CCW Renewal and saw it again today--When Brycos attack

[hillbilly]

Did another CCW renewal today, and had another student with a Bryco.


This time, in 9mm.

The renewee was knowledgable, and a good shot. He said he used to own another 9mm of higher quality, but had sold it for some reason. And when he realized he needed a gun, right now, for his CCW renewal, he picked up a Bryco.

At least this one did not actually explode like the .380 did last week.

The specific problems with this beastie were as follows:

1) The safety on the left side of the gun was in the perfect position for recoil to cause the thumb to knock it back up into the "on" position. As a result, the shooter had some strings of fire wherein the second or third shot failed because the safety got slapped on and he didn't realize it.

Safety was also so loose, that a slight breeze could have flicked it on or off.

2) Magazines were awful. Several failures to feed because the magazine springs were so weak that the nose of the rounds frequently failed to clear the feed lips so that the slide could actually cause the round to chamber.

Again, I gently pointed out that at least he was learning this stuff at a controlled range during a practice session, and not learning it when Billy Bob Carjacker was holding a knife to his throat.

He's going shopping for a new one on Monday.

Bryco strikes again.

I don't get it. I sort of see why, but still can't figure on why so many people think their lives are cheap enough that a Bryco, sometimes a second-hand Bryco that costs less than three months worth of cable TV service, is what they should bet their lives on.

hillbilly

 

[Oleg Volk]

That isn't even plain cheapness as lack of information as to the alternatives. One could get a PA63 or a similar Polish or Hungarian milsurp for about the same money, but that would require knowing about the options.

 

[liliysdad]

When I took my CCW class, there were five students, two had Jennings/Brycos, and one a Hi-Point.....range quals took forever...

 

[Chuck Dye]

[Donning flame retardant gear]

Now we have the question: should there be a functionality requirement? Take a car with bad brakes or a burned out turn signal to the DMV for a drive test, and you get sent away for repairs. If the problem is bad enough, you may not drive away: you either get repairs done on the spot or get the car towed to the shop. No check pilot will take off in a plane that fails a walkaround. If you require a range test for a CCW permit, is it unreasonable to reject a gun for cause? Are such failures as Hillbilly describes adequate cause for rejection? (Note, please, that the described problems could have easily appeared in a high end pistol. Just read a manual such as Kuhnhausen's on the 1911.)

 

[hillbilly]

Huck Phinn, you live in Oregon.

Nothing personal, but just pointing that out.

Uh, here in Arkansas, the Gov. did away with safety checks for vehicles by the DMV. There is now no such thing as taking your private car or truck into a government office and having someone check out your vehicle for turn signals, brakes, etc.

hillbilly

 

[Chuck Dye]

So if you turn up with your teenager for a drive test to get a driver’s license, and the DMV agent notices bald tires as he or she walks up to the car, you re not going to get turned away?

Regardless, the habits of any given agency in any given state (BTW, Oregon does not require safety inspections, nor does it require its employees to road test prospective licensees in unsafe vehicles) not pertaining to CCW permit requirements do not address my question: do you think faulty guns should be tolerated in required testing? What faults would you consider disqualifying? What of the responsibilities of a range owner or range officer?

 

[liliysdad]

I think it boils down to the fact that denying someone access to a CCW based upon their weapon is denying them a Right, which is granted by the 2nd....I think the whole testing and permit granting thing is a load of crap, myself anyway.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Liliysdad,

I agree with you. The question I am interested in assumes a required range test. Given the requirement, what conditions should exclude a given gun? It would seem obvious that even the highend semiautos (pick your favorite brand or smith,) are excludable if the disconnector malfunctions and empties the entire magazine on the first pull of the trigger. A poorly tuned magazine that won’t feed reliably is more nuisance than safety hazard, but would you, as tester, allow one poorly prepared testee (read all the "e"s ) to inconvenience and delay the rest of a large group? I am seeking to get a sense of where the THR membership would draw the line assuming the test is required.

 

[liliysdad]

I think that as long as the gun is functionally SAFE, then thats really all you can do. I also think DQing an inexperienced individual is going to either make them carry illegally, or alienate them. The instructor, through helping and informing the student on why his/her gun does what it does, will actually produce a safer and more responsible shooter, in my opinion.

