Training Requirement for CCW - What's the big deal? (go easy on me)

[BenL]

I agree with you, but VA and Fl are very pro gun states. it is no surprise they have very reasonable requirements. I feel in this state if you give an inch they will take a foot. If you agree to the foot in the first place they will want the mile.

...or worse, pull some BS like Connecticut did when they realized they were losing the CCW fight: add an assault weapons ban to the bill. They got their CCW rights recognized, but at a hefty price.

 

[rambling_one]

So that tells me that we should at least be thinking about what would be acceptable to us. Sometimes, if you compromise, you can prevent a much worse result. If you fight everything, you may regret it in the end. Personally, I have both a VA and a FL permit and had no problem with satisfying the requirements in either state. For example, any NRA firearms training certificate works with VA. FL is tougher, requiring range time training. Imagine that we win Woollard in the CA4 and the state sees (duh) that restrictions have be justified. They can make a case that training is reasonable for CCW permits if only because a lot of states, including Utah and Florida require it. I am here to tell you that such a training requirement will almost certainly survive a legal 2A challenge. Even Virginia requires some proof of minimal competency, e.g., a hunter safety certificate. You count votes in the GA and you decide to bargain as a way to minimize the damage. That's how the legislative process works. We may not like it, but I am not going to set myself on fire in protest if that is the wisest way to prevent a really bad training law. It's a judgment call.

Thus, the State should issue me a permit without further training because FL, UT and VA are among the seven out of state permits I already hold.

 

[DOsniper]

Totally agree. When it comes to fighting the good fight.

Seeing how the situation unfolds may be the best plan, there are too many what-ifs. MSI already has a plan B.

That's unintentionally what I think is happening here, I'm just ballsing up to ask the question and take some heat for it, however, its a discussion that needs to happen and everyone (or almost everyone) needs to be on the same page so their is no internal conflict when the time comes to ACTUALLY address it.

I'd rather get the cat out of the basket now and see REALISTICALLY what/how much people would compromise on the issue. To say you wouldn't is, I'm sorry to say, doing you and 2A folks alike, a huge disservice, because that means MORE time, money, aggrevation, etc is spent to ultimately find a solution to a problem that could have potentially been already solved.

Look at Woollard, had the state said, ok, we F'ed this one up, let's see what we can do, they would have save us, the courts, lawyers, etc, a lot of time, money and HA, but instead, they are fighting a fight we/they ultimately they will lose and could have been a nonissue years ago.

I don't want that to happen to us as 2A advocates. I hate to say, but fighting a training requirement of some kind is a fight we WILL lose, period. Just like MD will loose this case given the CCW situation in other states, we stand to lose in the same way given the fact other states have training requirements and the residents go along with it instead of trying to fight it. SUCKS, but as Tony Stark would say (lame but true), "It's an imperfect world but it's the only one we got."

 

[DOsniper]

Thus, the State should issue me a permit without further training because FL, UT and VA among the seven out of state permits I already hold.

I think that would be a reasonable request. If you hold a CCW in a state that requires training then I don't see why that should not count. Or, if you are ex-military/law enforcement. Besides, my drivers license is good in every other state right?!?

 

[rambling_one]

I am persuaded by those who argue that it is not unreasonable for the public to ask those who wish to carry in public (outside the home) to demonstrate that they 1. are competent in the use of the weapon and 2. have some basic understanding in the safe use and handling of the weapon. The public has a legitimate interest in both as the CCW is for carrying in public. In sum, I am ok with FL and UT and VA CCW requirements. Like much in life, the devil will be in the details.

Neither the public nor general assembly found a need to ask the question prior to Judge Legg's ruling.
Many are thus asking, "What's changed"?

 

[popopjohn]

Ok, I am posting this knowing very well in advanced it is going to catch heat but I want to get a consensus of the reasons why people are against so sort of minimal training requirement for a CCW. HYPOTHETICALLY, let's say for a brief moment the State is actually willing to work with us on this issue inside or outside of court, and they say ok, but at minimum you have to have either the MD Handgun Course or Hunter Safety Card. Would you all really throw it back in their face if that was their only condition (on top of background check and the usual business)?

Here's my 2c: Yes, the 2A is a right and it should not be "infringed" upon, but let's stop playing stupid and actually acknowledge the fact a firearm is a very dangerous object that can harm/kill accidentally if in the wrong/uninformed hands (yes and in criminals hands, that's a whole different can of worms). With that said, I feel it would only take one kid or random pedestrian being killed by some dickhead accidentally setting off his gun because he did something other "trained"/informed shooters would know not to do, and the media would blow that shit up in all the papers and news channels and before you know it every douche representing some unknown anti-2A organization is convincing MD to some how throw the CCW laws out the window again. You can say I am crazy, but go on you tube and look at how many people bitch and complain against open carrying or guys getting stopped in open carry states because, "it scares people," and some moron calls the police, even though the guy carrying is within his rights. So now, consider the situation I described and tell me why the liberal left wouldn't have an anti-2A field day if something like that happened

So I want to hear reasons against this statement. Please, refrain from bringing money it to this because seriously, if you can't afford $50 for a hunter's safety course, then you probably can't afford the gun, ammo, and gas it will take to go hunting plus, MD's Handgun Course is free (assuming they require one of the two, I have no clue what NRA classes run). Please stay calm and cool headed, it's just for conversation. I freaking love the 2A and this country and would die for it in a flash, but I am also a rational/logical personal who thinks you can't always have your cake and eat too.

