CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

[swinokur]

We can argue the merits and legality til we're blue in the face. The pragmatic side of me thinks some form of training is eventually going to be required no matter your feelings on it's constitutionality.

We don't live in a perfect world so wanting a purely constitutional firearms' statute won't happen. You can go to court if you feel that strongly about it for sure.The best we can do is try to make sure it's reasonable, accessible and not exceedingly expensive. Saying any training isn't constitutional doesn't change the fact that other states do it and the courts have upheld them.

Might as well try to help craft this because arguing rights and privileges isn't going to change the outcome that eventually we'll have to have something. The enemy you know is better than the one you don't IMO

 

[OEH]

Also here is another thought. Police! When they are going through their training do you think they get training with their firearms?

When the government are putting these police to be through this training are they just wasting our tax dollars when they get the firearms training, or if our tax dollars are being used on their training it should only be on how to fill out reports?

Straw man argument. A weapons permit does not make you a police officer. Police are required by their jobs to go forward into dangerous situations and often make life and death decisions i.e. shoot/no shoot. As a private citizen you are not supposed to actively seek confrontation only defend yourself (or in some limited cases, defend others) in eminent danger. My admittedly limited knowledge of police training (my FIL is a trainer) is that much more is covered than just safe weapons handling.

 

[Hotrod Diesel]

I'll wager $50 to your $5 on the matter, proceeds benefiting the charity of winner's choice.

Wow, bold move. If you feel so inclined to donate, just donate. I will not bet on something that I believe I have a large chance of losing. I am just pushing the info. I hope to hell nothing is done. I Am just passing the time...

 

[teratos]

I don't think any of us can argue that if you are going to carry a gun, you SHOULD have training. I don't like the State mandating it, but if that is what it takes to get "shall-issue" here, I'll conceded that point. It is something that can be argued down that road, too.

 

[jmcgonig]

+1 that training should be a requirement, but also should not be the MSP's role. And yes, it scares me when MD tries to define what training is. If they were smart they would just copy what VA, Utah or others have done. Of course that would be like giving in and they will make it expensive for the tax payers and applicants for no good reason.

I took the Utah class in the last month or two and even it taught me a few things as well as made me think a little deeper about what it meant to carry. It would be foolish for a society to think that someone should walk around w/ a gun now days w/o at least minimal training.

And for the constitutional argument, do you think a "militia" is completely untrained? Lets not lose the 2A right by not applying a little common sense.

IMHO.

 

[dlmcbm]

Yea really all we can do now is wait and see what happens. If something does happen then we will see if we are OK with it or if we need to fight it.

 

[jonnyl]

The arguments in this thread would be exactly the same if debating any gun control topic. Coming up with emotionally charged "what if's", or or references to specific tragedys from the news to develop policy is the tactic of every gun control scheme.

If you feel strongly that training should be required by the gov, I'd be more likely to be convinced if you showed some statistics that there was a statistically significant difference in the number of accidental shootings in states with lower/no training requirements.

Anything less than that is just another manifestation of the typical "blood in the streets" arguments.

 

[Garet Jax]

I'm just saying before you do anything that may harm others, no matter if it's driving a car, carrying a gun flying a plain, folding Parachutes for others, you should have training.

Smart people will get training on their own not matter if the state has a requirement or not. people who need training and do not bother because they do not mind putting everyone around them in danger fall into the stupid column. The US has a never ending supply of stupid people.

Merlin,

I agree with your feelings about people needing training and I also agree with the premise that it be mandated by the State in order to be able to carry. If the State we lived in showed that they respected our freedom of choice and respected the rights given to us by the constutition, then I would be OK with them mandating it. There are many states out there like that and I would be OK allowing them to institute such a policy

However, we live in MD and given MD's propensity to take a mile when given an inch, I am very much againt giving them even a millimeter.

After years and years of being told that we can't carry because of not having G and S need, I am not in the place where I want them to be able to tell me that now we can't carry because of not having G and S training.

