Convince me that constitutional carry is a good thing

[Wolfgang]

I was asked the other day what I though about constitutional carry, and I admitted that I am caught in the middle. I fully believe in the 2nd Amendment...but I also see the importance of being trained and informed. If training isn't to be enforced, the perhaps it could...somehow...be encouraged in a way that would be attractive. Maybe (I'm just throwing something out there) after completion of a course a certificate is issued so one could buy ammo for 6 months at a discount...or no sales tax on it...or buy one gun tax free...or something that will make it worth one's time in more ways than one. You know...you don't HAVE to do it...but IF you do it then it benefits you in more ways than one.

[Liberty]

While I believe that everyone should have the right to carry and own unconditionally (or uninfringed) I would like to see the four rules and the second amendment printed and distributed with every box of ammo, every gun, and every accessory. This is probably education enough to start ..

[anygunanywhere]

Any laws that could be put in place to make it where govt employees are allowed to carry regardless of policy?

Are government employees special? Why should they be statutorily given permission to do something any citizen should be Able to do?

[jkurtz]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

[rotor]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

[Pariah3j]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

I don't think any reasonable person is objecting to the idea that some level of training/teaching needs to be obtained or sought out. The argument is against government mandated training. You wanted to know how to weld, so you took the class - were you required by the state to take that class before you could pick up and operate the welding machine ? That's the difference.

It scares me that we have a topic where someone needs to be convinced that constitutional carry is a good thing. This is probably one of the most pro 2A, gun rights friendly places, and if someone on this forum needs to be 'convinced' about Const. carry then we're screwed. Because on the un-gun friendly side we have groups like the "Mothers who demand stupid stuff" and other anti groups that hate guns because they make them feel bad, out of pure ignorance, or some other nonsensical reason. The left has for 100 years been nudging and framing the conversation, and sadly a whole lot of people have started to buy into their madness.

[Jusme]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

I don't think any reasonable person is objecting to the idea that some level of training/teaching needs to be obtained or sought out. The argument is against government mandated training. You wanted to know how to weld, so you took the class - were you required by the state to take that class before you could pick up and operate the welding machine ? That's the difference.

It scares me that we have a topic where someone needs to be convinced that constitutional carry is a good thing. This is probably one of the most pro 2A, gun rights friendly places, and if someone on this forum needs to be 'convinced' about Const. carry then we're screwed. Because on the un-gun friendly side we have groups like the "Mothers who demand stupid stuff" and other anti groups that hate guns because they make them feel bad, out of pure ignorance, or some other nonsensical reason. The left has for 100 years been nudging and framing the conversation, and sadly a whole lot of people have started to buy into their madness.

I have made it my mission to help teach my kids, at least basic gun safety, operation etc. I have worked with my son's Boy Scout troop through rifle, and shotgun instruction. (and before that with the cub scouts with BB guns) I have taught my wife how to shoot a handgun, she had shot some before but no actual training.
I believe that like anything with which you wish to become proficient, shooting must be learned. However, I don't think that the government should have any say so, in mandating training for a Constitutional 2A right, any more that they mandate training for exercising any other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I highly recommend that anyone wanting to purchase, and carry a fire arm, obtain some training, but I would recommend the same for someone wanting to use carpentry tools. While almost anyone can pick up a hammer and drive a nail, there is a way to do it safely. JMHO

[RogueUSMC]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

I don't think any reasonable person is objecting to the idea that some level of training/teaching needs to be obtained or sought out. The argument is against government mandated training. You wanted to know how to weld, so you took the class - were you required by the state to take that class before you could pick up and operate the welding machine ? That's the difference.

It scares me that we have a topic where someone needs to be convinced that constitutional carry is a good thing. This is probably one of the most pro 2A, gun rights friendly places, and if someone on this forum needs to be 'convinced' about Const. carry then we're screwed. Because on the un-gun friendly side we have groups like the "Mothers who demand stupid stuff" and other anti groups that hate guns because they make them feel bad, out of pure ignorance, or some other nonsensical reason. The left has for 100 years been nudging and framing the conversation, and sadly a whole lot of people have started to buy into their madness.

Overton Window?

[The Annoyed Man]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

I'm not in favor of mandatory handgun combat training to carry, but I am very much in favor of mandatory teaching firearms safety in public schools. We've had 30 years of teachers showing kids how to put a condom on a banana, and how to get an abortion without their parents' knowledge, but somehow, teaching them to be safe around firearms is ignored. And I would like to see a return to a day when high schools offered marksmanship teams as an extracurricular activity. I think that if we can produce just two generations of high school graduates who have all received something like the Eddy the Eagle instruction, and then had the opportunity to join a marksmanship team - if they so desire, and if their parents will let them - we could overturn the past 50-60 years of anti-gun political agendas.

