The topic of mandatory training for Concealed Carry licenses has popped up online quite a bit over the past two weeks. My home state of Maryland enacted a law that now requires sixteen hours of mandatory training to apply as well as eight more hours every three years to maintain what is called a “wear and carry” permit. I lucked out and got my renewal issued less than a week before the training requirement went into effect.
It shouldn’t take a degree in nano rocket eco-surgery to figure out that I’m generally a pro-training kind of guy. I’m the first to admit that I look down my nose at the typical CCW holder who gets minimal (or no) training. So you’d reasonably expect me to be on the side of mandatory CCW training.
I’m not.
How many CNN talking heads would be OK with a state-designed, state-mandated English test that had to be passed before you could become a news reporter? Who would support a mandatory Constitutional law exam before you could exercise your 4th & 5th Amendment rights?
Self-defense is a natural right that was recognized by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and reiterated by two recent Supreme Court cases (Heller and McDonald). Period. Full stop.
Rather than mandatory training, what I would like to see is a two-tiered system. Simply carrying concealed should be legal without a permit (or training). But because it is legitimately in the government’s interest (and the community’s interest) to encourage training, instead create benefits — incentives — for gun owners who get serious training… like most readers of this website do already. Just a few examples of what could be offered, some of which already exist in certain jurisdictions:
- fewer prohibited places compared to the “Constitutional carry” option
- exemption from “NO GUNS” signs posted at businesses
- additional legal protections (e.g., civil immunity for lawfully exercising self-defense determined either through a not guilty verdict or a grand jury returning a no bill)
- NICS-exempt status for firearms purchases
- access to state-sponsored facilities/training exclusive to trained CCW permit holders
- in states where even the no-training CCW option requires a permit, reduce or eliminate the permit fee for folks who take the optional training
A system like this protects the Constitutional rights of every gun owner while creating enough benefit to encourage regular ongoing training. Reward good behavior and you’ll get more of it.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
(shooting-in-the-rain photo courtesy Tom Jones)
Todd:
Excellent post. Personally since the right to bear arms is tied in with militia service, I am perfectly happy with states requiring firearms training–so long as they pay for it ans so long as it is required of all citizens.
Based on historical precedent, I think that the State of Maryland may properly require you to own an AR-15. But if they want you to be trained, that should be one their dime. Barring you from buying an AR-15 and insisting that you get a bunch of training every three years on your own dime is so far from what the second amendment means that one would almost imagine that your local politicians are deliberately trying to subvery and undermine the Constitution.
Nevertheless, giving incentives for training, like you suggest, would not only be constitutional, it would be a very good idea. Thus, in the free state of Maryland, I suppose there is approximately a 0.00000% chance of it being adopted?
On a sort of related note, why aren’t law enforcement agencies offering CCW training?
They have the staff, they have the facilities, and the fees would generate revenue. Plus, being certified by a law enforcement agency would (in theory) carry more weight than being certified by some random shmuck from the phone book with an “NRA” shingle hanging on his porch.
A good post, with some very good thoughts. It’s good to see someone taking a principled stance rather than a self-aggrandizing one.
I disagree with the idea about ‘exemption from “NO GUNS” signs posted at businesses’, because however much we may think the proprietor is being foolish, it is their right to be foolish with their own property, and we will only be free if we allow others to be free to do things we think are foolish.
Some people in New Hampshire have talked about a two-tiered firearms carry arrangement much like you describe. Constitutional carry for all, licenses for purposes of reciprocity and some federal concessions.
> mandatory training for Concealed Carry licenses
The other problem with that is that training, or at least quality training, may not be easily available to everyone.
As Rachel Maddow said, “Why bother making it illegal if you can just make it impossible to get?”
Redchrome I tend to disagree with you because even the No Guns places are welcoming of uniformed police officers and their guns and most of those police have significantly less training than a lot of guys I shoot with. If they have the warm and fuzzy about minimally trained police open carrying a pistol in their place of business they should get even warmer and fuzzier by the people I know that train a few times a week.
People shouldn’t have to get a license to carry a concealed handgun, nor should the government require anyone to get training.
Jesse, what’s the average minimum training by a police officer at your state’s police academy?
