Quote from: Tom_G on November 14, 2011, 10:47:46 PM

I've posted this elsewhere (or maybe in this very thread, but so many hours ago that I forgot it), but here's what I would do:

1.  Eliminate the requirement for training.  After all, any requirement can be interpreted as an obstacle in the path of exercising rights.

2.  Mandate a 20% tax on all sales of firearms and ammunition to anyone who cannot provide a current certification in safe firearms handling.

3.  Use the proceeds from said tax to sunsidize NRA-certified trainers providing free training to the public.

That way, anyone who REALLY doesn't want to train doesn't have to.  Anyone in a hurry to get a gun and some ammo can.  But, I bet you a shiny new gun of your choice, most folks will vote with their money and get certified.

TBH I'd like to see the whole "NRA" certified thing go away. I honestly think the programs I can teach far exceed the NRA standards, are more practical, and just as safe.  Maybe they should have some sort of license test (although I don't really like that idea either). I just thin it kind of sucks that the NRA gets dibs on everything while having so much control of that persons license.  I don't like that people are forced to associate with an organization that they may not want to just to engage in the lawful exercise of a business.

I would be open to alternatives to NRA trainers.  Honestly, I wish someone would come along and knock NRA off of their pedestal.  As an organization, and as a lobbying group, they leave lots and lots to be desired.

What I want to avoid in this system is having the training be done by the same organization (aka the gummit) that is in charge of legislating it and funding it. 

And, to be clear, I'm talking about this as a national program, not just local kine.  A self-fueled training juggernaut supported entirely by the people who don't think it should exist.

Quote from: Tom_G on November 14, 2011, 10:47:46 PM

I've posted this elsewhere (or maybe in this very thread, but so many hours ago that I forgot it), but here's what I would do:

1.  Eliminate the requirement for training.  After all, any requirement can be interpreted as an obstacle in the path of exercising rights.

2.  Mandate a 20% tax on all sales of firearms and ammunition to anyone who cannot provide a current certification in safe firearms handling.

3.  Use the proceeds from said tax to sunsidize NRA-certified trainers providing free training to the public.

That way, anyone who REALLY doesn't want to train doesn't have to.  Anyone in a hurry to get a gun and some ammo can.  But, I bet you a shiny new gun of your choice, most folks will vote with their money and get certified.

TBH I'd like to see the whole "NRA" certified thing go away. I honestly think the programs I can teach far exceed the NRA standards, are more practical, and just as safe.  Maybe they should have some sort of license test (although I don't really like that idea either). I just thin it kind of sucks that the NRA gets dibs on everything while having so much control of that persons license.  I don't like that people are forced to associate with an organization that they may not want to just to engage in the lawful exercise of a business.

While your standard of training is excellent, the same cannot be said for every one out there.
By making it an NRA certified instructor, they know what they get.
It would otherwise be more difficult to ascertain the level of training and safety from one instructor to the next.
I've seen some knuckleheads that think they know all about guns, "teaching" someone else to do something extremely unsafe.

Funtimes what kind of classes do you teach and how do you sgin up?

Also heard various opinions about the NRA class.  Some say its worth it and others say dont spend the money on it because it doesnt differ much from the hunters ed class.  Not to sure on that one.

Funtimes what kind of classes do you teach and how do you sgin up?

Also heard various opinions about the NRA class.  Some say its worth it and others say dont spend the money on it because it doesnt differ much from the hunters ed class.  Not to sure on that one.

I do the basic handgun safety courses; we also teach a different basic handgun safety for HDF (nearly the same material, but its not NRA). The later is usually done when someone really wants their gun for self-defense, we can teach a bit more practical application of the firearm in the home, drawing from holsters etc.

I think what I will do next is teach a course on FL CCW permits.  I would do Utah, but it's not much better than FL, and I have to go to Utah to get certified. I have some sick plans for the future, just need the time to put it all together.

Tom_G

And, to be clear, I'm talking about this as a national program, not just local kine.  A self-fueled training juggernaut supported entirely by the people who don't think it should exist.