[jkurtz]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

I'm not in favor of mandatory handgun combat training to carry, but I am very much in favor of mandatory teaching firearms safety in public schools. We've had 30 years of teachers showing kids how to put a condom on a banana, and how to get an abortion without their parents' knowledge, but somehow, teaching them to be safe around firearms is ignored. And I would like to see a return to a day when high schools offered marksmanship teams as an extracurricular activity. I think that if we can produce just two generations of high school graduates who have all received something like the Eddy the Eagle instruction, and then had the opportunity to join a marksmanship team - if they so desire, and if their parents will let them - we could overturn the past 50-60 years of anti-gun political agendas.

I do like the idea of firearms education in public schools, but it does bring up some problems.
1. Being taught at public school means it is government sponsored and the governments idea of firearms education may conflict with your idea of firearms education.
2. What is the government expected to teach vs. what should parents be teaching?

[rotor]

It is very difficult for me to argue for a mandated minimum training before constitutional carry because there are some very good arguments on this post against it such as long gun carry, motor vehicle act, etc. When I shoot at a range I see that many people shooting just do not know basic gun safety. It's a fact and it puts me and mine at risk being around them. That's why many ranges have a range safety officer, where I go it is left to the people at the range to appoint one person to do that. Although I have worked with my daughters on gun safety neither of them can safely use a gun and I teach my grandson as my daughter would not be able to adequately teach gun handling. Just the way it is. My wife could teach him. If my daughters wanted to carry they would need considerable instruction first, by me or whatever. I don't know what is involved with the hunter safety program but it applies to all people in Texas under a certain age and they can't get a hunting license without it. I believe Texas considers hunting a constitutional right. There have always been limits on rights. As of today I think we still have a voter ID requirement (which I agree with) to vote. Still, there are many good arguments both ways. I guess that the problem most people have is mandating some level of government required training. How about then we do something like for sale of a firearm, the person has to certify that he/she proves they are Texas residents, not a felon, over a certain age and "has had some training (my addition)" in use of such firearm before they will constitutional carry. The reality of course is that we will have a bunch of yahoos carrying everywhere including when they are "not sober" and possible injuring others. Just like DUI drivers kill people. Of course an exam doesn't prevent this behavior which goes back to my original point that it is hard to argue the virtues either way. I would just "feel better" if I knew the guy next to me had some training with the safe use of a gun. When I took my CHL the instructor had to help some students which is why it was safe for me to fire my gun with them at my left or right side. I don't really care if a person knows how to use a saw or screwdriver. The risk of me being killed by an inexperienced screwdriver user is slim to none. That's just me. I think the best argument for a level of government training is the LTC holder's excellent record of safety in Texas. We all know that we as a group have an excellent record and I personally feel safe around a LTC holder, much more than a non-LTC person. Just look at this forum itself. A ton of experience. I learn something new every time I come here. Makes me safer. Sorry for the rambling.

[jkurtz]

For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

Compared to any reputable defensive handgun training. The LTC course basically teaches you how to use a gun at a range, which is great for some people. It does not provide much in terms of education or training for using a gun in a real world scenario where deadly force is necessary and justified. So my point was,if training has to be mandatory (which I don't think it should be), it should be applicable to the real world outside of a static range.

[Soccerdad1995]

I think we are confusing what people should do with what they should be required to do. Personally, I think that people should do the following:

Take a few parenting classes before they have a kid

Get some pre-marital counseling before they get married

Educate themselves on the issues and candidates before they vote

Get some gun safety, proficiency, and legal training before they decide to carry a gun

But I DO NOT think that the government should mandate that people do any of the above. Why? Because we are talking about the exercise of fundamental, individual rights. Living in a free society means that we will have some irresponsible people, unfortunately. But IMHO that is vastly better than the alternative of living in a nanny state.

Others may disagree, but I would at least ask that we please not conflate the exercise of a right, such as those listed above, with the exercise of a privilege, such as driving (to use one oft quoted example).

[rotor]

Compared to any reputable defensive handgun training. The LTC course basically teaches you how to use a gun at a range, which is great for some people. It does not provide much in terms of education or training for using a gun in a real world scenario where deadly force is necessary and justified. So my point was,if training has to be mandatory (which I don't think it should be), it should be applicable to the real world outside of a static range.

This is where I believe you are wrong. The LTC course doesn't teach you how to use a gun at a range, it tests your proficiency. You must get a certain score to pass and in actuality for some at my class it was firearm instruction too but if I understand it the range exposure is to test proficiency. I agree it is not defensive training.