bill is so innocuous that it could potentially pass. The problem is when someone decides to "enhance" the law in the future. Why provide them with an opportunity?

Because it is free for the legislator and probably made them look better in the eyes of some group.

No way the AWB bill will pass, but someone somewhere will use it in some document to say that AWB bills were filed in X number of states in 2016, which shows it is gaining in popularity. They won't mention it wasn't passed in any of them.

 

[moe mensale]

Because it is free for the legislator and probably made them look better in the eyes of some group.

I guess I just don't have that "politician" mindset!

 

[Wegahe]

In fairness to this bill, it does not appear to be restrictive at all in who offers the training, and certainly does not come close to making such training impossible to get. In addition, the training appears to be such a low burden as to be useless for the purpose for which people think of firearms training. It is basically training on how to load and unload a gun, which can be done at the counter of any gun shop. The training does not even appear to relate to carrying a pistol.

2011-2012 Regular Session - HB 735
Weapons; training as a prerequisite for carry license
(E) Has completed a four-hour firearms safety training course from either a weapons
43 training instructor licensed by the Georgia Board of Private Detective and Security
44 Agencies or a peace officer who is currently certified under Chapter 8 of Title 35, the
45 'Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Act.'

Perhaps you missed this part? So who can offer the training is very restricted to Government licensed instructors.

 

[BG_Atl]

Perhaps you missed this part? So who can offer the training is very restricted to Government licensed instructors.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Keep in mind that the bill I quoted as an example was from the 2012 session and is long dead.

Malum is correct that THIS bill isn't that restrictive. My example was meant to show what we COULD have to deal with if we simply accept mandatory training.

 

[MouserGun]

So, the NRA Basic handgun with live fire wouldn't be "good enough" for the Gold Dome idiot Home.

 

[BG_Atl]

Not our state, nothing like the bill we are discussing, but....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/critics-blast-massachusetts-citys-new-essay-rule-for-gun-carry-applicants.html?intcmp=hpbt1

The new laws take effect this week in Lowell, a city of 110,000 that lies 35 miles north of Boston. Pushed by Police Superintendent William Taylor and passed by the City Council, they require applicants for unrestricted gun licenses to state in writing why they should receive such a license.........

A local firearms-safety instructor, Randy Breton, told the Sun the training requirement appeared designed to purposely make it cost-prohibitive to apply for a gun permit. He said one five-day course approved by the city costs $1,100.

 

[moe mensale]

Not our state, nothing like the bill we are discussing, but....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/2...le-for-gun-carry-applicants.html?intcmp=hpbt1

I grew up not far from Lowell but left the state in 1975. My entire family is still there. How a state that was such a fundamental part of our county's founding became a hotbed of liberalism is beyond me.

But this is what happens when local despots have the power to qualify your rights.