An intriguing idea.  Just skylarking here, but perhaps a coalition of various organizations (GOA, NRA, JPFO, etc) could be formed for the expressed and only purpose of developing a more-or-less "universally" agreed-up training curriculum, lesson plan, whatever. 

It's kind of a shame that we are so splintered in our approaches to the 2A organizations ("I hate the NRA," "GOA is too aggressive for me," "JPFO is for the Jews and I'm not a Jew," "Terry is an idiot,"  and the like) that "we" cannot really act in a unified blockbuster fashion.   (As opposed to the antis, who are in universal, if unstated, agreement to get rid of all guns.)

Tom_G's idea bears some thrashing out, I think.

For me, I'm against any training requirement, but I recognize that the days of a father or uncle or older brother or whomever providing the grounding in firearms handling are pretty much over, and I, too am looking for some way to fill that gap without making it a governmental requirement.  (I can see a governmental program when firearms usage becomes common and accepted once again, but not for nowadays.)

I don't like the idea of a "tax break," but it's worth discussing to see if there might be other viable ways of motivating folks to get some grounding in firearms handling. 

And my sig line stands as the basic position from which I can very reluctantly negotiate, but I can still skylark about other ideas.

Terry, 230RN

Tom_G's idea bears some thrashing out, I think.

For me, I'm against any training requirement, but I recognize that the days of a father or uncle or older brother or whomever providing the grounding in firearms handling are pretty much over, and I, too am looking for some way to fill that gap without making it a governmental requirement.  (I can see a governmental program when firearms usage becomes common and accepted once again, but not for nowadays.)

I don't like the idea of a "tax break," but it's worth discussing to see if there might be other viable ways of motivating folks to get some grounding in firearms handling. 

What I like about my idea is that there is no requirement.  Just incentive. 

Companies and governments give people breaks all the time.  Buy a gun on Labor Day and save 20%  Buy 100$ and get a 25$ gift card.  Donate money to charity and write it off your taxes.  Bring your company to our state and get a tax break for 5 years.  Pay cash, get 3% off.  Buy a house for the first time, don't pay homeowner's tax the first year.  Etc, etc, etc.

That's all we're talking about here.  It's no more a barrier to buying a firearm than shopping when it's not Labor Day is, or simply failing to do comparison shopping.  It's your money and your time, you get to choose how each is spent.  Take the free class, or pay not to.

Now, I immediately went to "NRA certified" because, as KingKeoni said, it is a nationally-recognized, standardized system that is already in place.  Well, he didn't say that, but you could infer it from what he did say.  I have no problem with some other organization, or coalition of organizations, defining the criteria for this national safety certification.  But, to get the ball rolling, I'd start with the NRA, then re-invent the wheel after the program was adopted.

Also heard various opinions about the NRA class.  Some say its worth it and others say dont spend the money on it because it doesnt differ much from the hunters ed class.  Not to sure on that one.

Are the people you talk to on crack?  One class is about GUNS.  It teaches you how they work, how to use them, and lets you shoot them.  The other class is about HUNTING REGULATIONS.  They do mention that some people use guns to hunt, and tell you about the hunting laws as they pertain to guns.  It's like saying there's not much difference between eating a candy bar and just reading the label.

Tom_G

What I like about my idea is that there is no requirement.  Just incentive.

Agreed.  But "Aye, there's the rub."*

Tom_G

But, to get the ball rolling, I'd start with the NRA, then re-invent the wheel after the program was adopted.

I don't disagree there, but sooner or later we'd have to harmonize possible conflicting viewpoints among the large 2A groups, so I'd suggest doing it sooner.  And the coalition thus formed would be the "juggernaut" or "blockbuster."


bass monkey

Also heard various opinions about the NRA class.  Some say its worth it and others say dont spend the money on it because it doesnt differ much from the hunters ed class.  Not to sure on that one

.

This apparently varies fom State to State depending on your wildlife agency.  In my Hunter Ed class (CO, 1988) , there was quite a bit on handling and other things, but no shooting requirement.  (I didn't have to take the class since I was "grandfathered" in, but I took it with my son anyhow just to be there.)

My sig line still stands.

Terry, 230RN

* Hamlet Act 3, Scene 1