Matt I don’t have a clue what the staet police requires or what the county sheriff requires and there are certainly some that are gun guys and shoot very often but the majority of them don’t. My point was simply that if these “No Gun” sign business owners are ok with Police carrying a gun in their business then they should feel just cool with the idea of a second tier of CCW license holders with a training requirement equally as stringent carrying in ther place of business too.
Some great points there. I was teaching ccw classes in Arizona when it was 16 hours with a written test, marksmanship test, and judgmental shooting test. I always felt conflicted about it because I didn’t like the idea of requiring a class and a test to exercise a right but I also saw how much need there was for education. Not just the gun skills, but the lack of knowledge of the legal issues involved was stunning to me. I developed a better understanding and appreciation for the old line about not knowing what you don’t know from that experience. The vast majority of the students I had were great, when they found out how much information they were missing and how much misinformation they had absorbed they were eager to learn. I just never made the mental connection between that firearms training experience and the principle of incentivizing behavior so that you get more of it. Now, how do we get the states to start putting that principle to use?
I’m not against the idea of incentives for those who undergo additional training but I think your third idea for an incentive is utterly ridiculous:
“additional legal protections (e.g., civil immunity for lawfully exercising self-defense determined either through a not guilty verdict or a grand jury returning a no bill)”
Why in the world should anyone be treated differently on a point of law simply because of some training? A clean shoot is a clean shoot and makes ZERO difference if someone went to a class or not.
Redchrome — disagree with the idea about ‘exemption from “NO GUNS” signs posted at businesses’
I get it. I really do. The flipside, however, is that if self-defense is a civil right then to what extent should that business be able to limit my right? Preventing me from doing something that is disruptive to their customers or hurtful to their business, sure, I see that. Plus, it would make for a very big incentive for CCWers to get their training-level permit.
anonymous — The other problem with that is that training, or at least quality training, may not be easily available to everyone.
True. But I’m not envisioning a system where you have to take a 5-day class at Gunsite or Rogers to get the permit. If the benefits are significant enough that a large number of people want it, instructors will pop up. Here in Maryland we’ve already got dozens of people who are authorized to teach MSP-approved classes. (and no, I’m not one of them)
Matt — People shouldn’t have to get a license to carry a concealed handgun, nor should the government require anyone to get training.
Just to be clear, I’m with you on this and hopefully expressed that in the post above. My goal is to create a payoff for people who do want to go the extra responsible step of getting training before they carry in public.
bobo — A clean shoot is a clean shoot and makes ZERO difference if someone went to a class or not.
I don’t disagree with that and I’m not suggesting that the limits of self-defense be different between the trained vs untrained CCW. Civil immunity is a completely different issue, though. Believe me, if a state wanted to enact such immunity for everyone I wouldn’t object!
Let me begin by stating that in a perfect world ,one devoid or opportunist fools, Todd’s plan makes sense.
Regrettably we don’t live there.The Law of Averages means someday ,somewhere, some nimrod with a “basic” permit will commit a violent crime.When that happens, the media and political establishment will pose a simple question:if extra scrutiny via more training is good for the expert carriers, wouldnt we want ALL who carry to be trained to the highest standard?
And so the other shoe would drop.
I hate to be absolute about this,but any means we use to force people to get educated will be employed by the disarmement lobby to disarm us all.
The real issue I have with the idea of zero training is that this means folks may also have zero idea of the laws that pertain when one should shoot. We can argue about the how all day, but everyone should be trained on when they can legally take a life. To argue otherwise is, well, I have several descriptors in mind.
With rights come responsibilities.
I’d be all for the “well regulated” part myself, having seen folks serving in such a capacity in Germany and Switzerland. Of course the .gov is then paying for the training, which I am also all for.
Chuck — I totally get where you’re coming from but let’s look at it a little differently.
People shouldn’t cheat on their taxes and they have a legal responsiblity to file taxes. Do we force people to take tax classes? No. We punish folks who break the law. We punish the wrongdoers when they’ve done wrong. We don’t punish everyone with a training class.
If ignorance of the law is no defense, then requiring people to learn the law is no panacea. Plus even if you forced people to sit through a class and take a test, how many of them could remember and apply those lessons years later under stress? Heck, how many people have you pulled over for violating traffic laws? Taking a class and getting a government-sanctioned permit is no guarantee of skill, responsibility, or good behavior.
