CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

jmira · Apr 5, 2012

I have taken a bunch of CCJA/Tom Perroni Classes for both pistol/shotgun/carbine.. and multiple times.

They train/have trained the MSP trainers.. wonder if it will be good enough..

JMangle · Apr 5, 2012

Since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right, any training should be provided free of charge. I also say that the permit should be free.

Who do I have to pay a fee to in order to go to church?

pcfixer · Apr 5, 2012

Training requirement must be the same as the purchase requirement.
At my interview I'll state that, and as a plus I have
NRA RSO, NRA Handgun training certificate& for what it's worth Utah Concealed Carry
Permit.

Bikebreath · Apr 5, 2012

JMangle said:
Since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right, any training should be provided free of charge. I also say that the permit should be free.

Who do I have to pay a fee to in order to go to church?

No tithing?

krucam · Apr 5, 2012

If there is to be a training requirement, we need define it. Don't leave it open for interpretation/discretion.

Online safety course, NRA Basic Handgun...something definitive, spelled out.

All the existing permit holders will need to meet this requirement when they renew. Make sure that any onerous requirements (again, spelled out) will have to be met by everybody, including the good Senator's wife, at renewal time.

vector03 · Apr 5, 2012

Anyone consider the reason they're trying to push this through NOW? Maybe they're worried about an unfavorable ruling for the State BEFORE they're back in session?

If they can get a requirement for live fire in place before they go on break, they could plausibly delay issuing permits.

Name Taken · Apr 5, 2012

clandestine said:
I said they would do this and I was blasted for it and was told MD didnt have the authority.

If anyone thought they'd get rid of the G&S clause and add NOTHING to prevent CCW in this state they'd be mentally impaired.

MD does not want Joe Blow carrying a gun. So when one door closes to prevent this they will just open another.

I think they will require a live fire course much like Utah...heck they already require a special lock just to buy a gun. They have no qualms about who can and cant afford the class.

Storm40 · Apr 5, 2012

jmcgonig said:
I don't think they are going to make the training class hard.

I'm not worried about the difficulty, only the cost. I don't want to be forced to spend "a lot" on a class to satisfy a training requirement. I realize "a lot" is subjective, but I'd have a hard time shelling out $300 per year to maintain my permit. $50 every three years... perhaps that's more palatable.

in short. if there must be a training requirement, it should be defined and it should not be cost prohbitive. we are, after all, talking about a fundamental, enumerated Constitutional Right...

A. Wayne · Apr 5, 2012

I sincerely hope that there is an in depth, comprehensive training program. Something that will address issues such as where you cannot carry, when you should actually dare to "pull" your weapon, and the consequences of the use of it, both legally and emotionally.
I do not support CCW without such training.

NateIU10 · Apr 5, 2012

A lot of states don't have the training requirement, and there is evidence that required training makes absolutely no difference. LEO are completely different, they have totally different duties and are employees.

dlmcbm · 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

They do it right now. They have never had a training requirement before.

vector03 said:
Anyone consider the reason they're trying to push this through NOW?

YUP!!!! they see the state turning GREEN on the map.

Look left

csanc123 · Apr 5, 2012

Is the bolded not fairly simple...when your life is in danger? Am I missing something?

Also, what is comprehenive to you is certainly going to be overkill to others. I don't see people killing eachother in AK, VA etc or any other state that doesn't have "comprhensive" training requirements.

A. Wayne said:
when you should actually dare to "pull" your weapon,
I do not support CCW without such training.

rglrguy · Apr 5, 2012

Storm40 said:
get a police officer to sign off that you have demonstrated your skills and safe handling of firearms, for instance.

That is a good 'ol boy system if I've ever heard of one...

If there has to be a system it should be universal, not done on a who you know basis. Plus that system there is ripe for abuse, they can say one specific police officer in each county does it and some anti-gun counties will be tougher than others.

fightinbluhen51 · Apr 5, 2012

Patrick said:
Realistically I am not sure they have time to make something happen. It would require significant changes in the rules committees. It's possible - they have done more in less time in the past, but the calendar is running out.

In general I agree that leaving something in the hands of arbitrary deciders is bad. Better to get a requirement in that specifies something even normal people can meet, rather than let MSP politicians decide every day they wake up. An NRA class or veteran status is enough to not prevent a great number of people from joining in. The costs can be lower and there is ready access to trainers nationwide. As much as we would prefer 'nothing', the fact is most states require 'something'.

Training is the #1 way the state can restrict the right and force us back to court. My biggest fear these last few weeks has been a sleeper training bill.

My biggest fear is that this is a very, very, very real argument for the state to receive their permanent stay!

If they make, effectively, the case that they are not equipped to allow citizens to carry despite their neighboring states allowing the free exercise of the right (in states that have NO TRAINING REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN CARRY, READ DE & VA, MOST OF PA, I'll defer on WVA and NC since I do not know those states for their laws), why then should we subject ourselves to a potential derailment of permit issuance as quickly as possible?

This is BAD politicking when we are close to a victory. This is the equivalent of allowing certain army on a counter blitzkrieg to run out of supplies just so we can keep an Allied army happy.

dlmcbm · Apr 5, 2012

A. Wayne said:
I sincerely hope that there is an in depth, comprehensive training program. Something that will address issues such as where you cannot carry, when you should actually dare to "pull" your weapon, and the consequences of the use of it, both legally and emotionally.
I do not support CCW without such training.

I agree as this is something that I will seek when I get my permit. I am not to sure if i want it as a requirement but defiantly what I want to do. More so for the law side of it.

Mooseman · Apr 5, 2012

I support firearm training, but not as a requirement. It is not needed now it should not be needed later. That being said, should those of us who sent in applications send a copy of any training that we have already had? We could ask them to add it to our application packet.

Indiana Jones · Apr 5, 2012

What's the big deal. Go take a training class like you guys did for Utah and bam your done. Be grateful we have gotten this far at all! The glass is half full!

Bikebreath · Apr 5, 2012

Storm40 said:
I'm not worried about the difficulty, only the cost. I don't want to be forced to spend "a lot" on a class to satisfy a training requirement. I realize "a lot" is subjective, but I'd have a hard time shelling out $300 per year to maintain my permit. $50 every three years... perhaps that's more palatable.

in short. if there must be a training requirement, it should be defined and it should not be cost prohbitive. we are, after all, talking about a fundamental, enumerated Constitutional Right...

At $50 it's reasonable, but at $300 courts could show discrimination against the poor.

Glaug-Eldare · Apr 5, 2012

Here's a question, though. If a really horrendous bill is advanced to define the training requirement, would you want to just fight that and hope it doesn't get enacted, or would you be willing to advance an alternative bill that also defines a training standard, but a lower one?

csanc123 · Apr 5, 2012

The beig deal is that we don't know what they have in mind. It could be a 3 day training class for all we know....they could require 10 hours of live fire for all we know. They could require Barney the Purple dinosaur to sign your permit app attesting to your training Ok...a big stretch...but you get my point. :-)

Indiana Jones said:
What's the big deal. Go take a training class like you guys did for Utah and bam your done. Be grateful we have gotten this far at all! The glass is half full!

CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

VA Rocks.

Handsome Engineer

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

Frustrated Incorporated

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.- Hooligan #4

Wolverine

R.I.P.

Senior Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics