CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

Broadside · Apr 5, 2012

rambling_one said:
#9 dismisses all the political hacks and merchants who, it was suggested elsewhere, should be subject to a "universal" training requirement.

You make a good point, rambling_one. However, it also eliminates the need to anyone to supply proof of training again when renewing. I pretty sure this is why it is included in the Virginia statute.

It looks like Smigiel just lifted the Virginia statute on training requirements.

Curiously I'm very comfortable with this.

Glaug-Eldare · Apr 5, 2012

abeaty said:
Don't get me wrong - I agree with all of what you said and given the choice between what we currently have and a shall issue state with the training requirement, I would take the latter all day long.

However, in the second case we are still allowing the government to make decisions on our behalf thinking they know what is best for us. They are portioning out rights provided under the constitution and they shouldn't be able to do so.

Given MD's propensity to take a mile when given an inch, I am very much againt giving them even a millimeter.

Oh, absolutely. I want to restrain as much as possible the arbitrary restrictions Frosh et al. would like to add to the carry permits, but I get the feeling that either this session or the next, a training requirement WILL be put into law. If we simply oppose a bad training bill outright, we're probably going to lose and a bad bill will will become law. We can count on a minority to vote our way, but our chances improve when we court the moderate voices in the GA and put the hardcore anti-gun forces in the minority where they really are. In my opinion, we'll protect ourselves better by offering amendments a/o alternative bills that will satisfy the maximum number of representatives, while keeping the requirements simple, objective, and affordable.

swinokur · Apr 5, 2012

I think if a Court applied Intermediate Scrutiny, some form of training could be mandated. Hard to argue training is a bad thing, even if the 2A doesn't require it. Some times as has been stated, we have to accept something bad to avoid getting something worse.

ThumperIII · Apr 5, 2012

Right now, the state legialative delegates really only want two things: 1) go home on time. No emergency session extension. and 2) to be able to tell their constituents that they have saved the state from the gun nuts.
It is way too late to start another bill thru the process of law making, but just about any current bill that is scheduled for a vote this session can still be Amended. Probably even totally non-related bills. So-If Smigel and the other pro gun delagates can steer this amendment (that we are going to get either way) into a reasonable form, it can probably pass. If that system is up and running before the next session there is a good chance it can stand. Otherwise, we give the anti's the entire time until the end of the next session to dream up and try to pass their must draconian requirements law..

And by taking a basic cut-and-paste from a neighboring state law that is presently working and has posssibly survived state level court challenges and at the same time has not been taken to a Federal court challenge on constitutionality grounds makes it more palatable for the anti's and seems livable for those wanting to CCW. VA and their gun laws seems to be a topic I hear a lot postitive about on this forum so a similar law should be acceptable for here. Makes future reciprosity more likely.

dlmcbm · Apr 5, 2012

Inigoes said:
My question is which bill?

Details are lacking, I'm interested in seeing who "they" are...

I THINK its this one http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/HB0300.htm

Still awaiting word if it is.

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 5, 2012

dlmcbm said:
Trying to post the highlights as I see them for those who don't follow him on facebook.

Michael Smigiel

I found out late last night there was a move to add it to a Bill which is meant to extend police officer's term of renewal for permits to carry. The original language and what is still on the amendment is to allow the State Police Superintendent to decide what qualified as necessary safety training. I fear that kind of discretion being left with the State Police and thus want to limit their discretion as much as possible.

What I have not seen posted is that the Delegate also stated that the Senate doesn't want any part of the acronym "NRA" in the legislation. There goes your "not arbitrary." (Not you, but the general your).

Zaicran · Apr 5, 2012

teratos said:
I think this is reasonable.

I agree +2

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

swinokur · Apr 5, 2012

Item 5 requires MD to know other states' training requirements. How can MD reasonably do this? This is why reciprocity will need to be addressed at some point as well. Reciprocity would allow MD to examine each state individually as required rather than know the standards for all of them.

dlmcbm · Apr 5, 2012

fightinbluhen51 said:
What I have not seen posted is that the Delegate also stated that the Senate doesn't want any part of the acronym "NRA" in the legislation. There goes your "not arbitrary." (Not you, but the general your).