With that said, let the chaos begin

Edit: Due to the distaste of the word "pretend," I am changing the wording to "hypothetically." I am well aware the odds of the state offering such a deal is a billion to one, but doesn't mean there still isn't a chance and hence the curiosity behind the question.

dont we already have to take a online class to purchase a handgun in md i agree not everyone should be carrying but theres plenty that shouldnt be driving and they have to take a test to get a license

 

[DOsniper]

Neither the public nor general assembly found a need to ask the question prior to Judge Legg's ruling.
Many are thus asking, "What's changed"?

Who cares. At this point it's water under the bridge. I'm not concerned about what was, I'm concerned about today and what the future holds and it will unfortunately require us to face this issue.

 

[Boxcab]

Who cares. At this point it's water under the bridge. I'm not concerned about what was, I'm concerned about today and what the future holds and it will unfortunately require us to face this issue.

So you ask the question, but are not really open to an answer that you do not like.

Really? Who cares?

 

[300RUM]

Ok here are the simple reasons I am completely against a training requirement.

1. I have more training with firearm safety and handling/use than what police departments require. It is my opinion that most police are under qualified.

2. Who's opinion is it that determines minimum. My opinion if I'm going to sign off and say you are good to go with CCW is MAG 40, No joke that is my minimum that a noob should have or equivilent.

3. I also want yearly re-qualifications (shooting is a perishable skill). I want some proof of a minimum of 100 rounds/month, could be competition (IDPA, USPSA, ICORE....) or training class.

4. And finally, I you have a requirement that people pass, does that make anyone anymore responsible. I think it give people a false sense of competence. It is your responsibility and yours alone to protect yourself and be safe. If you don't feel you are qualified seek instruction until you do (which will probably lead to alot more training because you didn't know what you don't know, if you know what I mean)

 

[300RUM]

That's unintentionally what I think is happening here, I'm just ballsing up to ask the question and take some heat for it, however, its a discussion that needs to happen and everyone (or almost everyone) needs to be on the same page so their is no internal conflict when the time comes to ACTUALLY address it.

I'd rather get the cat out of the basket now and see REALISTICALLY what/how much people would compromise on the issue. To say you wouldn't is, I'm sorry to say, doing you and 2A folks alike, a huge disservice, because that means MORE time, money, aggrevation, etc is spent to ultimately find a solution to a problem that could have potentially been already solved.

Look at Woollard, had the state said, ok, we F'ed this one up, let's see what we can do, they would have save us, the courts, lawyers, etc, a lot of time, money and HA, but instead, they are fighting a fight we/they ultimately they will lose and could have been a nonissue years ago.

I don't want that to happen to us as 2A advocates. I hate to say, but avoiding a training requirement of some kind is a fight WILL lose, period. Just like MD will loose this case given the CCW situation in other states, we stand to lose in the same way given the fact other states have training requirements and the residents go along with it instead of trying to fight it. SUCKS, but as Tony Stark would say (lame but true), "It's an imperfect world but it's the only one we got."

I will add that I would be ok if the State made Hunter Safety, or NRA Basic pistol a requirement. I think you have a valid concern. But I stand by opinion, it will not do a damn bit of good. And I think we should resist right up to the last moment

 

[DOsniper]

So you ask the question, but are not really open to an answer that you do not like.

Really? Who cares?

Never said I did not like your answer, simply that what's done is done and attention needs to paid to how can we fix this and what can we expect from the opposition. Unfortunately, to get people to change what has been is to take it to court, which is where we are today. My apologies for being short.

 

[DOsniper]

I will add that I would be ok if the State made Hunter Safety, or NRA Basic pistol a requirement. I think you have a valid concern. But I stand by opinion, it will not do a damn bit of good. And I think we should resist right up to the last moment

A captain that goes down with the ship, I like it. I respect that a 100%. Can't say the same for MD GA.

 

[Inigoes]

That's unintentionally what I think is happening here, I'm just ballsing up to ask the question and take some heat for it, however, its a discussion that needs to happen and everyone (or almost everyone) needs to be on the same page so their is no internal conflict when the time comes to ACTUALLY address it.

I'd rather get the cat out of the basket now and see REALISTICALLY what/how much people would compromise on the issue. To say you wouldn't is, I'm sorry to say, doing you and 2A folks alike, a huge disservice, because that means MORE time, money, aggrevation, etc is spent to ultimately find a solution to a problem that could have potentially been already solved.

