rotor wrote:jkurtz wrote:
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.
The obvious comparison - although the LTC range qualification is far less comprehensive - would be a drivers license test. It does not teach you how to drive a car. It's a measure of your proficiency in driving a car. It assumes that you've already received some training in how to drive. Similarly, the LTC range qualification assumes you've already received some training in how to safely operate a handgun. It tests your proficiency in using it......granted, at a very minimal level.
But if we want to tie the exercise of a Constitutional right to proficiency, then maybe people who are not well trained orators should shut up and keep their opinions to themselves? ......or would that constitute an infringement on the right to freedom of speech?
As long as the state mandates a license to exercise an "uninfringable" enumerated right, then the state can mandate some level of proficiency (I deliberately did not say "training") to obtain the license. But if the bar for that proficiency is set too high (ie mandating actual handgun combat training), then the state opens itself up to charges of putting a "right" out of reach of many of its citizens. At that point, it is no longer being treated as a right.
Therefore, you can't have Constitutional Carry with a requirement to obtain advanced training, or even
basic instruction - whether it is a sound idea or not. Because as soon as you mandate a requirement like that, then there is only one way to demonstrate that level of proficiency, and that by the issuance of a license or permission slip, or certification, or whatever you want to call it. But at that point, it is no longer Constitutional carry.
Instead, the justification for Constutitional Carry comes from the assumption that the right exists, and that it will not be infringed until and unless the citizen has proven themselves to be untrustworthy to exercise the right. We assume that Joe and Jane Citizen are in good standing UNTIL they are charged with a crime. Even then, we presume they are innocent until proven otherwise. If they are proven guilty, then we remove their right to walk about freely, to speak freely, to own/carry a firearm, their right to require probable cause for search and seizure, etc., etc.
The world is a dangerous place. The argument against Constitutional Carry is essentially one of wanting to make the world safer. But in order to do that, whether we're talking about guns, or some other thing, you have to establish a standard where citizens who have done no wrong, instead of being judged to be reliable and upright, are instead judged to be untrustworthy potential felons. If Constitutional Carry is passed, it will have to be in the face of two things: (1) sometimes someone who probably shouldn't, will carry a gun; and (2) something bad might come out of that. But like I said, the world is a dangerous place. Almost all attempts to make it safer in some way reduce someone's freedom, even if they haven't actually done anything yet. This is fine if we're talking about driving a car. There is no constitutional protection for a right to drive. If your license is revoked for multiple DUIs, you can still get around. You can take a bus, or even {{gasp}}
walk. And if you drive drunk and kill someone, you'll go to prison (hopefully). Under Constitutional Carry, anyone who is not otherwise barred for reasons of felony conviction or mental illness gets to carry a gun. Period. If they use it irresponsibly and someone gets hurt or killed, they go to jail. In other words, they get to own the consequences of their behavior......something which our culture has spent a great deal of energy avoiding, to our regret.
