Why Training Requirements Should Be Struck Down

Photo published under creative commons

Recently, I had a conversation with someone about constitutional carry. I’ve previously referred to it as “the Holy Grail” for gun rights, and I believe that. This individual didn’t. They weren’t an anti-gun zealot like Shannon Watts or Michael Bloomberg by any stretch. In fact, I’d seen them as ardent defenders of the Second Amendment before this conversation, so I was forced to ask what their problem was with constitutional carry.


“I think people should have to get training before they tote a gun around,” he said.

He’s not the first person to utter that phrase by any stretch of the imagination. For what it’s worth, I think people should get training before the tote a gun around too. What I don’t think is a good idea is for the government to require training before we’re allowed to exercise a God-given right.

Think about it for a moment. What training is required to start a blog and enjoy Freedom of the Press? What training is required before you’re allowed to organize a protest and utilize your Freedom of Speech? What about a requirement for training just to go around and spread the Gospel or even attend church? Do you need training before you exercise your Freedom of Religion?

Of course not. No one ever utters a thing about demanding training for these things, and for good reason. They’re your God-given rights, enshrined in the Constitution but originating in the fact that you’re a human being.

In fact, the only one of these rights with any level of restriction is needing a permit to organize a protest, but that has more to do with the impact on other people than anything else. A large protest can require resources beyond what the protesters can provide such as diverting traffic, etc. It’s not about deciding who gets to protest or not. In fact, restricting who gets to protest is illegal, and for good reason.


“Oh, but those other rights don’t result in people being killed,” someone might counter. In fact, some actually have made that counter. They’re wrong, though.

Adolph Hitler’s words allowed him to gain power so he could murder six million Jews.

Karl Marx used his freedom to write whatever he wanted to create an ideology responsible for 100 million deaths.

Muslim extremists used religion as their justification to fly planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11, killing thousands. And that was hardly the first time religion motivated people to kill.

Any right can be abused.

Now, that said, I get that a firearm can more directly impact people than say, harsh language. That’s not the point. Even if we ignore the fact that more guns make us safer, it’s still a basic issue of the free exercise of our natural rights.

Further, I’d suggest those who claim to be Second Amendment advocates think long and hard about the ramifications of a training requirement to get a permit. How hard would it be for a creative gun grabber to make those requirements so burdensome that it turns out no one can get a permit? For example, what if the requirement is to shoot a one-inch dot at 40 yards with your carry pistol. Could you do it?


For example, what if the requirement is to shoot a two-inch dot at 40 yards with your carry pistol with 99 percent accuracy. Could you do it?

I sure as hell couldn’t, and I’d wager neither could most (all?) of you. That’s my point.

Should people be trained? Yes. However, do you want to trust gun-grabbing politicians with that authority?


Join the conversation as a VIP Member