"Constitutional"? "Permit-Only"? It's the Training!

Well, the pot's boiling. Sykes and Wagner have an opinion. So does Weber. And they are in conflict.

The Leggies are considering a bill which would incorporate elements of "Constitutional Carry" (no permit required, just carry it concealed) with elements of "shall issue permit" concealed carry. Under the proposal, people could decide to obtain a permit, which would require some training; this would allow them to carry concealed within 1000 feet of schools. But people would not HAVE to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, meaning that they would not have to obtain training, etc. However, there would be restrictions on precisely where one could carry.

This all comes down to "training."

Some people object to the "training" requirement; one pays for these courses, after all, and free cash isn't exactly abundant for many families these days. In addition, open-carry (currently perfectly legal) requires zero training. Others say that without training, there will be problems with injuries. There's a wide range of what's considered 'acceptable' training, too, with suggestions running from 2 hours to 40 hours (!!).

The problem that the "must-train" people have is that they cannot demonstrate a compelling need, based on data, for training. The four States which allow 'no-permit' CCW do not have significantly higher instances of accidental discharge, mayhem, deaths, (etc.) traceable to a 'lack of training.'

On the other hand, these are deadly weapons; one mistake counts a lot more than one mistake with a spray-can of Raid.

So let's think about "training."

Weapons-training comes in two parts: how to use a weapon (mechanics, controls, aim, etc.) and 'legalities'--which I'll define as having to do with go/no-go decisions. The latter is absolutely required for LEO's and to my mind should be presented to people who intend to carry.

For practical purposes, anyone who's been through military basic training has already been well-trained on the "how to use" component of training. What's lacking is the 'legalities;' in the foxhole, there's little concern for the Marquis of Queensbury's rules.

So perhaps the Leggies could tweak the bill a bit.

I'd suggest that the Legislature require 'legalities' training for all who carry concealed. This doesn't have to be extensive; a good model is the State's drivers' education booklet. There should be a test. It shouldn't cost more than $25.00 including the booklet because the economy of scale prevails; one can have 25-50 students in the class at once. (One useful short book on the topic is "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob).

For all who served in the Armed Forces, and all who can document that they were otherwise trained in the mechanics of shooting, the 'legalities' training is the ONLY requirement. For others, a second session should be required, which also does not have to be extensive (2 hours would be about right) on the 'mechanics' portion: how to handle, aim, and control the weapon. There should be a test of some sort. This will be more expensive, probably $50.00/person, because the economies of scale do not prevail here.

I agree that there is a 'silliness' factor here: requiring training for concealed, but not for open. But that's the legacy of Doyle, the Democrats, and Screechin' Shirley's SCOWI.