 

[JMangle]

The arguments in this thread would be exactly the same if debating any gun control topic. Coming up with emotionally charged "what if's", or or references to specific tragedys from the news to develop policy is the tactic of every gun control scheme.

If you feel strongly that training should be required by the gov, I'd be more likely to be convinced if you showed some statistics that there was a statistically significant difference in the number of accidental shootings in states with lower/no training requirements.

Anything less than that is just another manifestation of the typical "blood in the streets" arguments.

I agree. Show me the facts. Let's see some strict scrutiny here. This is a fundamental right after all.

 

[jake12]

Just got this notice from AGC, looks like Frosh has got his hands in HB 579. This isn't the bill Smiegel was trying to amend is it? Did we get to the bottom of which one he was talking about?


http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102148500335-183/hb0579t.pdf

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=p85wsocab&v=001vv2TPD5jwtiA7J_rp9TFWwGulJgZS1_k6N3kdWPx3E7cRxZeKnevrLcxmmxCb49BLKlAwI3boOnD-dZo__IOAlz48fjPlRJx1NgpnV8TRZjcH342TBfCGb_FymEwjuNRdl8j6ZJUH_1Uli_Kbg7pDY_ObrSeK01gNrsFPbFq2BaLbD116fdXyIbAWK5lO1lWd3zUW0KdztU%3D

ASSOCIATED GUN CLUBS OF BALTIMORE, INC.

Legislative Email Network
P.O. BOX 20102 - TOWSON, MD 21284-0102

410-296-3947 Email: LVP@ASSOCIATEDGUNCLUBS.ORG




Gun Owner Immediate Action Alert
Action Needed to Stop Senator Brian Frosh's Gun Control Bill

Dear XXXXX,

This is an immediate Special Action Alert.

Senator Brian Frosh has hijacked HB 579 and completely rewritten the bill into a gun control bill.

You are receiving this Special Action Alert because as a gun owner, you have a vested interest in protecting your rights.

The Maryland Senate will probably vote on HB 579 today or Monday.


Action you need to take immediately:

Contact the every member of the Maryland General Assembly and voice your opposition to HB 579

Subject line: HB 579 Oppose


Keep the message simple and to the point:

"I oppose HB 579 as amended by the Judicial Proceedings Committee..." is all that is needed.

The staffers are counting citizen "votes" and don't have time to read long messages. Please give them thousands of email "votes" to count. Time is short so act now!


Click here to email the ENTIRE Maryland General Assembly.


REMEMBER TO CHECK THE BOX: "EMAIL ALL MEMBERS"


Click here for bill text and Frosh's reported amendments.

Thank you,

John H. Josselyn
Legislative Vice President
lvp@associatedgunclubs.org
410-296-3947


About the AGC's Legislative Email System


After months of planning and testing, the AGC's Legislative Email system is now a reality.

The system is simple to use, and we have provided a list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) including advice on how to write an email to legislators, as well as some email "Do's and Don'ts."

We built this system as a "force multiplier" to enable gun owners to send more emails to their elected representatives in far less time, thus exerting more pressure on the members of the Maryland General Assembly.

The system will enable gun owners to do the following:
Send a personal email to individual or selected members of the Maryland General Assembly
Send a personal email to the entire Maryland General Assembly with a single mouse click
Send a personal email to the entire Senate or the entire House of Delegates with a single mouse click
Send a personal email to individual, selected members, or all members of a Committee
Committees currently on the system:

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (gun bills)
House Judiciary Committee (gun bills)
Senate Education, Health & Environmental Affairs Committee (hunting bills)
House Environmental Matters Committee (hunting bills)
Other features of the system:
Preview function to enable the user to view the actual email before sending it
Listing of all intended recipients during the in the preview mode
Automatically fills in the user's contact information
Sends a copy of the user's email to the user's email address
What the system will not do:

It will not write emails for you. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. As a gun owner, you have an individual responsibility to protect that right.
Click here for AGC's Political Action Email System Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)


Keep Your Email Address and Profile Up to Date!