At the end of the day, self-defense is a right and I just cannot get on board for requiring people to jump through government-mandated arbitrary hoops to exercise a basic human right.
I agree with you 100%, IF we can also set criteria for trainers and the material they cover. Entirely too many trainers who offer basic-level classes have no business being armed, much less teaching others about weapons safety.
Okie John
ToddG: “At the end of the day, self-defense is a right and I just cannot get on board for requiring people to jump through government-mandated arbitrary hoops to exercise a basic human right.”
Would you extend the same right to those with mental issues? This isn’t meant to be a loaded or rhetorical question, I’m just curious what your thought is on the right to or means of self defense and where it can be or should be limited to those with mental issues or disabilities. Personally I would not restrict the mentally ill from owning a firearm. Once you do you are opening a nasty can of worms beginning with who decides what mental illness is. There are those in power right now who would be more than happy to classify all gun owners as mentally ill. Not too long ago homosexuals were classified as mentally ill, whether you think they are or not isn’t my point, my point is that today they are no longer classified as such. Someone made this decision. Their ability to own a firearm could rest upon that decision.
So far this is a very civil debate, in the same spirit, I wish to offer what may be some clarifying remarks on my position WRT “exemption from “NO GUNS” signs posted at businesses”.
The issue has nothing to do with guns. It has everything to do with property rights and trespass. Consider this for a moment: even if the owner of a piece of property were not to be allowed to expel you simply because you have a gun, should he not be allowed to expel you simply because he does not like you?
If he is allowed to expel anyone from his property, then no law regarding firearms on his property is necessary or applicable. If he is not, then he does not truly own his property and in fact the State has a higher claim on his property and his labor by compelling him to interact with someone he does not wish to. I think we can see 1st Amendment (right to associate *or not associate*), 5th Amendment (uncompensated taking), and 13th Amendment (involuntary servitude) violations in that result. If we are to claim the protection of the 2nd Amendment, we need to maintain our principles regarding the others.
David — That’s a classic slippery slope fallacy. “We shouldn’t do X today because someone may do X+1 tomorrow.” I have no problem preventing people with serious, dangerous mental conditions from possessing guns. If the government tries to expand that definition to include everyone who’s ever shed a tear watching Old Yeller then we stop them.
Redchrome — I honestly do get where you’re coming from and I do appreciate property rights. But would you be ok with a restaurant that said “no black people” and enforced it? How about “no eye glasses or contact lenses allowed” instead? I doubt it. If the Constitution empowers me — and the state authorizes me — to go about my day in public while armed then I shouldn’t suffer criminal exposure simply for walking into a store or restaurant. That’s especially true if you live in a place like Chicago or NYC once the Supreme Court shoves CCW down their throats. If every single restaurant within 100mi of you puts up a sign like that are you just not allowed to eat out anymore? Do you just go unarmed because some ignorant Friday’s assistant manager gets the Brady Campaign newsletter?
No, training should not be mandated by the Gov for firearms ownership, open or concealed carry, or to allow carry in previous “No gun” zones. Once the government can set the standards for training there is nothing to keep them from raising the minimum skill requirements to keep law abiding citizens from legally carrying guns or they can make the paperwork, fees, and total costs of the training requirement so burdensome as to price out a significant portion of the population. Look at the NYC permit system for even owning a handgun as an example. A “two tiered” system as Tim suggests is not a solution. We need less gov regulation, not more. And, I say this as an instructor. No matter how much I want to see well trained people out there everyone has the right to own and carry firearms for self defense and anything by the govt that limits that right is wrong.
“But would you be ok with a restaurant that said “no black people” and enforced it? How about “no eye glasses or contact lenses allowed” instead? I doubt it.”
On the principle of the matter I would be quite ok with someone exercising their rights that way. I may think they are wrong and foolish, and I would encourage my friends not to patronize that establishment; but I cannot in principle object to the exercise of their rights.
If they insisted on infringing upon my rights in some way, shape, or form, I think an argument can be made for a correspondent restriction on theirs — however, I do not believe that mutual abuse and/or robbery through the coercive power of the State is the optimal way to organize a society. In the end it benefits the State with more power and the rest of us with less. Better to stop the abuse at its source. If there is no readily identifiable and immediate victim being harmed by action, there shouldn’t be legislation involved.
