Participants were asked: “Have you ever had any formal firearm training?” Those who answered yes were then asked if the training included information about safe handling and storage of firearms, accident prevention, theft prevention and suicide prevention.

Approximately three in five firearm owners (61.4%) report having received training. Among non-owners living with a firearm owner, 14.3% reported having received training. Male gun owners were more likely to receive training than female gun owners (63% vs. 48%). Other groups who were more likely to have received training include: firearm owners who own both handguns and long guns; those who own more than one firearm; owners who had a concealed carry weapon permit; and those who had carried a loaded handgun in the past 30 days. Those who reported owing a firearm for protection only were less likely to have received training than those who owned a firearm for other reasons such as hunting.

The most common combination of training topics was safe handling, safe storage and accident prevention. Safe handling was the most commonly reported topic of training, while suicide prevention was the least common. 61.1 percent of firearm owners had received training in safe handling

The survey also found broad agreement that gun owners should have training. 80 percent of respondents said that they agree or strongly agree that individuals should undergo training before owning their first firearm. Yet, 40 percent of gun owners have had no formal training.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

...Mandatory training for firearms carrying...

Originally Posted By armoredman:

See, this is where I gotta say, no. Mandatory means someone controls it. Imagine someone like Chuck Schumer in charge of mandatory firearms training. The bar to pass would be so high as to be unreachable. Maybe people haven't accessed training on their own, but the 2A doesn't say the right only applies to those who are trained, or who does it, or who tests it, etc. I understand that the idea is good...but it's not what a law is designed to do, it's what it can be TWISTED to do.
So while I advocate people get training for ALL firearms related endeavors hunting, CCW, matches, whatever, I am steadfast against it being mandatory. One thing I am in favor of is firearm safety training in schools. Parents could opt their kid out if they are uncomfortable with the idea.
Full disclosure, I've been getting professional training for 47 years, including 24 years annually with my present employer, and I've seen TRAINED individuals do some pretty stupid stuff.
So, yeah, as the saying goes, that's a no for me, dawg.

Originally Posted By armoredman:

See, this is where I gotta say, no. Mandatory means someone controls it. Imagine someone like Chuck Schumer in charge of mandatory firearms training. The bar to pass would be so high as to be unreachable. Maybe people haven't accessed training on their own, but the 2A doesn't say the right only applies to those who are trained, or who does it, or who tests it, etc. I understand that the idea is good...but it's not what a law is designed to do, it's what it can be TWISTED to do.
So while I advocate people get training for ALL firearms related endeavors hunting, CCW, matches, whatever, I am steadfast against it being mandatory. One thing I am in favor of is firearm safety training in schools. Parents could opt their kid out if they are uncomfortable with the idea.
Full disclosure, I've been getting professional training for 47 years, including 24 years annually with my present employer, and I've seen TRAINED individuals do some pretty stupid stuff.
So, yeah, as the saying goes, that's a no for me, dawg.

Training requirements are set entirely at the state level, and they vary dramatically. Ten states require some form of training before purchasing a firearm, while roughly half of all states that issue concealed carry permits attach a training prerequisite.

this course of fire may be a reasonable minimum for on duty law enforcement officers. It’s likely very similar to, or the same as, New Jersey state on duty police qualification standards. But it’s not a practical standard for the skills an armed citizen needs. Worse, the standards impose a burden on applicants to put in the effort necessary to attend the training and put in the practice necessary to meet them. This burden is highest on law abiding but low income citizens that may not have any of the resources needed (time, money, access to ranges & training).

I’m sure this course of fire met its political objective, which was to create the appearance that New Jersey was meeting the Bruen standard, but also make it as difficult as possible for anyone to meet the new state standards.

Key Patterns: States that still require permits almost always impose training. Coastal “may-issue” states (CA, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI) have among the longest courses (often ≥16 hours with range). Midwestern and Southern “shall-issue” states (FL, NC, SC, TX, IA, WI, etc.) typically use shorter courses (4–8 hours). Many permitless-carry states nonetheless require the same training for their optional permits (AZ, ID, KY, etc., not all shown here). In every training state, renewals rarely demand full re-training (exceptions: CA, IL, MN, etc., which mandate reduced refresher hours).

Originally Posted By R_S:
ChatGPT Deep Research analysis of State Firearms training requirements shows the following:



Looks like it is not 100% correct, but seems to tell the story that anti-gun states use training requirements as a hurdle.

Georgia’s HB 451 would allow public schools to offer hunter safety education courses in grades six through twelve. With strong bi-partisan support, this bill requires that the state Board of Education develop content standards for instruction in hunting safety no later than April 1, 2026.

In Kansas, HB 2104 aims to standardize firearm safety education programs in school districts, with the goal of promoting student safety and teaching appropriate responses when encountering firearms. The state board of education would be directed to establish curriculum guidelines that vary by grade level with the option to use NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program for kindergarten through fifth grade, with additional options to use other established programs for later grades. When a school district chooses to offer firearm safety education, it must follow state-established guidelines and ensure all students have an opportunity to take the course.

Michigan HB 4285 would mandate the development and availability of a model firearm safety instruction program for students in grades six through twelve with topics covered to include proper firearm usage, safe handling, different types of firearms, and safe hunting practices.

The key distinction is depth of training: JROTC and competitive rifle programs provide genuine, hands-on, repeated firearms instruction over months or years — far more substantive than the new one-day classroom safety curricula. In many ways, JROTC has been quietly running one of the largest youth firearms training programs in the country for over a century, largely outside the current political debate.

