PA LTCF - No Mandatory Training - But Seek Florida & Utah Permit

[ImminentDanger]

Is this an incongruity of personal 2A philosophy:

On one hand, fighting to keep PA from having a training requirement.... and living with a more limited reciprocity list....

But, on the other hand, obtaining a Florida or Utah permit, so that you have carry privileges in states that only reciprocate with states that require training....

(I know there are other reasons to obtain a Florida or Utah permit.. that's not the question/issue)

Just wondering out loud???

...
ID

[PA-Joe]

I believe that firearms safety should be a mandatory training requirement for all grade school children. That would then qualify all of our citizens!

[Statkowski]

Apparently, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned (since it's silent on the subject):

TRAINING IS AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, IT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE "STATE."

[max384]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking... but if given the choice between choosing 'no training requirement' or 'greater reciprocity,' I'd choose greater reciprocity in a heartbeat. In fact, I'm not opposed to requiring mandatory training in order to obtain an LTCF (put flame suit on).

[Hawki72]

... but if given the choice between choosing 'no training requirement' or 'greater reciprocity,' I'd choose greater reciprocity in a heartbeat. In fact, I'm not opposed to requiring mandatory training in order to obtain an LTCF ...

I agree. Accepting that second amendment issues have long ago migrated from a purely right/wrong argument to being a political battle with all the associated vagaries, being hell-bent against mandatory training makes us look quite irresponsible to the uncommitted voter.

Those states which have training requirements have not plunged into a communist state (at least any more than PA is already), so I think we could deal with it and likely be the better for it.

My views on this topic were solidified by waiting in line for 45 minutes to submit my LTCF forms and taking note of my fellow applicants. I know appearances and overheard conversations can be deceiving, but I wouldn't have trusted several of them with a nail clipper. I would bet a week's pay that less than half of my fellow applicants were going to take a training course. I'd love to live in a world where everyone was responsible for doing the right thing. Unfortunately we don't, and come to think of it, that is whey I ended up standing in line for my LTCF in the first place.

I would be happy to use the training requirement as a bargaining chip to get something, legislatively speaking, that we would not otherwise have the support to achieve. In fact taking the initiative would allow pro-legislators to design the requirements in a way to eliminate any need for bureaucrats to make any judgements -- just issue the license.

[jruddell]

I agree with a training requirement. I have the privilege of knowing an LEO and, while not "official," he has shown me more that I could have imagined on my own. I would like to know that everyone carrying has had some level of training and if that can translate in to more reciprocity I'm all for it.

[JCWohlschlag]

Personally, this is a damn tough question to pick a side and present an answer to, as there are several factors that go into making this decision.

Firstly, it is difficult to agree with mandating a training requirement because I don’t feel that there should be a damn license to carry a firearm in the first place. I don’t need a license to carry a knife (or multiple, as is usually the case with me) in any manner. I don’t need a license to carry pepper spray in any manner. I don’t need a license to carry an “electronic incapacitation device” or TASER in any manner (although they have apparently screwed that particular option up statutorily, as well). Requiring a license to carry a firearm concealed (or in Philadelphia, or in a vehicle, or in a state of emergency, etc.) just because it’s a firearm and people are supposedly scared of them is bullshit. It is a result of the bad stigma that has been attached to firearms which I vehemently disagree with. This damn unfounded negative stigma and the necessary licenses that result from it are the main enemy of the Second Amendment.

I further posit that adding a training requirement to the license process would make it one more difficult step to overcome when the attempt to abolish the license does (hopefully) come. An attempt to abolish the license altogether would then have to justify not only taking away the license application procedure, which consists of the same PICS check that gets run during a firearms purchase, but also the removal of the training requirement.

However, if the above were disregarded, and the entire concept of needing a license to carry a firearm in certain environments and situations were not contested, I could see why some would think there is a benefit to requiring training for the application. Just like the car analogy we always throw around, they require testing and so forth before they license you to be able to operate a vehicle on a public roadway, and I do believe the roadways would be a whole lot more of a nightmare if they removed that training requirement. In this light, and including the additional reciprocity, I can see why some would accept such a training requirement.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe firearms are like cars. My firearm doesn’t kill people if I accidentally follow them too closely down the street or the sidewalk and they stop suddenly in front of me causing me to bump into them. My firearm doesn’t kill people if I move to the left or right without looking first and bump into them. There isn’t an entire title of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes dedicated to all the specific rules of operating a firearm like there is the operation of a vehicle. Generally, firearms aren’t handled in public because society frowns on that and uses charges such as disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment to express that displeasure. The risk to society from the general carry of firearms seems extremely low. The main elevation of risk seems to come from scenarios where people are forced to handle their firearms to defend themselves or others. This elevated risk could be mitigated through mandatory firearms training, sure, but it could also be mitigated through an increased effort in removal from society of the damn dirtbag that caused the defense-with-firearm scenario in the first place.

I am also afraid of the slippery slope that might occur if such a training requirement is added to the license to carry a firearm. While there certainly are concepts and procedures firearms carriers need to know in order to actually handle a firearm safely, tacking such a training requirement on the license to carry a firearm makes no damn sense as you can openly carry a firearm (outside of Philadelphia, outside of a vehicle, outside of a state of emergency, etc.) without such a license. If the training requirement were truly to meet its goal of providing a safer society by educating all firearms carriers, shouldn’t it actually be attached to the purchase of firearms instead? How long would it take those who want to restrict firearms carriers even more to realize this discrepancy? How long would it take them to realize that not all firearms carriers in Pennsylvania actually purchase their firearms in Pennsylvania, and wouldn’t meet such training requirements. Now I realize that the slippery slope as I present it probably goes well beyond a practical return on investment, but I also realize that those who want to restrict firearms carry as much as possible don’t give two shades of shit about practical return on investment.