“Redchrome — disagree with the idea about ‘exemption from “NO GUNS” signs posted at businesses’
I get it. I really do. The flipside, however, is that if self-defense is a civil right then to what extent should that business be able to limit my right? Preventing me from doing something that is disruptive to their customers or hurtful to their business, sure, I see that. Plus, it would make for a very big incentive for CCWers to get their training-level permit.”
———————————————–
I don’t like the sighs anymore then the next guy but Why should your right as a ccw holder (trained or otherwise) trump their right as the business owner or property owner…Don’t like the sign(s)just Do what most of us already do, Don’t frequent the establishment/business and spend your money at a location that isn’t looking to hinder your rights.
There should be enormous financial and temporal incentives for individuals to actually train.
Getting a decent CCW gun, gear, and then taking the class could set you back at least a grand or two.
And that’s the bare minimum.
Taking all the cool guy classes (pistol-training, Magpul, Haley Strategic, ICE-Training/Rob Pincus, Suarez International etc) that cover everything from force-on-force to hand-to-hand to fighting with a companion could easily set back someone an additional 5 grand (ammo costs, plane tickets, hotel tickets, gas, car rentals, etc)
Not to mention that time is not always available for range time or cool-guy classes given the hectic pace of the modern world.
Then keeping up that sort of training could run you an additional 2.5-5K a year, depending on how often you go to the range/cool guy classes.
My rather uneducated layman-not-so-finance-minded-actually-I’m-a-doctor mind estimates that in order for someone to be able to sustain that level of activity AND have a good quality of life (life savings, paying for utilities, bills, groceries, etc, taking care of kids, other hobbies) – you probably need to be making at least six figures.
Please disabuse me of such notions if my estimates are wrong.
Well-established individuals in society may be able to afford the training, but what about college students or blue collar workers without a whole lot of money?
The only way you’d get anything close to that type of training for free is if you join the military – but then again, ownership of a gun is not dependent on militia service (as per Heller). Now we need the Supremes to say carrying a firearm is not dependent on militia service.
Why can’t training for firearm carrying be treated like paid maternity/paternity leave? If the state has a huge interest in making gun owners as safe as possible why don’t they assist in securing an uninterrupted period of time so that a prospective carrier is trained to the fullest extent possible? And then, be able to sustain their skills with very little financial impact?
The analogy from the maternity leave/paternity leave perspective is that the state has an interest in making sure a new child is raised well for the first few weeks/months of life so he/she can grow up to be a productive citizen, and the parents are rewarded for their efforts by having their jobs and salaries protected.
Some people worry that the responsibility and idea of carrying a firearm is too much for them. Some just think it’s too much time and hassle, or too much money. My argument is for the latter half. Those ideologically opposed aren’t going to be swayed. If practicing with a firearm is made substantially financially and temporally easier for all citizens you would see a huge increase in the amount of people getting CCW permits.
I wrote a blog about this a couple of weeks ago after being asked the question by a media source… here’s my article (which includes a link to the original media story):
http://www.icetraining.info/do-i-think-the-govt-should-be-involved-in-setting-firearms-training-standards-no/
Gotta disagree on the second point of “bonus” CCW rights for trained shooters. If I get a degree in English or journalism should I get access to websites or libraries or forums that others don’t by law? Of course not.
The incompetent and sort-of-competent will always be with us and they should be kept in check by laws that punish them when they step out of bounds and do something stupid/illegal.
Anything else is punishing everyone in advance (restricting their rights) for what they might do until they “prove” they won’t screw up.
Jesse – I don’t know about the laws of your state, but where I live the state CCW law, which also provides the authority of private businesses to post “No Guns Allowed” signs actually exempts law enforcement from a private ban against firearms = cannot apply to law enforcement.
That is exists for many reasons, including the fact that they didn’t want someone to call for police assistance to privately owned property, and then have some lib-tard owner say, “Yes please come in and help us, but I must insist you leave your guns outside.” So it is not so much that those private owners ignore cops, they generally can’t ban their presence with a firearm.
Great post Todd. I think this is a great idea.