The Takeaway
Even with all these programs combined, only about 3–4% of K–12 students receive any live-fire firearms training in a given year, and perhaps 8–9% get even basic classroom safety instruction. The other 90%+ of American youth receive no structured firearms education at all — which puts in sharp relief both the scale of the existing programs and the size of the gap they haven't yet reached.

With roughly 3.75 million students graduating from high school each year, the current system trains only a fraction before they reach adulthood — well before many will encounter firearms as adults, whether as gun owners, hunters, or in emergency situations.

The Most Cost-Effective Strategy — A Tiered Answer
Based on everything in this conversation, the evidence points to a clear hierarchy:

1. Highest ROI: Fund and expand state hunter education programs. Every state already runs them, they include live fire, they're cheap ($5–$25/student), and they have a 70-year track record. Removing barriers (cost, scheduling, access) could double participation at minimal incremental cost.

2. Second: Invest in existing volunteer organizations. 4-H, BSA, American Legion, and CMP already have the instructors, curriculum, and range relationships. The marginal cost of adding a youth to an existing club is very low. Targeted grants of $500–$2,000 per club could meaningfully expand capacity.

3. Third: Integrate classroom safety into K–12 curriculum. Following Tennessee's model nationally, using existing teachers trained once, delivers awareness to millions at low marginal cost per student — even if it doesn't replace live-fire training.

4. Reserve live-fire investment for middle/high school. The research consistently shows that hands-on, repeated training produces behavior change — not one-day awareness sessions. Directing resources toward the 11–18 age group through JROTC, 4-H, and school rifle programs where kids are old enough to retain and apply the training gives the best return on live-fire investment.

The single biggest lever: At least two-thirds of JROTC units already include marksmanship training, meaning firearms safety instruction already exists in over 2,200 U.S. high schools. Funding the other third to add marksmanship — roughly 1,100 schools — would be relatively inexpensive and reach hundreds of thousands of additional students through infrastructure already in place.

The Bottom Line

All three programs together would cost roughly $365–390 million to launch and about $400 million per year to sustain — less than 0.06% of the federal K–12 education budget of ~$780 billion. For context, that's about the cost of two F-35 fighter jets to stand up, and less than the annual budget of a mid-sized urban school district to run.

The JROTC expansion is the clearest no-brainer: at $11–15 million one-time, it could add marksmanship training to 1,100 schools and reach over 100,000 students annually — at a cost roughly equivalent to what the federal government spends on school lunch programs in a single day.

The Honest Summary
For roughly $400 million per year — less than the U.S. spends on school lunches in two days — this three-program initiative would:

Ensure every American child graduates high school having received 13 years of age-appropriate firearms safety instruction
Ensure roughly 1 in 5 graduates had at least one live-fire, supervised, structured firearms safety course before adulthood
Produce ~100,000 genuinely skilled young marksmen per year with competition-level safety training

The gap that remains: the roughly 78% of students who would get awareness training and hunter ed but not sustained marksmanship practice. Bridging that gap fully would require either dramatically expanding JROTC, building out 4-H and BSA capacity, or creating a new framework — likely costing several billion dollars more annually and requiring the range infrastructure and instructor pipeline expansion we covered earlier.

But as a first step toward a more firearms-literate America, this three-program package is arguably the highest-return public investment in youth safety that has never seriously been attempted at national scale.

Originally Posted By armoredman:
I was a 4H pistol coach for a time, and the training there wasn't exactly what many here would consider training. Don't get me wrong, the kids loved it and had a great time before one lunatic "coach" ruined the program in the area.
In fact, most NRA training that I am familiar with is not what the gun gurus here would consider training - I took the NRA Hunter Safety class at age 10, and still remember some of it today. Even my government provided yearly training would be laughed at by many of the truly dedicated here.
If you want familiarization and safety, yes, 4H, JROTC, (our rifle team was air rifles, and ONCE we got to shoot M16A1, (yes, A1s!) on the range in FT Huachuca, all other rifles were demilitarized 1903A3s, and this was in the mid 80s), NRA hunter safety, absolutely highly recommended.
One caveat, AZ CCW permit does require proof of training, which can be anything from a CCW permit from another state, military credentials, former LE or Corrections training, etc., not exactly stringent. I also shot the very first AZ CCW course back in '94, and 5 rounds at 5 yards and 5 at 10 isn't a real confidence builder. Mostly classes on law, not very much with actual firearms. I also worked on an indoor range in the 90s where a lot of CCW training went on - it's a real eye opener when a grandma brings a Ruger Blackhawk 44 Mag to take her test with. Spoiler, it was her grandsons gun and she had no idea what she was doing. We helped.
I know you mean well, but it truly is the slippery slope, make it optional and highly encouraged. Make it mandatory, and people with ulterior motives will work to take it over, like Somali day care centers.

Originally Posted By armoredman:
I was a 4H pistol coach for a time, and the training there wasn't exactly what many here would consider training. Don't get me wrong, the kids loved it and had a great time before one lunatic "coach" ruined the program in the area.
In fact, most NRA training that I am familiar with is not what the gun gurus here would consider training - I took the NRA Hunter Safety class at age 10, and still remember some of it today. Even my government provided yearly training would be laughed at by many of the truly dedicated here.
If you want familiarization and safety, yes, 4H, JROTC, (our rifle team was air rifles, and ONCE we got to shoot M16A1, (yes, A1s!) on the range in FT Huachuca, all other rifles were demilitarized 1903A3s, and this was in the mid 80s), NRA hunter safety, absolutely highly recommended.