Really!!! So you think that a guy that beats the shit out his wife and, or kids should be able to get a gun? A guy that has a history of stalking, threatening, choking, hitting, a family member should be able to get a gun? Why! So the next time he flips out he can get that gun and kill his whole family and potentially kill the officers responding to the call. You still think the Lautenberg amendment is a POS? If you do, then I truly believe that you don't deserve to carry concealed because something is seriously wrong with your logic.
I do have experience with domestic violence, over 25 years, seeing the aftermath of some of these people. But, that being said, there are three issues that make the Lautenberg Amendment a problem from my perspective:
First, for what other misdemeanor can you loose, forever, a core Constitutional right? None. So why is the Second Amendment subject to such strict scrutiny?
Second, there have been cases where sposes were convicted of "domestic violence" for rather trivial things, such as throwing car keys (not at, but to) their spouse during an argument. Or, two brothers, 17 and 18, are residing together and get into a shoving match. The police intervene and in court one or the other is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. There are many cases of similar nature that really shouldn't rise to the level of a lifetime ban of a core fundamental right.
Third, there are man, many cases where someone involved in a domestic violence case pled down to a misdemeanor based on the lawyer's recommendations (usually to avoid a long and costly court battle) and based on the fact that a misdemeanor wouldn't impact their life 20 years later. However, after passage of the Lautenberg Act, those convicted years earlier, who had no knowledge that their misdemeanor conviction would cause impact them in this manner, were immediately deemed ineligible to own firearms? How is this fair?
As to training, please remember that given the opportunity, government officials will make the training as difficult and costly as possible. Look at what the State AG did when formulating the regulations for retired officers to qualify under the LEOSA act: yearly retraining, available only on the Big Island at a cost of $500.00, Qualification tests that were more difficult than active duty cops.....
Do you really want someone who doesn't want you to won, let along carry firearms, determining what level of training is necessary to exercise your Constitutional rights? What other Constitutional rights require training? Heck, you don't even need to show an ID when voting.....