Francis Di Domizio wrote: Since the Legislator didn't spell out or limit what the training requirements would be (beyond stating that showing competency with a fire arm can not be a requirement) and upon JCRAR review left more DOJ rules in place then it over ruled, I'd say your interpretation of the statues are probably a bit off.
What I don't get though D-man is your defense of this bull shit. Unless you are full of crap when talking about the class you teach, cramming 50 people into a class that doesn't even have a time requirement should offend the shit out of you. I have no personal issue with concealed carry and if I didn't have a three year old in the house I might carry myself in certain circumstances, but the fact that carrying a concealed handgun doesn't require at least 8 hours of training on safe handling, care of your fire arm, and actually showing you have the ability to handle firing the weapon you chose to carry in addition to use of force training, worries the fuck out of me. I can't believe you as a responsible gun trainer don't see a major flaw in the current system.
The legislature DID spell out what the training requirements are, and the requirements are low, and intentionally so. They are any of the following:
1) Hunters safety course
2) A "firearms safety of training course" obtained from a list of possible sources
3) Military, law enforcement or security training substantially equivalent to #2
4) A current or expired concealed carry license issued by another state (note not all states require any training whatsoever, still their license/permit is accepted as evidence of training under WI law)
5) Small arms training obtained in the military
It does not
say "showing competency with a fire arm can not be a requirement." It says firing live ammunition cannot be a requirement.
As a responsible gun trainer do I see a major flaw in the current system? Yes, but it's not the major flaw you're hoping that I see.
You can memorize the entire New Testament, but that won't make you a good Christian. You can be thoroughly familiar with the code of ethics of the legal profession, but that won't make you an honest lawyer. And you can read the Daily Kos daily without fail and still not be a good progressive. And no amount of training makes a person a responsible gun owner/user/ carrier.
To be a a good Christian, an honest lawyer, a good progressive or a responsible gun owner requires something that cannot be taught: a personal attitude and resolve to be good, honest or responsible.
The rules of safe gun handling are typically expressed in 3 or 4 sentences. They're very simple. Far more simple and fewer in number compared to say, the rules of road. A 10-year old can memorize them in a few minutes.
Yet we see so-called "highly trained" individuals, including law enforcement officers, gun instructors and military personnel sometimes commit violations of gun safety rules and sometimes commit violations of good judgment or law. And the reason they do so certainly isn't due to a deficiency in the amount of training they've received. It's a deficiency in their attitude or resolve. I'm tempted to use the word Bushidō.
And yes, I would prefer that everyone who carries a gun would have the resolve to get as much training as possible, but if they don't have the proper resolve, forced training will do no good. I also prefer that voters be informed, but we don't require forcing someone to be an informed voter in order to vote. If I was a church-goer I would probably prefer that everyone who attend church pay attention to the sermon. But even people who sleep through the sermon are allowed to attend. Even if we tested everyone in church regarding the content of the preacher's sermon, it wouldn't indicate whether they had taken the sermon to heart. Putting aside my atheism for the sake of argument, presumably God would care more that someone conducted their life in accordance with the 10 Commandment than whether that person could recite them. I not only would feel safer around a novice shooter who has the proper attitude than a very experienced and knowledgeable shooter who does not, I would also BE safer.
In my opinion mandated training's only purpose is to placate certain people. That's all it accomplishes. A person with the proper sense of responsibility will seek out training without it being required. I see people like that in my classes all the time: they already meet the formal requirements for a concealed carry license, but they owe it to themselves to go beyond that. A person who lacks the proper sense of responsibility will not gain it by being required to sit through a course of instruction.