Should classes and proficiency licensure be required for firearms ownership?

SSG Gerhard S. — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:39:04 -0500

I recently heard an interview with a congressman regarding "common sense" gun-violence laws. They suggested we should require training and proficiency certification, and more extensive background checks prior to allowing people to possess firearms. After all, they argued, we require training, and a test to drive a car? Here's my question: If we're going down this road, why do we entrust any idiot to bear and raise a child with no training, proficiency testing, or background checks?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 12:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:47:13 -0500

NO, I agree with training, but I do not believe it should be a requirement for ownership.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 9 at 2016 12:52 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:52:20 -0500

No. What exactly is the concern... that would-be criminals are not competent enough with their firearms?

If we had required the San Bernadino shooters for example to be more proficient with their firearms, would that have helped or hurt? Responsible gun owners already do the right thing. Criminals do not. Government training would-be criminals on lethal tactics doesn't seem like a solution to anything, not to mention how much it leaves open the opportunity for manipulation by future politicians to restrict rights of law abiding citizens.

Should we also require certification and proficiency training for owning a knife, since 8 times more people are killed by knives each year than by rifles?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 12:58 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:58:48 -0500

Are gang bangers and common offence criminals or even terrorists going to be attending the classes or obtaining proficiency licenses?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jan 9 at 2016 1:02 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:02:58 -0500

Of course? Why wouldn't want we want to ensure competency?

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jan 9 at 2016 1:13 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:13:20 -0500

Perhaps there should be classes and proficiency to use the 1st Amendment as well. Driving a car is not a Constitutional right whereas gun ownership is. Now I do think responsible citizens should take the time to become proficient on their weapons so they can use them the right way. But if the government requires it, than we are adding a cost burden to citizens to exercise their rights.

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Jan 9 at 2016 3:26 PM

SSG Delanda Hunt — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 15:26:48 -0500

yes, that's not a big deal we have too many people that have no glue about firearm safety or how to use a gun properly.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Jan 9 at 2016 4:59 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 16:59:16 -0500

No.

However, I do favor requiring both firearms safety courses and gun ownership, as sub-minimal requirements in the revitalization of the Constitutional Militia in each State.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 9 at 2016 5:36 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:36:12 -0500

I think that it never hurts to have refresher training to maintain good safety.
It was a normal occurrence during my military career

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 9 at 2016 7:17 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:17:42 -0500

Yes
As soon as the same is required to vote
Speak
Have kids
Practice religion

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Jan 9 at 2016 7:18 PM

PVT Robert Gresham — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:18:22 -0500

Unfortunately, SSG Gerhard S., most of the "common-sense" measures, in reference to firearms, do not take into account the fact that criminals are not going to follow them. If we want to curb gun violence we need to make the penalties for illegal use and possession of firearms so stiff that people will actually think twice before using them. Oh, yeah, and no more of this, "Let's let them out early. They were so wonderful while they were in prison." Of course were wonderful, they don't get guns in prison. Keep them for an automatic 15-20 years, if convicted of using a gun in a violent crime, and NO possibility of parole. No one will ever stop the hardcore criminals, but at least some of them will be off the streets for a long time. ..........Sorry, my rant is now finished.... :-)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2016 9:36 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 21:36:10 -0500

I think if you want to make full use of your firearm you should seek out some training. But to say you have to have training to have a gun I don't agree. You can buy a car and not be licensed. I think the system we have is pretty good. I am sure there are a few tweeks to it. The mental health capacity of some is what I question at times. I don't think making a person going through training would prevent them from not shooting someone. It would only mean that when they do off the deep end they will have a better idea how to shoot.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Jan 9 at 2016 10:42 PM

SGT Jimmy Carpenter — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 22:42:05 -0500

Driving a car is a privilege, owning firearms is a right.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 10 at 2016 12:03 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 00:03:48 -0500

When they require testing to get a voters license and testing before people are allowed to have children, they can require testing for gun ownership.

Response by SFC Frank Hartley made Jan 10 at 2016 9:06 AM

SFC Frank Hartley — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:06:32 -0500

Uhmm, definitely not. Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE not a right, which is what owning a firearm is.

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Jan 10 at 2016 10:54 AM

SFC William "Bill" Moore — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:54:45 -0500

Many years ago, this same proposal was conceived by a few people, some within the NRA,or at least, with ties and membership with the NRA. The Democrats and Liberals squashed the thought because they would not be able to control the training and requirements. It was supposed to be very similar to a drivers license, where you did not necessarily own a firearm, but was allowed to own one. It would have done away with the federal requirement of firearms registration and left it to the states if they deemed it so. Later, the Dems and Libs brought out their version which is very similar to the crap that is going on now, not unlike what happened in Germany in the late 1930s. So my answer is a resounding NO. Since common sense is not involved and the fact that the 2nd is a Right, not a privilege like driving.