Look at Woollard, had the state said, ok, we F'ed this one up, let's see what we can do, they would have save us, the courts, lawyers, etc, a lot of time, money and HA, but instead, they are fighting a fight we/they ultimately they will lose and could have been a nonissue years ago.

I don't want that to happen to us as 2A advocates. I hate to say, but avoiding a training requirement of some kind is a fight WILL lose, period. Just like MD will loose this case given the CCW situation in other states, we stand to lose in the same way given the fact other states have training requirements and the residents go along with it instead of trying to fight it. SUCKS, but as Tony Stark would say (lame but true), "It's an imperfect world but it's the only one we got."

Don't forget, this scenario is like a game of poker. You never want to show your cards, until the hand has played out.

Trying to game the what-ifs will drive a person insane figuring in all the variables and unintended consequences.

 

[esqappellate]

Thus, the State should issue me a permit without further training because FL, UT and VA are among the seven out of state permits I already hold.

Agreed completely!! I have the FL and the VA permits. Seriously, each state is, of course, free to impose their own requirements, but all the training that satisfied FL and VA should be more than sufficient to satisfy any reasonable Md requirement.

 

[esqappellate]

Neither the public nor general assembly found a need to ask the question prior to Judge Legg's ruling.
Many are thus asking, "What's changed"?

And that's a fair point. The answer that is given by the antis is that after the demise of G&S, the number of permits will soar. Right now, according to the GAO, MD, with a population of over 4 million, only has 12,000 active permits. That's about 1/3 of 1% vs the roughly 2-3 percent of the population with permits in shall issue states. More permits means, statistically, more possibility of harm. At least, that's the argument. I am not suggesting that it should be accepted, but that's the argument.

 

[Inigoes]

And that's a fair point. The answer that is given by the antis is that after the demise of G&S, the number of permits will soar. Right now, according to the GAO, MD, with a population of over 4 million, only has 12,000 active permits. That's about 1/3 of 1% vs the roughly 2-3 percent of the population with permits in shall issue states. More permits means, statistically, more possibility of harm. At least, that's the argument. I am not suggesting that it should be accepted, but that's the argument.

WI proved that theory wrong.

 

[esqappellate]

WI proved that theory wrong.

Oh, in fact, you are right, there has not been a big problem in WI. But, then, Wisc also requires proof of training, so the comparison may not be apt. See Wis. Stat. § 175.60(7)(e).

EDIT: Interestingly enough, on Rambling's point, Wisc accepts as proof of training a copy of another state's CCW permit.

 

[MJD438]

Oh, in fact, there has not been a big problem in WI. But, then, Wisc also requires proof of training, so the comparison may not be apl. See Wis. Stat. § 175.60(7)(e).

Looks fairly simple and similar to the requirements for purchasing a regulated firearm here in the PDRoMD. Item #3 is interesting to see.

(4) Training requirements.

(a) The proof of training requirement under sub. (7) (e) may be met by any of the following:

1. A copy of a document, or an affidavit from an instructor or organization that conducted the course or program, that indicates the individual completed any of the following:

a. The hunter education program established under s. 29.591 or a substantially similar program that is established by another state, country, or province and that is recognized by the department of natural resources.
b. A firearms safety or training course that is conducted by a national or state organization that certifies firearms instructors.
c. A firearms safety or training course that is available to the public and is offered by a law enforcement agency or, if the course is taught by an instructor who is certified by a national or state organization that certifies firearms instructors or by the department, by a technical college, a college or a university, a private or public institution or organization, or a firearms training school.
d. A firearms safety or training course that is offered to law enforcement officers or to owners and employees of licensed private detective and security agencies.
e. A firearms safety or training course that is conducted by a firearms instructor who is certified by a national or state organization that certifies firearms instructors or who is certified by the department.​

2. Documentation that the individual completed military, law enforcement, or security training that gave the individual experience with firearms that is substantially equivalent to a course or program under subd. 1.
3. A current or expired license, or a photocopy of a current or expired license, that the individual holds or has held that indicates that the individual is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or in another state or in a county or municipality of this state or of another state unless the license has been revoked for cause.
4. Documentation of completion of small arms training while serving in the U.S. armed forces, reserves, or national guard as demonstrated by an honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions or a certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of small arms training and certification.​

(formatting mine for readability)

 

[EL1227]

Looks fairly simple and similar to the requirements for purchasing a regulated firearm here in the PDRoMD. Item #3 is interesting to see.
(formatting mine for readability)

Looks a LOT like VA ... Of course, Brian Frosh thinks that the PRofMD is a much 'safer and saner' place than VA.

 

[esqappellate]

Looks a LOT like VA ... Of course, Brian Frosh thinks that the PRofMD is a much 'safer and saner' place than VA.

Betcha that Brian has not been strolling through the inner harbor and environs at night lately.