Why we oppose training requirements for firearm ownership

First and most obviously - they violate the constitution.
it is impossible to soundly argue that a training requirement for the ownership and possession of a firearm passes the Bruen test.

That out of the way and aside....

See: Appendix B
https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

This is the qualification test necessary to obtain a CCW permit in NJ
This test is physically demanding, requires 80% hits to pass, and every stage is against a stopwatch. A fair number of people can pass this test -- but a fair number cannot, especially those who are old, weak, or otherwise physically impaired.

(Note that these people are those most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves)

We oppose training requirements because it is perfectly within the realm of possibility - as proven by the NJ requirements, above - that a state - run by a super-majority of anti-gun Democrats/liberals/leftists - will impose a similar, or more stringent, qualification test just to own a gun. This level of testing intentionally reduces the number of people who can legally own a gun, and, just as intentionally, strips the remained of that right.

Not one inch.

 

Everything the anti-gunners want is to make gun ownership harder to obtain and zilch to do with safety.

 

Anti-gun guys might think that any kind of training makes firearm owners better shooters thus making them more dangerous.

 

"If you don't have training you're too dangerous to own a gun. If you get training, you're too dangerous to own a gun".

That's some catch, that Catch-22.

 

Every year there are a large number of injuries and deaths resulting from people using ladders, something avoidable if people accepted the responsibility to learn how to safely use ladders. part of being responsible is accepting the responsibility for self education. Iam an advocate of people to accept the responsibility to become educated about firearms and their responsible use. I have over 70 years of experience with fire arms and am a firearms instructor, yet I am still continuing to learn. However, when discussing a training requirement by those that regurgitate this sound good tripe, I ask 2 questions first what is the objective of such a requirement and second, what specifically would a training requirement entail? I have never been given a logical and coherent answer to those questions that isn’t born of ignorance. Anyone care to give it a shot?

 

Thank you, again, for reminding me how fortunate we are here in Texas. No registration, no permits, no waiting periods, no magazine capacity restrictions... just the Constitution! TEXAS!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

public safety is at best a facade that anti gun lefties erect to hide their real goals-which of course is disarming people who disagree with their leftist collectivist schemes

 

Someone has been training criminals to hold their firearms sideways.

 

LOL.
The Second Amendment:

A well regulated* Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

https://constitution.congress.gov › a...
Second Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov

What part of "well regulated," do you see as not implying any training, testing, or regulation? I don't give a diarrhetic crap, how one Supreme Court ruled, in one case, or in a small handful of them:
First, the recent striking down of the fifty year old abortion ruling, with reams of supplemental case law, solidifying its place in precedent, has proven that SCOTUS rulings are absolutely not guarantees, of permanence.

Second, you are putting forth your argument against firearm training requirements, on a political DEBATE site-- so keep on dreaming, you could start off any legitimate argument, with the less than unshakeable, "given" point, that training requirements, "obviously violate the constitution." If that were so, there would be no need of any debate, in the first place...LOL-Again.

 

They have to, don't they?

 

As usual you make some good points, but I am not convinced your narrative about the reasons behind liberal pushed policy are fair. I find the left to be very diverse just as I find the right. The concern I hear from many on both sides of the isle is the need for less gun crime. For me to weigh in I would have to see some data on what if any impact such licensing laws have on gun crime over a long enough period to get reliable statistics on.

As far as the test you spoke of, I am not a fan of physical requirements but I am a fan of shot accuracy and firearm best practices in terms of safety. But on this I would also want to see data on its impact upon accidental discharge and rates of gun crime.

Not sure if I have asked you, but do you have any suggested reading on topics such as gun crime, historical analysis of firearm culture and gun law, the 2A?

 

gun training can't be required, but both sides of this issue should support potential gun owners getting some training

 

null

 

when i see this sort of tripe I know the author has zero understanding of constitutional law. We gun advocates support training. what we oppose are people like you demanding peoples' exercise of a right be contingent on doing things you push -things that are designed to harass gun owners. well regulated means a MILITIA that works well.

 

agreed but gun banners push training as an obstacle to owning firearms. The problem is this-when people who want to ban guns push for ANYTHING less onerous than a gun ban, we correctly see it as a step towards bans

 

And when I see this kind of blustery rhetoric, supported by no actual rebutting argument, backing up its vacant assertions, I know that I am facing a "debater," who either has no argument, or who doesn't know how to present one.

First, you did not even offer a source, for your definition of "a well regulated militia"-- or are you, the source?

Secondly, if you were able to show that this was the opinion of the Court majority, review my argument, which has already addressed the idea, that SCOTUS rulings are, no longer, to be seen as impervious to overturning.

Hence it seems to be you, who lacks a great deal of understanding-- about far more than simply "constitutional law."

 

you labor under the delusion that the second amendment somehow gave congress MORE power. The second amendment is nothing more than a negative restriction upon a federal government that was never given any power to require private citizens-acting in their private capacity-to be "trained" in order to keep and bear arms

 

On a somewhat related topic..... I think the public school system needs to teach basic firearm safety to children.

But liberals are completely opposed to that idea. It tells you it's not about safety.

They're afraid kids might grow up to actually like them and be safe around them

 

The state could provide free training classes. That would benefit everyone, wouldn't it?
Just provide classes where people can show up, no names taken, no required enrollment.

 

"Will train firearm safety and marksmanship... for ammo"

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant congress any legislative powers.

Also, if you look at congress's actual legislative powers, you'll not find any power allowing them to make a law requiring gun training.

 

If they don't understand this obvious point of constitutional law, they cannot be taken seriously. If they do, and continue to spew such complete nonsense, then their arguments are dishonest. Either way-their claims are steaming fertilizer

 

There is a difference between training and emulation. When you consider shooting a gun sideways would be a highly inaccurate method of shooting it should be obvious no competent training is involved.
Think it’s a good technique, go to the range and do your own testing.

 

that is a form of self training, sadly some do not even do that

 

are you claiming that the things that cause so many left-wingers to demand gun bans or onerous restrictions are caused by those who LACK training?