I've heard quite a few people saying that gun owners should be required to obtain operation and safety training in order to own a gun. I believe I could get behind that. I've heard many of the same people claim that firearm ownership under the second amendment only applies to members of the militia. While the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, this idea does tie into the training idea. Logically anyone who is a member of the federal militia would need to be able to obtain firearms and ammunition. They still should be required to have operation and safety training as well. If that training is necessary for gun ownership, it should apply to the militia as well. So, US citizens should be required to pass a firearm operation and safety training course within a reasonable time of entry into the federal militia, probably somewhere between six months and a year before or after the date of their entry. This training should be free for all militia members and offered by the government. The easiest avenue for this would be through the public school system. Thus, I propose that every US male be required to take and pass a federal firearm operation and safety course sometime between their sixteenth and seventeenth birthday in order to meet the suggested training requirements and to ensure their compliance with US code title 10 which places every male between 17 and 45 in the federal militia. Since militia membership isn't optional, the training shouldn't be either and since every 17 year old male is in the militia, they should all be required to be trained on weapons safety. These classes can be offered in every public high school in the country a few times a year. This training might even help reduce the number of accidental shootings, since so many more people will be trained in firearm safety. It will also increase the effectiveness of the federal militia if it ever does need to be activated on short notice. What is your opinion on this idea?
we could do that, but then it's no longer a right, but a privilege like driving a car I am ok with that, but it would take a constitutional amendment
First, the states control the militias until they are federalized. Second, as Popeye would say, "what about the wiming, Olive?"
The current US code only says that females who are part of the national guard are members of the militia, while every male between 17 and 45 is a member. That could be changed, and would be a logical thing to include in a bill that would create the requirement I suggested.
The 2nd amendment was written to avoid the Federal government making gun ownership illegal, so that the states could mount a militia when necessary. (Remember that in 1790 much of the army was disbanded and the militias were responsible for defense) In 1791 there was a renewed interest in a standing army to deal with frontier issues and it became clear during the war of 1812 that a US Army was a necessity on the world state. The militias were not as well trained and it was a secondary thing so many members were not as dedicated to the battles and this was apparent even in the revolutionary war. But despite that, it was seen as necessary by a skeptical country who wanted more local control of the military for obvious reasons. However the 2nd was never a blanket right and was not meant to not have restrictions like all other rights. A constitutional argument can be made for limits on who can have a gun, what kind, and what are the requirements as long as they don't go too far. That is why we have courts to help us decide that. Safety training could be seen as being in the public interest and thus a requirement as long as most people can do it, it isn't prohibitive by distance to training, amount of time and cost. If gun rights groups were smart they would require it for membership and they can on a private level have a certification that gives them immunity in the public dialogue from being the crazies they sound like.
Not arguing, just pointing out a gap. I think requiring training would be a great idea. Statistically, people who receive this type of training tend to keep their weapons safer and have fewer weapons losses as well as fewer shootings of familiars. I'd be willing to have the government fund the training in partnership with the guns rights groups. now try to get some of "them" on board.
Who does the training? Who pays for it? And guess what, stupid, irresponsible and criminal minded types will still get guns and will do stupid, irresponsible and criminal acts with them. Just like with their cars.
Miltias are still allowed to be formed by local citizens. Why aren't you advocating more militias instead of more gun restrictions? If you really want to know what should be acceptable as far as private gun ownership goes, just reseach what was done in the way of gun control back in 1789. It is a good idea to have training, but this is a common sense thing, and should not be another infringement on the 2nd. As any free person was allowed to have a gun back before Marxists began to destroy freedom, I do not think a very old, freeble person, who could not do well enough at all to pass any kind of restrictive gun training course, should have any of these restrictions on their right to have a gun. Even if they have just enough energy to hold the weapon, that is usually enough to scare off criminals. You have already told everyone that these older and weaker citizens should be disarmed and stripped of their rights. You support discrimination like this, I don't.