Yea it was there http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1593872&postcount=65

this thread grew real fast

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 5, 2012

Inigoes said:
Wait a minute....

Is Smigiel the only one pushing for a new training requirement?

No, he is trying to add strong and concrete language to prevent Owe'Malley, the legislature, Dougy Gansler and the MSP from moving the goalpost ever time we get close to being able to exercise our damned rights!

I thought he was proposing this garbage at first too, until I realized what was going on.

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 5, 2012

dlmcbm said:
Yea it was there http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1593872&postcount=65

this thread grew real fast

Yeah, and work has been hell the last few days. You should see my google reader feed. I've marked a lot of folders read because I haven't had the time. :shocking:

Hotrod Diesel · Apr 5, 2012

So how would this effect us who have applied? Only thing I have is Md web handgun safety. I am going to apply for va very soon.
edit: or would the web class be #4?

rambling_one · Apr 5, 2012

If Mike "lifted" VA's training requirement...and...one holds a VA permit, that should satisfy Mr. Frosh.

esqappellate · Apr 5, 2012

Hotrod Diesel said:
So how would this effect us who have applied? Only thing I have is Md web handgun safety. I am going to apply for va very soon.
edit: or would the web class be #4?

There is a general presumption in the law that new legislation applies to all pending matters, viz., matters ongoing before any rights have vested. It is a matter of legislative intent. The legislature can make it applicable to pending or not.

teratos · Apr 5, 2012

rambling_one said:
If Mike "lifted" VA's training requirement...and...one holds a VA permit, that should satisfy Mr. Frosh.

I bet not without considerable internal turmoil.....

Bob A · Apr 5, 2012

lawrencewendall said:
Even for LEO to get CCW, training and yearly qualification is required.

"As of August 1, 2011 the Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions, Firearms Training Facility, has assumed responsibility for LEOSA training and issuing of the firearm certification cards to people they train."

The CCW is only good for one year and the training cost $50 for 3 hours of classroom instruction and qualification.

I don't know how they can have lower standards for Joe Citizen

I would imagine that Joe Citizen has a lot less to consider before defending himself; also, requiring qualification at LEO standards would be unreasonable, as J.C. will be dealing with someone a few paces away, at most, under most defensible self-defense scenarios.

OF course, that's assuming a level of reason, and a standard of application, which sets the bar a lot higher than most MD legislators can handle.

garyad · Apr 5, 2012

montoya32 said:
I actually don't mind a the training requirement for a CCW permit. You have to have training for a driver's license, real estate license, home improvement license, plumber's license and many others. I actually think it will make for a safer owner and possibly a better educated carrier. If this allows us to carry, then I can grin and "bear" it. ha ha

This is true but up until now no training required. It has worked perfectly for 20 - 30 years why all of the sudden?

Virginia has it right, we should just model it after theirs. After all it seems to be working.

Just want to add this. The one thing we do not want is letting the MSP determine what we need. There should be no discretion on their part.

teratos · Apr 5, 2012

garyad said:
This is true but up until now no training required. It has worked perfectly for 20 - 30 years why all of the sudden?

Virginia has it right, we should just model it after theirs. After all it seems to be working.

Just want to add this. The one thing we do not want is letting the MSP determine what we need. There should be no discretion on their part.

Agree 100%. They are law ENFORCEMENT, not legislators.

csanc123 · Apr 5, 2012

The same Frosh that thinks we are all nuts? :innocent0

rambling_one said:
If Mike "lifted" VA's training requirement...and...one holds a VA permit, that should satisfy Mr. Frosh.

Inigoes · Apr 5, 2012

What does MSI have to say about this?

CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Senior Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Here for the Beer...

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

My hair is amazing

όυ φροντισ

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics