Sen. Breaux introduced SB 86 which would require a person who applies for a license to carry a handgun to complete an eight hour handgun safety and training program. It creates an exemption for current or retired law enforcement officers and active or honorably discharged members of the armed forces. The training program and instructor must be certified by the NRA.
Five of the hours must include training in:
(A) The safe storage, use, and handling of a handgun, including safe storage, use, and handling to protect child safety.
(B) Knowledge of ammunition.
(C) Handgun firing positions.
(D) Firearms and the law, including civil liability issues and the use of deadly force. The instruction in the subject described in this clause must be provided by an attorney or a person trained in the use of deadly force.
(E) Avoiding a criminal attack and controlling a violent confrontation.
(F) All laws that apply to carrying a concealed handgun in Indiana
There must also be three hours of range training including the firing of at least 45 rounds.
Frankly, all of this training sounds useful whether you have a handgun license or not.
Sounds fair enough.
Anxious to hear from those who object.
I think the requirement is reasonable. However, gun sales will EXPLODE leading up to the effective date if passed. I’m going to guess that gun store owners are very much in favor of this for that reason.
Are such laws in place in MI, IL, KY, and OH? If not I can also see a lot of guns purchased across state lines, which I assume is allowed.
You might be right about such legislation triggering more gun purchases inasmuch as any firearm regulation or rumor of firearm regulation seems to be good for the firearm industry. But, I don’t think this law restricts gun ownership. Rather, it restricts one’s ability to carry a handgun in public.
Thanks for sharing this.
I would like to see a better definition of who can be a certified trainer. Who is: “a person trained in the use of deadly force” and who is not? And let’s not just say that “an attorney” can do it, because that isn’t right either.
I assume the “person trained in the use of deadly force” phrase is generally referring to the type of training law enforcement officers receive. But that language could certainly be tightened up.
“(F) All laws that apply to carrying a concealed handgun in Indiana”
Indiana does not require a carried handgun to be concealed.
Shouldn’t you understand the laws that you write, Senator?
Instead of creating barriers to entry for constitutional rights (can hardly wait to see the mandatory religion training bill), why don’t we make gun school an above the line tax deduction? Making it a tax deduction does not interfere with the civil right of carrying gun but also promotes gun education/safety by giving people an incentive to complete training.