PA Training Requirement?

[bigdawgbeav]

Something was brought up in another thread and it got me thinking... Why shouldn't there be a training portion to receive an LTCF?

Before everyone starts flaming me, I know there is no requirement and that the "right to bear arms shall not be questioned." But i was giving it some careful consideration...

Any schmoe can get an LTCF and a gun... this doesn't mean he/she actually knows how to use it. Wouldn't it make sense to have a training course? So they can become familiar with that weapon and how to deploy it?

And with a training course, this now opens up other states in reciprocity so you don't have to go out and get an AZ or UT permit...

Just something to discuss... please do so in an orderly fashion and keep the flames down. There are explosives here and we don't need them going off.

Thank you.

[arjohnson]

It's called personal responsability, if you don't know how to use it then learn first by whatever means neccessary. That's why it's a right, we don't need the govt's permission.

[scruff]

^ what he said.

And consider this - good training will make you much safer AND more deadly! ( liberals gasping)

The goal of government-mandated training is NOT effective self-defense.

[father-of-five]

Licenses are not always contextual standard of good charactor and ethical thinking. Look at drivers! They can be helpful, but they are not the say-all end-all. I work with some people at a hospital who were basically good test takers to get their counseling and social work licenses, but when it comes to real world thinking, they either have difficulty making professional decisions, or they are more emotionally unraveled that the patient's we serve.

It can be an indicator, but not THE indicator.

[mrnyman]

The second amendment is not about bird hunting or Gun games or target shooting or training none of that, it is what it said it is - the right of the people to bear arms- plain and simple. It is a right nothing more nothing less, no attachements to it.

If you are a woman in a an abusive relationship , your boy friend/husband just beat you to a pulp and left for work and you know he is coming back to finish you off later- do you want to go in for training or do you want to go to the gun store?

In Cuba any citizen can keep a fully automatic AK at home , even old ladies, but you must go in for the "training " to do so.
In 1934 after Hitler outlawed firearms for Germans with the national firearms act of 1934 , only NAZI party members were allowed to keep firearms- see where this is going?

[IronSight]

Something was brought up in another thread and it got me thinking... Why shouldn't there be a training portion to receive an LTCF?

Before everyone starts flaming me, I know there is no requirement and that the "right to bear arms shall not be questioned." But i was giving it some careful consideration...

Any schmoe can get an LTCF and a gun... this doesn't mean he/she actually knows how to use it. Wouldn't it make sense to have a training course? So they can become familiar with that weapon and how to deploy it?

And with a training course, this now opens up other states in reciprocity so you don't have to go out and get an AZ or UT permit...

Just something to discuss... please do so in an orderly fashion and keep the flames down. There are explosives here and we don't need them going off.

Thank you.

Our General Assembly has already turned a blind eye to bureaucratic regulations imposed by the PSP, PCCD, PSA, PPD, and Sheriffs over the current licensing system. Further requirements will only increase the substantial abuses of authority occurring daily, and those who fit the definition of "any schmoe" will be the ones facing that abuse while the felons and recidivist criminals carrying illegally don't have to worry about approval or training.

Let's be honest though, you've brought the explosives into this thread right off the bat. "Any schmoe" is any non-prohibited law-abiding citizen that succeeds in proving his/her innocence to an elected or appointed government official who can place any number of regulations in the way not found in the law and who is free to scrutinize non-criminal aspects of that citizen's past to try and make a determination on that citizens character that can deny them a right protected under both the Federal and State constitutions for something as simple as slipping up once in an interview (read: interrogation).

One training class does not turn anyone into an expert, and even the classes mandated by some of the most restrictive States have failed to produce any measurable impact on either crimes committed by firearms owners or accidents by them. What the requirements do serve are the interests of elected and appointed officials who desire to make owning and carrying a firearm as difficult and painstaking as possible. After all, it's easier to throw someone you don't like in prison if you force them to run through hoops where a single mistake or single false statement can mean prison time.

It's easy to deny grandma the ability to own a gun if you can show that her arthritis lowers her accuracy beyond the government's standard; it's easy to deny a gun owner the right to carry when you can say that his father's lessons on firearms ownership don't count because he didn't pay the State a fee to register and qualify as a firearms instructor, even if his father holds several shooting competition titles.