I think that the CCW training should be exactly that, training, not just a qualification.

 

[Flashpoint]

Well I don't know about testing for skill to determin if a potential CCW hoder should get a permit, but I do think that a potential CCW holder should be tested to see if they have the knowledge to handle a firearm, and should also be shown how to do so at a range where they can at least fire a few rounds through the thing.

When I took my test I showed up with a Loricen .380 that I borrowed off my dad, it was the only auto pistol that he had. I could have used his big ole' S&W .357 but then I would have ended up with a restricted permit. I asked the detective what he thought about the Loricens, he said they were alright, and that he finds them on a lot of drug dealers because they are cheap guns and can be thrown away without loosing much and also showed me why they wouldn't make a very good CCW piece because of the positioning of the mag release could easly be bumped. The being cheap kind of the reason that dad bought it, he used it as a truck gun, so if someone breaks into his truck and takes it he didn't loose much. I would like to add that the Loricen did't give me a bit of trouble throughout the 100 or so round I put through it.

All that being said about a month after the test I went and bought myself a Ruger P89, and then a few months later a Steyr M40. About a year after I bought the Ruger I traded it off for a Sig p239 in 9mm.

 

[Chuck Dye]

The tester need not disqualify the testee, just invite him or her to return with acceptable equipment. The one instructor/tester I know (not in Oregon) is likely to pull a very similar gun from his range bag and provide the substitute on the spot. Lacking a near enough match, he would likely do his best to cover the need by imposing on anyone within reach he could talk into the loan.

 

[liliysdad]

I dont know how it works everywhere else, but in OK, the course is 50 bucks. It doesnt sound like much, but to someone who shows up with the Lorcin/Jennings/Bryco/HiPoint, it might be a small fortune. If the instructor asks the perosn to come back, then they are out the 50 bucks, and have to pay for it again when , and if, they do come back.

I am like you, the instructor should have a selection of backup guns to loan for some odd reason, jsut in case. Any gun can malfunction through no fault of the owner, whether it costs 100 bucks, or 1,000.

 

[pax]

Huck,

No, poor people have the same right to defend themselves that you do. Add more hoops, and a certain number of people won't be able to jump those hoops.

It's bad enough that so few people are rich enough to buy justice under our current system. To also take away the poor's ability to physically defend themselves seems a bit too harsh.

Besides which, as a philosophical matter, I am against any law that in any way infringes the right to bear arms. If it nibbles away at the edges of the right to carry the weaponry of your choice, it's unconstitutional and just plain wrong.

pax

The answer to any question starting, "Why don't they-" is almost always, "Money." -- Robert Heinlein

 

[Double Maduro]

I don't see why a person even needs to own a gun to get a carry permit.

DM

 

[BowStreetRunner]

you dont in Georgia
but we are weird here with absolutely NO training requirement
BSR

 

[Tamara]

Most CCW courses here in TN have loaner .22's for just such purposes.

 

[Delmar]

Odd how the CCW permit requirements vary from state to state. In Texas, it has to be a minimum of .355-so a 380 or a 9MM will do. Show up with a revolver and your permit restricts you to a wheelgun. Qualify with an autoloader and you can carry either.

 

[mec]

A postal employee showed up at the Texas DPS Instructors academy with a 380 Jennings. Good thing for him too. He let off an AD on the line and the staff blaimed it on his boat anchor gun. Ordinarily, he would have been frog-marched off the range but the insturctors, supervising him closely, let him shoot through the course and qualify.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Here's a good question: is a gun that fails to fire or jams "safe"?

The answer should be no, because it could endanger your life in a situation where you need it to fire.

But I think the predominant attitude is that since guns are "bad" when they don't go off that's good and safe.

So I think you'd wind up with a law that said if a gun fails to fire that would be ok, but if a pistol went full auto, that wouldn't!

 

[hillbilly]

Students whose guns fail during testing in either the CCW class or the CCW renewal may rent one of mine for $5.

So far, I've made $10 that way.

