CCW training requirement just might be here soon.
- Thread starter dlmcbm
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
5.7
Just trying to be free
- Jan 21, 2012
- 197
I hold both as well and got my Florida permit 3 months ago, no Live fire, but basic training was required and my NRA class met that. Is that what you mean vice Live Fire? Cause I did no Live fire and I hold a Florida permit.
While those of us who believe in the 2A as a fundamental right may be against the idea of a training requirement, or even a permit for that matter, the reality is that it may very well be something that is put in place. I can even see SCOTUS upholding the training requirement as being Constitutional as long as it is not too restrictive. MD doesn't require a training requirement NOW, but they can pick and choose who will get a permit. If they cannot pick and choose, there is no reason to expect that they will make it so easy on us. My biggest concern is what has been brought out already, an expensive and involved training requirement with yearly qualifications etc. Think D.C's initial rules on getting a handgun.....
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Training was not at issue in Woollard -- not part of Judge's Legg's order. MD could amend the statute tomorrow to require training without any problem. Indeed, read Judge Legg's opinion closely -- he alludes to training as permissible. IMHO, the state *could* impose a reasonable training requirement under the 2A. Whether they *should* is a question on which reasonable people may disagree. Personally, I have no problem with a reasonable training requirement -- if you want to walk around with a deadly weapon in public, it is not unreasonable for the body public (the State) to insist that you know both 1. how to use it and 2. the law concerning when it is legal to use it. I think it likely that everyone on this forum could satisfy 1. easily enough. I tend to doubt whether *everyone* on this forum who wants to carry knows enough about the law. One of the nice things about the NRA PPOTH and PPITH courses is that they spend hours in class trying to teach the law. Carrying is a *huge* legal step and responsibility. Do yourself and your families a favor. Get some training in the law.
- Jan 17, 2011
- 1,837
I don't expect anything this year, but it may be an issue next year. I'm not particularly aggrieved by a nominal training requirement, but I worry that a lot of us will be divided on this issue and work against ourselves. If a horrendous training requirement bill is introduced in the General Assembly, it could be better to introduce amendments or an alternative bill that's more palatable. It might put us in the awkward position of supporting an additional restriction on gun rights compared to the present situation, but sometimes it's better to turn the wheel than hit the brakes.
dlmcbm
Ultimate Member
Could the state use this in there fight to get a stay? Saying that they need time to get this training in place? I know if they do the past how many ever years of not having it could be used against them also.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Could the state use this in there fight to get a stay? Saying that they need time to get this training in place? I know if they do the past how many ever years of not having it could be used against them also.
Very doubtful. It wouldn't save 5ii. And it is not up to the federal courts to tell the MD legislature what restrictions would be legal or to allow illegal restrictions to stay in place just so that the GA may (maybe) enact legal conditions. That's called advisory opinions and that is not allowed under Art. III of the Constitution.
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
jmira
VA Rocks.
none of those 'licenses' listed are part of the bill of rights.. ( wow first time I have said that! )
Then training should be mandated for public speaking, voting, and/or religous preference.
iobidder
1 point'er
I thought I was losing my mind, I agree with what you said, but everyone is saying opposite. Pretty sure I was correct, thanks for posting that.
dlmcbm
Ultimate Member
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.
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.
Do I like it? No. Is it better than the current system? Probably, if it's fairly applied and not just another G&S tactic. Right now, I can't get a permit. With this, I could, after some training.
Besides, what's stopping them from passing this even if they lose in courts? And would this new requirement really be found unconstitutional? G&S was arbitrary. A defined training requirement is not. And we can always fight it later, when the "blood in the streets" scenario never materializes.
Besides, what's stopping them from passing this even if they lose in courts? And would this new requirement really be found unconstitutional? G&S was arbitrary. A defined training requirement is not. And we can always fight it later, when the "blood in the streets" scenario never materializes.
Then they can claim there is no blood in the street because of the training requirement. In a perfect world we wouldn't have one. Of course, in a perfect world people who carry would take the time to get proper training on their own.
csanc123
Ultimate Member
Crap.....this is my fear...more obtuse, arbitrary and vague parameters with respect to permit requirements. Leave it up to MSP??? c'mon now!
IIRC the statute says "an NRA Instructor" who can attest to you firing the weapon. So yes the NRA basic pistol course or the PSINTH class works if you fire the firearm in the course.
Competition like IDPA satisfies the requirement as well. Instructor or official must sign an affidavit to the effect you complied.
dlmcbm
Ultimate Member
Crap.....this is my fear...more obtuse, arbitrary and vague parameters with respect to permit requirements. Leave it up to MSP??? c'mon now!
Yes thats why he is trying to fight it now. He knows if it goes through like this is will not be good.
5.7
Just trying to be free
- Jan 21, 2012
- 197
Not quite accurate, below is taken from the Fla Application. Proficiency does not always mean "Live Fire" as part of that. I now understand what you mean but many folks have a NRA or other basic firearms safety training certificate that meets the requirement but Live Fire was not part of it, nor does the rules say specifically "Live Fire". Again, not trying to be combative, but no where in the Fla rules does it specifically require live fire. My NRA class did not include live fire, I sent them a copy of that and my DD214 and had no issue and got my permit. In fact, alot of guys with DD214's never touched a gun and would meet the requirement as long as the got out with an honorable.
Anyway, please don't misconstrue my comments, meant to clarify not start a flame--
They claimed that because of G&S. They'll be claiming it any time we try to loosen restrictions. Who cares what they claim?
JMangle
Handsome Engineer
The big deal (for me) is that the State was fine with no training requirement when only their friends could get carry permits. Now that they are going shall-issue they feel the need to change?
Simply put: Screw them and the horse they rode in on.
To keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Why not make everyone take a theology class before going to church. I believe people should get training, but screw the state for trying to mandate it all of a sudden.
The state can get what my girlfriend calls, "An angry handy-Jay."
- Status