I don't oppose a training a requirement simply because of the text of our Pennsylvania constitution; I oppose it because I oppose giving government officials the keys to the lawful exercise of a fundamental right of the citizenry. Power corrupts and for every official who makes the process easy and smooth using only the minimum standards set in law there is another making the process as difficult as possible and as long as possible.

"Any schmoe" that tells the government to pound sand and carries a concealed firearm without a license, or carries one in a vehicle without meeting any exceptions, can be denied his/her right to own or possess a firearm for the rest of his/her life. Yet what is the penalty under law for issuing authorities who abuse their powers? We have some hints; recent history tells us that county district attorneys and solicitors will write off thousands of abuses because they don't see criminal intent and will dismiss the concerns of abused citizens because each individual abuse is de minimis even if the aggregate amount of abuses is staggering.

Every step that is added as a barrier for any law abiding "schmoe" to carry a firearm simply makes the right of lawful self-defense more prohibitive, especially to the poor. Government's want-to-be-tyrants have proven that whenever they can they will make it as difficult as possible for someone to carry a firearm; employment information is sought by some for the purposeful act of digging into an applicants background for the flimsiest of excuses for a denial and serves the added purpose of potentially creating a conflict between a law-abiding citizen and his/her rabid anti-gun boss. Not only that, but schedules for training times can be limited by little dictators to force applicants to take multiple days off from work, barring those who can't afford to do so. I'm sure the PPD, whose gun permit unit was closed for over an entire month this past year, would love to be able to further limit the ability of Philadelphia's residents to carry lawfully simply by closing for longer and making hours more prohibitive.

In fact, it isn't necessary to invoke Hitler's Germany to oppose such requirements, because Americans are subject to these restrictions across the country. Indeed each problem I've mentioned above is a problem in one county or another here in Pennsylvania alone, documented by citizens who've been abused by issuing agents. You can stand on the side of empowering little dictators and tyrants but if you want to make an excuse that it is about safety and security and that it is about making gun owners well educated and skilled then I won't sit by and allow you to brush the abuses of such a system that fails those goals behind a curtain of ignorance.

I am in the middle of working on a ~100 page report on the past and current abuses of Pennsylvania's licensing system without any such training requirement, with more than double that number of pages in supporting documents. I don't care to imagine how many more pages would be necessary were such a requirement made into law, but you're free to speculate if you want.

[sprrdhawk44]

Words have killed more people than any gun in the history of mankind. Should there be a training requirement to use them?

My Grandmother, and many like her, have defended themselves with firearms that they have been shown how to load, aim, and pull the trigger. They've never taken high-speed tactical courses, and have never trained. Instead they possessed the means, and the will, to survive. Often, it is enough. Not having the level of interest in firearms/self-defense that we have cannot be a limiting factor.

[PhilB]

Wouldn't it make sense to have a training course?

On a number of levels it makes sense, but, unfortunately, obtaining an LTCF then becomes just a bit more difficult and provides a governmental entity one more potential impediment to the exercise of a right.

"Ironsight" explains his position quite clearly, and I agree with him. At the same time, I understand your reason for asking the question. I think it's the responsibility of every firearms owner to take it upon themselves to be as familiar and comfortable as possible with the manual of arms for each gun they own and use. I would like to take a course just to make sure I haven't picked up any bad habits and also to learn things I may not have considered. I wish there were more NRA-style courses offered more often and closer to where I live.

If a training and proficiency standard were instituted, what would happen if a novice shooter failed a live-fire target requirement? It might take away an opportunity for that individual to improve their skills. There could be all sorts of graduated requirements whereby novices would be restricted to smaller calibers or one would need to exhibit proficiency with each weapon before being allowed to carry it.

Your idea is a good one in principle, but it would almost certainly be corrupted as soon as government got a hold of it. Too bad, but that's the reality of it.

--Phil

[Statkowski]

Not mentioned, but worth mentioning - how many LEOs receive firearms training and still can't shoot worth beans. All you have to do is look at any newspaper article involving a police shooting - 4,532 shots fired, nobody hit.

Might have been a few shots off on the shots fired, but you get the idea.

[JDC]

I think I'd be ok with a free firearms safety class with your LTCF. There are alot of meat heads that don't know which end of the gun the bullet comes out.