But I will not turn a student away because the student has faulty equipment. I will tell the student why his or her equipment is faulty and what would be a good replacement.

hillbilly

 

[cratz2]

I'm somewhat torn on this subject... As far as the guns themselves, my gut reaction is to say that you can have whatever you want in your home but perhaps you should have to prove the functionality if it is going to be carried on your person or in your car. I only went to a real range for about two years and then, usually in the early afternoon when they were quite slow. During my time, I personally must have seen 10 times where someone there would either have a hangfire or a misfire and the person would invariably turn the gun at least 30 degrees from the target while he looked at it with a 'what tha!' look on his face. What if this happened in a semi-crowded area and it was a hangfire rather than a misfire. (I admit, I've NEVER had a hangfire). Where it gets cloudy, for me anyway, is when it comes to economics. As pax said, when you question reliability, you are almost by definition prohibiting lower income folks from protecting themselves which, when focusing on that topic clearly, I don't think any of us want to do.

As far as proving an ability to shoot goes... I can't really say I'm against that. Here in Indiana, you go to the police or sherrif and fill out a form and give them your $35 (I think) and a couple weeks later (much longer in Marion county) you get your permit as long as you have no felony convictions or certain misdemeanor convictions... No safety classes, no accuracy requirement, no guns listed on the permit. But again, having seen how dismally some folks shoot at even 7 yards, it almost makes me quesion if we should have some sort of testing, regardless of how minimal. Three shots slow fire with a centerfire weapon of your choice (ideally the weapon you plan on carrying or having ready) at a one square foot target at 7 yards. If you completely miss the target every time, you fail. That doesn't really sound like it's asking too much. Any less skill and it could be argued that the person is putting everyone around him or her in harms way.

In an ideal world, both or either of these tests would be free and relatively anonymous... At least as anonymous as such tests could be... No more and no less anonymous than the application for permit to carry.

As far as the 2nd Ammendment goes, and I admit I haven't done nearly enough research into some areas of the topic, but has any federal court ever uphealed the assertion the 2A guarantees you the right to have a concealed weapon on your person or simply that you can't be denied the ownership of a weapon in your home? Forgive me if this has been clearly covered. I personally have a lot more of a problem with a law that tells me I can't have a machine gun in my own home or a silenced/supressed weapon (without a 'tax') in my own home than a law that stops me from carrying a firearm on my person. Certainly not saying I'd trade my right to carry for a right to own an M60 without a tax but just my reading of the ammendment has more of a problem with the limitation of what kind of arms rather than where arms can be carried.

 

[geekWithA.45]

As far as the 2nd Ammendment goes, and I admit I haven't done nearly enough research into some areas of the topic, but has any federal court ever uphealed the assertion the 2A guarantees you the right to have a concealed weapon on your person or simply that you can't be denied the ownership of a weapon in your home?

Whooboy.

"Keep" covers ownership in your home.
"Bear" covers walking around with it.

As for courts upholding....they (SCOTUS) haven't upheld squat concerning 2A, and what they uphold or don't has very little to do with what 2A actually means or protects.


As for the NFA tax...the courts HAVE upheld that you may NOT tax the instrumentality of a fundamental right (eg, Bibles), but they haven't applied this to firearms yet.

To assert that our rights have something to do with waiting for the Robed Ones to connect tab A to slot B is dangerous. The Constution means what it says, NOT what the SCOTUS says it means.

(As a matter of pragmatics, however, I hear what your'e saying. What I'm saying is that the RIGHT exists, but the LIBERTY to excercise it can be demolished UNLESS the courts uphold it....and viola! Here we are)

 

[Justin]

Seems to me that those who choose to carry unreliable weapons are likely to get culled from the herd via natural selection.

Bingo.

Problem solved.

 

[Brian Dale]

No DQs for poor equipment. Tests are the law of the land in some states, but the goal of the tests should be to evaluate shooting ability and safe gunhandling rather than either purchasing power or knowledge of what other weapon the applicant could have brought instead.

The proper response is to give advice about the better choices that are available. If the state requires a test for a person to be licensed, the state ought to have loaner pistols available.

But then, I'm a guy who thinks that rifle and pistol marksmanship should be taught in high school along with English and math.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Amen Bob.

Just because the student can't afford a high end pistol he's still paying for your high end training. All those FTF's, tap rack bang drills.. they might leave a student better prepared.

Of course I'd suggest a better firearm at some point. But not at the start of class.