In conclusion, as much as I can analyze in detail at 3:42 a.m., I keep coming back to a negative answer. I feel the training requirement would do more harm in the long run that it would good in the short or long run.

[QuickdrawMcGraw]

I would have to say no. The government doesn't have the right to require that people get a LTCF to carry in a car, concealed, etc. The LTCF requirement is a violation of both the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21 of the PA Constitution. That beiung established, they certainly don't have the right to require you to recieve training. That is a responsibility of the individual. Do I think trainging is a good idea? Of course. However, the government can't Constitutionally require it.

[Markg]

I would have to say no. The government doesn't have the right to require that people get a LTCF to carry in a car, concealed, etc. The LTCF requirement is a violation of both the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 21 of the PA Constitution. That beiung established, they certainly don't have the right to require you to recieve training. That is a responsibility of the individual. Do I think trainging is a good idea? Of course. However, the government can't Constitutionally require it.

Unfortunately, we're in an age where the government doesn't care if something is constitutional, or not. They've forgotten what that document is, because it's not there to protect them. It's there to protect us!!

[max384]

Personally, this is a damn tough question to pick a side and present an answer to, as there are several factors that go into making this decision.

Firstly, it is difficult to agree with mandating a training requirement because I don’t feel that there should be a damn license to carry a firearm in the first place. I don’t need a license to carry a knife (or multiple, as is usually the case with me) in any manner. I don’t need a license to carry pepper spray in any manner. I don’t need a license to carry an “electronic incapacitation device” or TASER in any manner (although they have apparently screwed that particular option up statutorily, as well). Requiring a license to carry a firearm concealed (or in Philadelphia, or in a vehicle, or in a state of emergency, etc.) just because it’s a firearm and people are supposedly scared of them is bullshit. It is a result of the bad stigma that has been attached to firearms which I vehemently disagree with. This damn unfounded negative stigma and the necessary licenses that result from it are the main enemy of the Second Amendment.

I further posit that adding a training requirement to the license process would make it one more difficult step to overcome when the attempt to abolish the license does (hopefully) come. An attempt to abolish the license altogether would then have to justify not only taking away the license application procedure, which consists of the same PICS check that gets run during a firearms purchase, but also the removal of the training requirement.

However, if the above were disregarded, and the entire concept of needing a license to carry a firearm in certain environments and situations were not contested, I could see why some would think there is a benefit to requiring training for the application. Just like the car analogy we always throw around, they require testing and so forth before they license you to be able to operate a vehicle on a public roadway, and I do believe the roadways would be a whole lot more of a nightmare if they removed that training requirement. In this light, and including the additional reciprocity, I can see why some would accept such a training requirement.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe firearms are like cars. My firearm doesn’t kill people if I accidentally follow them too closely down the street or the sidewalk and they stop suddenly in front of me causing me to bump into them. My firearm doesn’t kill people if I move to the left or right without looking first and bump into them. There isn’t an entire title of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes dedicated to all the specific rules of operating a firearm like there is the operation of a vehicle. Generally, firearms aren’t handled in public because society frowns on that and uses charges such as disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment to express that displeasure. The risk to society from the general carry of firearms seems extremely low. The main elevation of risk seems to come from scenarios where people are forced to handle their firearms to defend themselves or others. This elevated risk could be mitigated through mandatory firearms training, sure, but it could also be mitigated through an increased effort in removal from society of the damn dirtbag that caused the defense-with-firearm scenario in the first place.

I am also afraid of the slippery slope that might occur if such a training requirement is added to the license to carry a firearm. While there certainly are concepts and procedures firearms carriers need to know in order to actually handle a firearm safely, tacking such a training requirement on the license to carry a firearm makes no damn sense as you can openly carry a firearm (outside of Philadelphia, outside of a vehicle, outside of a state of emergency, etc.) without such a license. If the training requirement were truly to meet its goal of providing a safer society by educating all firearms carriers, shouldn’t it actually be attached to the purchase of firearms instead? How long would it take those who want to restrict firearms carriers even more to realize this discrepancy? How long would it take them to realize that not all firearms carriers in Pennsylvania actually purchase their firearms in Pennsylvania, and wouldn’t meet such training requirements. Now I realize that the slippery slope as I present it probably goes well beyond a practical return on investment, but I also realize that those who want to restrict firearms carry as much as possible don’t give two shades of shit about practical return on investment.

In conclusion, as much as I can analyze in detail at 3:42 a.m., I keep coming back to a negative answer. I feel the training requirement would do more harm in the long run that it would good in the short or long run.

Excellent post! Not much to refute... but I would like to touch on the car/gun analogy. Although a gun cannot kill someone by following too close down the street, etc., a gun can kill someone if the trigger is squeezed negligently. The three firearms safety rules are not instinctive to people who do not have any experience with firearms... especially rule number 2: keep your fingers off the trigger until ready to shoot. How many times have we seen a person new to firearms pick up a gun and instinctively rest their finger on the trigger? Although that person should not be messing with their gun while carrying, and it should be holstered, we know that it does happen. I do think a simple training class could mitigate this inherent desire to rest a finger on the trigger.

This being said, I also understand that we shouldn't even have to get a license to carry anywhere in this country, which if that happened, would make the training requirements a moot point...