Poor Steve J, the law has already been set, the right has and always will be seperate of militia service!
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 1
BREYER, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 07–290
_________________
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[June 26, 2008]
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE
SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
Page 3
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting).
Since a person who is a citizen is conferred the BOR you are going to have a really hard time convincing people this isn’t what it appears, or what was referenced earlier, that IT WAS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT INDEPENDENT OF MILITIA SERVICE!
Of course you can prove you are God and prove to everyone that the militia existed before the armed individual and the individuals pre-existing individual rights eh, no, LOL!
So when is the mandatory training to be required for the 1st amendment?
AFter all, beliefs are based upon words, forming an idea called religion, of which religious intolerance all throughout written history has resulted in wars killing oh over 800 million.
Even in more modern times do word cause such a ruckus, with words forming the collectivist belief system of no individual rights, socialism, and since 200 mil have died in the last 125 years, again we see how violent the abuse of WORDS are.
Not to mention all the petty racism and such
So when will there be mandatory government training on preventing the abuse of words?
Or maybe someone has a great idea for removing the stupid gene out of the human species, maybe even that pesky freewill thingy eh?
Funny thing, how are all the gun owners so untrained that since the 1930’s we have gone from 3,000+ accidental deaths to 835 in 2011, a reductions of -73%, all while a 50% increase in gun owners and a 65% increase in guns, only 107 of them age 0-17 yrs old (CDC)!
On a serious note, if you want mandatory training, that will drive the further reduction in accidental deaths, make it part of middle school curriculum, that way at least the gang banger wannabes get trained on safe handling before they drop out of school!
Of course there is an elephant in the room not discussed here, it is often seen as cop rage, the inherent result of the 1 mil cops being 11 times more likely to shoot a bystander by accident than the 100 mil law abiding gun owner.
After all cops are supposed to be more highly trained than us poor, neanderthal gun owners, many of who have been shooting since 8 yrs old, and qualified on dozens of weapons in the military, etc, etc, etc…
See, one of the things noticed in multiple wars is soldiers, many of them during a battle, wouldnt even aim their rifle just banging away at anything, other than another human being.
I forget the % but it was rather large % in WW2 somewhere near 80% I believe.
So now we have all these advanced training simulations, etc, etc, trained to make a person, a cop, less hesitant to pull the trigger.
Doesnt address the reality that police on average only hit 15% of the shots they fire as per police firearm discharge reports. Oh when you google those, be aware that they no longer divulge shots fired and shots hit, they jsut state whether the traget was hit, as they tried doing a study back in the 1980’s, made the cops look HORRIBLE, its why they never finished or published it!
Not being a trained psychiatirst, such training surely must be part of the reason police accidently shoot more innocents.
Or is it like the simple fact that ALL cops need to be trained to SWAT team levels minimum so that they are trained in close hostage situations and can shoot the bad guys without hitting the innocents no?
Geez, we have dozens of incidents of cops shooting innocents in such a situation. Even vaunted special forces units who make SWAT training look like kindergarden lose a hostage now and then to friendly fire!
So are you really saying you want all gun owners to be less hesitant to pull the trigger, hmmmmm!
Such are the unintended consequences of the arguement, EVERYONE MUST BE MANDATORILY TRAINED, yes or no?
No reality is one chooses to have their insurance against life, home, car or medical, and the LEVEL, that COVERAGE of that insurance is based upon each individuals comfort level ability to pay, a choice!
The people who choose to carry concealed, make that choice of comfort level on their training, and ability to handle a situation should it arise!
If they screw up, then that is their burden to carry, not everyone elses, and the laws are already desgined and setup to deal with such an incident!
Enough laws, enough taxes, we dont need anymore!
“RLE” — You’ve seriously picked the wrong place for an anti-cop rant.
I had been a shooter most of my life before I aquired a weapons license. Soon after, I began attending some formal training such as defensive pistol classes. I feel much better about my abilities and preparedness now than before. I also encourage other gun owners to seek out good training, even if it’s not from a nationally-known instructor.
Fortunately, some businesses local to me have started offering multiple levels of training by solid instructors. Not everyone has easy access to such training but it would be great if they did.
I agree the training should not be mandated by the government. I also agree that it should be encouraged as much as possible.