I am not against courses but where I live most young guys are trained by the fathers to handle weapons correctly . I also joined the Army at 17 and had some pretty good training . That should count as something. Nothing is free !!
I agree with that in principle, but what I'm suggesting isn't a test, it is mandatory training - a no-fail or keep taking it until you pass kind of training. Every citizen over 17 would be required to successfully complete this training - kind of like the selective service registration requirement. Just like selective service, failure to complete this training could result in a loss of federal benefits - since by not obtaining this training, a person is not meeting their individual responsibilities as a US citizen.
I believe it is a good idea to get training, but I don't want it to be forced by law. I never received any formal training, but I am well trusted as a competent gun owner by family and friends.
Since bearing arms is a right, the only way the government can mandate training is if they offer to fund it. Good luck getting your congressmen to support this, though! Since Demoncrats are opposed to the 2nd Amendment and Republicans are hesitant about anything people might consider to be wasteful spending or big brother government, it would not get very far.
That's not what I said at all. I was simply telling the OP that it would be difficult to achieve. Oh yeah -- did I mention I served in the US Army as a property accounting technician warrant officer?
Thank you for your service. It was not to long ago many High Schools had marksmanship programs. Money well spent.
you just gotta wonder, when I take the mandated training, will it encompassed every weapon I could ever conceivably own or will I have to take a new training every time I buy a different type of weapon, will it include the different types of similar weapons such as striker fire verses hammered pistols, will it include semi auto verses single shot, bolt action, pump action, double action, will it include training in rim fire, center fire pistol, long rifle, shot gun. How long will this class be? If I buy a gun and take the training then leave my weapon alone for 15 years or so will I be required to take a refresher course because I forgot everything I learned 15 years ago? If I'm poor who will pay for it since I deserve the right to protect myself? Who will provide the finances for my training if I have to qualify with all types of weapon. Who will pay for it if I have to travel to get to the training and if it lasts longer than a day, who will pay for my overnight stay and meals? Just a few important questions I'm sure the OP has an answer for.
Yes to all would be the government solution. But that would have to be for every family member as well.
Good lord, the whole family??? You mean I couldn't take the training and teach my own family?? You mean my military and/or police training wouldn't count?? How much money does the government have to pay for this type of training?? Wow, this is already getting out of control.
The training would not have to encompass every kind of firearm. It wouldn't have to be that in-depth. Basic firearm training would be enough for the average person. Did you know that many people don't know what a safety is on a firearm? That the average person thinks that a dropped firearm is likely to go off? That a bullet will knock a person down? That an assault rifle makes bigger holes in a person than a hunting rifle or handgun? That turning a handgun sideways to shoot it is either more accurate or more deadly? These kinds of myths would be dispelled by basic firearm training. It would also show people how to safely handle any firearm - those principles are the same for every kind of firearm. It would cover the things that every shooter should know - know your target, treat every gun as if it was loaded, never point it at a person, finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, etc. A surprisingly large part of military firearms training just covers these basic safety factors, and these are the kinds of things that every gun owner should know. More importantly, this training would significantly cut the spin up time required if the US militia was ever activated. At least its members would know the basics of gun safety and would be less likely to shoot each other while they were getting organized.
Wrong the Militia can not be federalized that is the difference between the National Guard and a State Militia, The federal gov can ask the states for control of their militias but the states can refuse.
Allow me to clarify. By militia I mean National Guard. I do not count state militias as military organizations. In Texas, for example their duties are Military Emergency Management Specialists Emergency Shelter Management (Operations & Security) Emergency Medical Services (Doctors, Nurses, Mental Health & Paramedics) Assists local civil authorities Volunteer coordination Legal support (attorneys & paralegals) Information management & communications Chaplain services Search and rescue Operational support to Texas Army and Air National Guards Annual free medical care mission along the Texas border with Mexico ("Operation Lone Star") Border monitoring Note that "combat" is not on this list. I do not mean to minimize their service, only their serviceability as fighting military units.
