In last week’s video on Gun Culture 2.0, I mentioned the “Concealed Carry Revolution” as establishing an important aspect of the legal environment within which people practice armed self-defense today.
In this fifth “Light Over Heat with Professor David Yamane” video, I discuss the shall-issue and permitless carry revolutions, and a recent criticism by the Michael Bloomberg-funded newsadvocacy organization “The Trace” that these laws allow the promiscuous toting for firearms in public without proper “training.”
The question of gun training is one I have written about frequently on this blog and in Chapter 5 of my book, Concealed Carry Revolution: Liberalizing the Right to Bear Arms in America.
Please surf over to my “Light Over Heat” YouTube channel and SUBSCRIBE to follow, RING THE BELL to receive notifications, and SHARE so others can learn about this work.
Gun Culture 2.0 
Spot on, David.
As far as “training”. Nope. New Mexico has a 15 hour CC class requirement which includes a range exercise involving scoring 75% of 25 rds (I think) from 3 and 7 yards. So as far as live fire, it demonstrates a basic knowledge that you can draw from concealment and hit a target at point blank range under pretty relaxed conditions.
The classroom training ensures that a permit holder knows the basic laws of self defense. I think that is a good thing. Actually, I consider it a basic requirement for concealed carry in the public space. This must be renewed online at 2 yr intervals with permit renewal at 4 yr. I find that annoying.
Some details here.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/new-mexico-gun-laws/
But surely, even the NM class is not “training” in the Mas Ayoob sense. It is basic familiarization with the law and with shooting a handgun. Kinda like the difference between able to ride a bicycle on a bike path vs. competing in a criterium (something I used to do and I have the broken collarbone to show for it).
LikeLike
Come to think of it, the NM CC class is about as long as the League of American Bicyclists Traffic Skills class I occasionally teach. Its generally in a big parking lot to develop bike handling skills in a safe place, followed by a basic road course where you demonstrate the ability to stop, start, and make signalized turns, etc. Again, teaching the basics in a “safe” situation.
And that is different than riding my bike on Nimitz or Kalanianaole Highways in Honolulu during rush hour, which I used to do!
LikeLike
Boom! What an excellent looking video. You look good, you sound good. You can occasionally see the ring light, but mostly you can’t. Short of going full studio makeup/sound stage/crew, I can’t see how this could get better. This looks truly professional.
LikeLike
Thank you! I am going to work on the lighting placement. Wish I didn’t wear glasses but they are part of the brand logo now so I’m stuck with them. 😂
LikeLike
No way! Keep the glasses. Your “look” is perfect. Even the bow ties (which I despise as the definition of “trying too hard to be unique”) look great on you. I have a hard time imagining any way you could improve your look.
Everything about how you come across says “I’m trustworthy, independent, and I’m going to be honest with you even if perhaps you might not like everything I will say.”
Keep doing that.
LikeLike
It might be helpful for the more liberal people to compare the “reasonable” requirements of permitting and training to the “reasonable” requirements for performing an abortion like required counseling, 24 hour waits, and ultrasound.
None of these requirements are designed to make the process safer. Each is an additional roadblock deliberately intended to dissuade those least able to pay, least able to wait, or least able to resist outside coercion.
Those who demand permits, fees, and training don’t actually think it makes the future concealed carrier safer. They know they can price the poor and minority out of the self defense market both in terms of available money and available time.
LikeLike
Can we split that hair? Since the fetus is not a “person”, the abortion, at least in the first stages of pregnancy, does not involve taking the life of another “person”. Well, to a point. As Roe and Casey make clear, as the fetus gets closer to birth/viability, the State has an increased legal interest in its existence. I agree the ultrasound, “counseling”, and waiting periods are just harassment.
As far as concealed carry? Until the Supremes say that concealed carry is a right, it isn’t. Maybe they will with Bruen but I’m not holding my breath. I think one can think of a certain amount of classroom and range requirement as part of the social contract. You get to carry a deadly weapon around in public and the state can check a box saying you have been briefed on the laws of deadly force in your state and check a box saying you know the muzzle from the breech and how to safely carry without dropping it on the floor or having an unintended discharge at the kid’s ball game (that’s in the NM curriculum). Fair enough, as long as the state does not make the process onerous or expensive, as long as we dispense with “may issue”, and don’t use the process as a way to dissuade people from applying. Frankly, it should be cheap since it makes one a more thoughtful gun owner. Well, in theory.
There should be a happy medium somewhere. Increasingly in America, the middle of the road is devoid of traffic.
LikeLike
“Since the fetus is not a ‘person’, the abortion, at least in the first stages of pregnancy, does not involve taking the life of another ‘person’.”
That’s certainly an opinion. It’s irrelevant to the conversation at hand, however.
“Until the Supremes say that concealed carry is a right, it isn’t.”
That is absolutely incorrect. Rights exist or they don’t exist. Governments, either through legislation or through judicial action, do not create or destroy rights. That’s not even something you can argue as the entire structure of our government is based on the concept of Natural Rights. Rights exist and inhere to the people by the mere fact that they are people. Governments exist only to protect those rights. And more to the point, if they attack those rights the people can get rid of that government.
Perhaps this is familiar to you…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.–That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”
So, let’s agree that in order for you to require some restriction of our natural right to keep and bear arms that you must give us sufficient evidence to prove that your intended restriction actually works. Maybe compare the rate of concealed handgun permit holder misdeeds in high training states like NC to states like Pennsylvania which has no training and to states like Vermont who don’t even require permits.
LikeLike