This is a good blog post that offers several good points for discussion.
Chuck,
“The real issue I have with the idea of zero training is that this means folks may also have zero idea of the laws that pertain when one should shoot. We can argue about the how all day, but everyone should be trained on when they can legally take a life.”
In my adult life, I have lived in Georgia, Tennessee, and Indiana. Of those three, only TN required any mandatory training for a permit. Anecdata suggests no difference in the level of knowledge or skill between the average Cletii in the three states.
I’ll pass on all that. I’m an “Equal protection under the law” kind of person…
Great minds think alike – however, I personally believe that the incentives to reward more rigorous training should come from the private sector, i.e. the gun manufacturers.
S&W, Glock and Springfield have already been more than willing to send rebates, discounts and swag to gun owners for sending in proof of purchase for their guns – why not extend those bennies to folks who send in copies of their CCW permits and gun-school certificates?
I think it would be in the manufacturers’ interests to be able to say in their ads, “We will go the extra mile to reward those of our customers who go the extra mile in getting trained in the safe, responsible, lawful use of our products.” Also, in the worst-case scenario of a lawsuit, it ought to be helpful to have a scanned copy of a customer’s permit or certificate on file, so they could say, “We made a good-faith attempt to encourage and ensure that this person was trained in the safe, responsible, lawful use of our products – if he willfully or negligently violated or ignored that training, it’s his fault, not ours.”
It’s already worth a $50 rebate from S&W and an XD Gear holster, magazines and mag pouch from Springfield, for you to send them proof of purchase for one of their guns; it’s already worth it to Glock to let you buy one of their pistols at LE pricing each year for joining GSSF; it’s already worth it for several manufacturers to sell you a gun at wholesale if you are an NRA Instructor and agree to use it in your classes. Why not give you the same $50 or free gear if you send in a copy of your CCW permit, or let you buy a gun at LE or wholesale pricing if you send in a copy of your certificate from Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Massad Ayoob, etc.?
Anon,
“Why aren’t law enforcement agencies offering CCW training?”
I don’t imagine they have enough qualified trainers to keep up with their own needs, in most places.
Redchrome,
“I disagree with the idea about ‘exemption from “NO GUNS” signs posted at businesses’, because however much we may think the proprietor is being foolish, it is their right to be foolish with their own property,”
Strict liability while inside the perimeter of privately-enforced gun free zones would make them vanishingly rare. Give the d*mn lawyers and insurance companies something to risk on the other side for a change.
Chuck Haggard,
If your concerns were evidenced in practice, I’d share them. But the experience of WA and PA at least shows that they’re not, so I don’t.
ToddG,
Re: ‘“RLE” — You’ve seriously picked the wrong place for an anti-cop rant.’
It’s not just an anti-cop rant, it’s seriously *wrong*, too.
E.g. “be aware that they no longer divulge shots fired and shots hit”. Oh, really? Then how is we know all about the crappy shooting the NYPD did the other day?
This brings up lots of questions, you need training to get a drivers license, practice law, become a doctor and lots of other things we do
But you don’t need anything but a pulse to vote, speak your mind, run many types of businesses or concealed carry in my state(WA)
Regardless of the “right”, does it really make sense to carry without training? No easy answer to this one as arguments can be made either way concerning “mandatory” training.
I carry pretty much daily and I do believe the only responsible thing on my part is to train with my weapon. And this includes when not to pull it out and respecting the rights of others.
While it is well within your rights in most states to carry without any training, would anyone really recommend it or think it is a good idea? Yes I would feel safer with a room full of Todd G’s but, how about a roomful twenty something’s that think they know everything just because they have a carry permit?
And just a sidenote about cops that I have learned, not all cops are shooters. And I don’t mean bad guys but just using weapons outside of work. Many of them but not all only shoot as much as they are required (ie quals) which is often very little both in rounds and frequency. There is the perception by the public that any officer who shows up for a call is highly trained with firearms if such action is required but this is far from true these days. Don’t get me wrong I am pro cop on all counts and I believe they should get all the training they need and want. And if you don’t agree with me about this much of it comes from my mentor who is a retired swat officer and swat instructor from a major metropolitan city. And more of it I learned from active duty officers I know from small towns (mine) and large ones like Seattle.