Response by MAJ James Fitzgerald made Jan 10 at 2016 5:31 PM

MAJ James Fitzgerald — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 17:31:00 -0500

SSG Seidel...I have not read all the responses to your fair question, but because most, if not all who respond have worn the uniform, I expect most will be pro-gun...the reason, as you know, is one of the things we swore to do was to defend the Constitution of the United States and we all take that oath seriously...gun ownership/possession is guaranteed/protected by the Second Amendment...on the left, you have those that believe guns, especially assault weapons, should be banned for ownership...on the right, you have those that simply say my right to own a weapon/gun is guaranteed and nothing else is required...in the State of TN, the vast majority of citizens and politicians are pro-gun, and typically bristle at any requirement that changes that fundamental right...to me, there is a difference between owning a gun for hunting, personal protection or hobby, versus carrying a handgun concealed...I realize that may be controversial with many, but those people should know that I believe their right to own a firearm should not be in question...to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit, you must do the following in our state (if you have one from another state, there are guidelines as well) in order to carry a weapon concealed on your person:

Requirements for Obtaining a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit:
Applicant shall submit proof of the successful completion of a department approved Handgun Safety Course within the past six (6) months. Call [login to see] to find out more information on handgun schools, locations and contact information.
Provide CERTIFIED PROOF of U.S. Citizenship or Lawful Permanent Residency (no photocopies).
Submit application at any full service Driver License Service Center location.
Applicant is required to present a photo ID to the department at the time of filing the application.
Pay non-refundable application fee payable by cash, certified check, or money order.
When the application is processed at the driver service center, the applicant will be given instructions on being fingerprinted.

I do not think the above is much to ask to conceal carry. Keep in mind that you have some people in the class that have little to no firearms experience, so these individuals getting trained and proving they have the basic understanding and can fire a weapon succesfully at pre-determined distances doesn't seem unreasonable to me. All that said, I know others will disagree.

I believe that every American's right to bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment for multiple reasons. I also know we live in a very different world than what I experienced as a child growing up. We have people intent on eliminating us and our way of life and that alone should be enough of a reason to support gun ownership. Gun violence does not happen because of a gun, in and of itself, it happens because people, for whatever their reason, decide to use guns to attack and or kill others...people hurt or kill other people, not a gun of any kind or size.

As to the analogy of having no training or manual for having kids and any 'idiot' can have them, that is not for any of us to decide. Once you go down that road, there is no return. You are now deciding who can and cannot have kids. I understand your statement, and don't disagree with the contention, but having kids is much deeper than owning a weapon. I will say that much of our anguish over mass shootings seems to be tied in many cases to parental failure, and before anyone jumps on that statement, I fully realize that all of us, no matter our age or maturity, make decisions on our own, regardless of upbringing...I am just saying that some parents seem to refuse to acknowledge their child may have an issue that needs professional help...evil comes in all forms, but a gun by itself is not evil and never will be evil...it is the people behind those guns. No law is going to keep someone who is intent on hurting others from doing so, but me having to submit to a background check protects you and your family, and may, just may help prevent gun violence, due to mental health challenges or other factors.

Thanks for allowing me to share feedback...MAJ Fitz

Response by PO1 Richard Schneider made Jan 10 at 2016 11:38 PM

PO1 Richard Schneider — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:38:33 -0500

As far as I'm concerned, we should make age appropriate Firearms Safety and child rearing classes a requirement for grades k-3, 6-8, and high school. Basic proficiency classes for both should be available at high school and junior college level.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2016 7:17 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:17:25 -0500

That is none of Federal Government Business! If the states constitution disagree with that? That too is not state's business!

Proficiency and training is a personal responsibilities. Let that stay as it is.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 11 at 2016 10:24 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:24:20 -0500

I have always wondered who commits the gun violence?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 5:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:01:49 -0500

The right to own a firearm uninfringed is in the constitution. Along with freedom of speech and religion. What is so hard to understand?

Response by SGT David Taylor made Jan 29 at 2016 4:35 PM

SGT David Taylor — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:35:19 -0500

Nope.

Response by SGT William Howell made Nov 22 at 2016 9:43 AM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:43:51 -0500

What is proficient? How many background checks do we demand for criminals?

Let's use the car example. When somebody is killed in a car crash do we demand that cars be banned? Why not? More people are killed every year in MVA than guns?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2017 2:39 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Apr 2017 14:39:07 -0400

No. It's a Constitution issue for me. I would not tell any Citizen that they may not at a moments notice bear arms in their defense or in defense of the Nation.

They should be highly encouraged to seek out training and certification. Some organizations do free training for women and the elderly, some offer discounts to military families.

Response by SSG Diane R. made Dec 11 at 2017 12:14 PM

SSG Diane R. — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:14:56 -0500

Training is a personal responsibility and is best not legislated. However if one uses their firearm for self-defense and mishandles it, they are liable for the damage.

Response by SPC David Willis made Dec 11 at 2017 12:59 PM

SPC David Willis — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:59:43 -0500

For simple ownership and home defense? No. If you want to turn the place your spouse and children call home into a shoot house with no training that's your right and your decision. I do believe that to conceal carry or open carry outside of your home or car, some level of training or at least familiarity with firearms should be demonstrated. The 2A states "a well regulated militia". There are lots of guesses as to what that means but I think it means well trained and well maintained, not a registered nation though. We're talking about a document that wasn't just thrown together after all.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Dec 11 at 2017 5:33 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:33:07 -0500

If the people have never taken a hunter's safety class or been train in weapons by the military or police, yep.

Response by SGT Jamarl Jones made Mar 5 at 2018 9:58 PM

SGT Jamarl Jones — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 21:58:49 -0500

The government should not be in the business of setting requirements (infringements) on our right to keep and bear arms.