You can update your email address and interest profile (sublists such as AGC Newsletter, Gun Shows, Bus Trips, Hunting, Concealed Carry, etc.) at any time by clicking on the "Join Email List Icon below. A as current list member, you will be sent an automated email asking you to log on to the server and update your information.





Click here to update your email address or preferences!




AGC Quick Links:


AGC Website
AGC Legislative Page
AGC's Legislative Email System NEW!
AGC Legislative Email Archives (This is where past legislative emails & newsletters can be found!)
AGC Calendar of Events
AGC Trap Operations Schedule
Member Clubs & HOW TO JOIN
Map & Directions to the AGC Ranges
AGC Range Badge Information


John H. Josselyn, Legislative Vice President
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
P.O. Box 20102
Towson, MD 21284-0102
Email: lvp@associatedgunclubs.org
Webpage: www.associatedgunclubs.org





Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.












This email was sent to jacobhwagner@yahoo.com by lvp@associatedgunclubs.org |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. | Legislative Office | P.O. Box 20102 | Towson | MD | 21284-0102

Thanks AGC for bringing this to our attention, emails have been sent.

 

[joppaj]

I got that too Jake, trying to make sense of it now

 

[Inigoes]

Just got this notice from AGC, looks like Frosh has got his hands in HB 579. This isn't the bill Smiegel was trying to ammend is it? Did we get to the bottom of which one he was talking about?


http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102148500335-183/hb0579t.pdf

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=p85wsocab&v=001vv2TPD5jwtiA7J_rp9TFWwGulJgZS1_k6N3kdWPx3E7cRxZeKnevrLcxmmxCb49BLKlAwI3boOnD-dZo__IOAlz48fjPlRJx1NgpnV8TRZjcH342TBfCGb_FymEwjuNRdl8j6ZJUH_1Uli_Kbg7pDY_ObrSeK01gNrsFPbFq2BaLbD116fdXyIbAWK5lO1lWd3zUW0KdztU%3D

Judge Legg is not going to like Page 4 or 4

(ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”.

 

[jmcgonig]

based on an investigation:
(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that
may reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger to the person or
to another; andHB0579/828878/1 JPR
Amendments to HB 579
Page 4 of 4
(ii) has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport
a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution
against apprehended danger.”.

They are putting G&S into this law? What's the summery?

 

[Drmsparks]

Judge Legg is not going to like Page 4 or 4

Hopefully that will piss off Legg and quash the states chances for a stay.

What part of unconstitutional doesn't Frosh understand?

 

[Hotrod Diesel]

wtf are they trying to pull? and yes based on this statement I would agree this is what smigel was talking about:

(5) HAS COMPLETED A CERTIFIED FIREARMS SAFETY TRAINING COURSE IN PERSON APPROVED BY THE POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION BEFORE SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT; AND
[(5)] (6) based on an investigation:
(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and

 

[Garet Jax]

wtf are they trying to pull? and yes based on this statement I would agree this is what smigel was talking about:

(5) HAS COMPLETED A CERTIFIED FIREARMS SAFETY TRAINING COURSE IN PERSON APPROVED BY THE POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION BEFORE SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT; AND
[(5)] (6) based on an investigation:
(i) has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may reasonably render the person’s possession of a handgun a danger to the person or to another; and

(5) = Good and substantial training
(6i) = a subjective analysis by a person who is not qualified to make such a determination, but does not want you to get a concealed carry permit.

 

[MDFF2008]

If G&S goes down; they are going to try to create a way to ration the training requirement so it effectively becomes a backdoor G&S.

 

[dlmcbm]

That is the same set of laws that are on the books now. Thebold part of number 5 is what he is trying to add about training.

(5) HAS COMPLETED A CERTIFIED FIREARMS SAFETY TRAINING COURSE IN PERSON APPROVED BY THE POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION BEFORE SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT

 

[Drmsparks]

If G&S goes down; they are going to try to create a way to ration the training requirement so it effectively becomes a backdoor G&S.

this is why you fight to get the training requirement explicitly spelled out.

 

[dlmcbm]

Who has the link for the mass emailer?