JCC511 wrote:One concern I would have about constitutional carry would be some people carrying that do not have any training and have no idea what they are doing. I understand it is our constitutional right as it is. Just not necessarily lawful to do so without an LTC. I see the value in the classroom and qualification through the LTC process.
While I agree with this in theory, it just doesn't play out in the real world. Students who walk into an LTC class without the skills needed to defend themselves or safely handle a gun walk out of the LTC class still lacking those same skills. The percentage of LTC students who fail the qualification portion of the class is in the single digits, while the percentage of LTC holders who probably have no business drawing their weapon in public is probably larger than the percentage who are "defense proficient".
The hunter's safety course has morphed into the same problem. What started out as a good class has turned into a class where you spend more time on learning the difference between a flintlock and an inline muzzle loader than you do on actual hunting safety.
Programs like these are well intended, but quickly morph into an exercise in checking a box for legal compliance. This is mostly due to folks in Austin/Washington adding an ever expanding list of "required elements" that must be covered in these classes.
It would be inappropriate and an overreach of government authority for the government to dictate the amount of training it takes to be truly proficient with a handgun prior to carrying a firearm.