usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Chicago already cracking down on CCW instructors
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
Sorry but this isn't antigun politicians running amok. If true these are lazy instructors that are being slapped for being lazy instructors. While I may think the 16 hour requirement is excessive, if you are an instructor its just stupid to provide any less training than required. Its a good way to lose your certification, and possibly go to jail; not to mention screw over your students.
Also it says downstate, that isn't Chicago.
Also it says downstate, that isn't Chicago.
Hypnogator
Member
+1 Vamo. If the law mandates 16 hours of instruction, then instructors who fail to comply are placing their students in possible jeopardy for carrying a concealed weapon without a license, if their licenses are declared invalid. Not to mention they're cheating their students out of part of their tuition. 
I can see how that can happen.
We live in a society where many are not interested in learning or developing competency.
For example, college students ask their teacher 'is that going to be on the exam'? Plagiarism runs amuck in our best schools. Folk want the credential, the CCW permit, but are reluctant to put in the work that's required.
Instructors may be responding to those pressures.
We live in a society where many are not interested in learning or developing competency.
For example, college students ask their teacher 'is that going to be on the exam'? Plagiarism runs amuck in our best schools. Folk want the credential, the CCW permit, but are reluctant to put in the work that's required.
Instructors may be responding to those pressures.
medalguy
Member
These same lazy students all too often are the ones who scream the loudest about all the requirements and don't want to take the time to be proficient with their firearm too. Just let me do the minimum and give me the permit.
Oh I am sure the students are complacent in it. The minimum in Illinois is 16hrs its a bit high imo, but the consequences aren't worth doing less.
There was actually a case last year here in MO where someone tried applying for a permit at 2:00pm when their paperwork said their 8hr class started that day at 9:00am, instructors got in deep trouble, and though I am not sure what happened to them I would not have wanted to be one of the students who had been carrying after taking a class from that particular instructor.
Just saying if this story ends up being true this isn't a case of harassment by overzealous government officials. Its the failure by the instructors to meet a very basic guideline.
The requirement is 16 contact hours and if you don't provide that you're not doing your part as an instructor. That's cheating both the system and the students. It isn't even that difficult to do with a wealth of relevant internet material available to fill up the time.
Yep. How much can they talk about for 16 hours, unless it takes that long to list all the places they can't carry?
Lot of "if"
IF true, it isn't Kelly using "unnamed sources" to make life difficult.
.IF true, it isn't an advocate of "social justice" and supporter of gun control doing exactly what he said he wouldn't.
Another rising star of the political left is just " looking out for students of concealed carry". IF he actually cared.
Probably not a lot of other crooks in Illinois for Kelly to pursue based on complaints from "unnamed sources".
Are there any links to the sources of complaint that they were denied a full 16 hr class?
And IF these students are lazy ( as has been postulated) why would they complain?
This isn't a bash, it's recognizing the reality of efforts to deny the right to keep and bear.
IF true, it isn't Kelly using "unnamed sources" to make life difficult.
.IF true, it isn't an advocate of "social justice" and supporter of gun control doing exactly what he said he wouldn't.
Another rising star of the political left is just " looking out for students of concealed carry". IF he actually cared.
Probably not a lot of other crooks in Illinois for Kelly to pursue based on complaints from "unnamed sources".
Are there any links to the sources of complaint that they were denied a full 16 hr class?
And IF these students are lazy ( as has been postulated) why would they complain?
This isn't a bash, it's recognizing the reality of efforts to deny the right to keep and bear.
Last edited:
Madcap_Magician
Member
Hexhead said:
In Illinois, it probably does take at least a couple hours to list all the places they can't carry.
The class I used to teach was about seven hours and another hour or two on the range.
I could have expanded the class to 16 hours easily and still had stuff I didn't cover.
waterhouse
Member
About 15 years ago, when Texas' Permit class was longer, I recall our instructor saying first thing "yes, we have to be here all X hours. The state surveys students and even occasionally sends someone to sit through my class and make sure you are here as long as you are supposed to be. If they find out you didn't sit here that long, they take away my instructor license and might revoke your CHL as well."
So it isn't limited to Illinois.
So it isn't limited to Illinois.
If I were in IL here in the early phases of the carry permit system I'd like a very thorough discussion of all the laws and peculiarities (focused on the State as the threat).
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
The students would "complain" if they were anti-gun plants.
And that scenario makes much more sense than multiple students "complaining" that they were shorted on their 16 hrs of "training."
It sends the message to every instructor in IL that they better dot every i and cross every t, lest they give the anti-gunners a reason to point and whine: "see? We told you it wouldn't work! We need stricter guidelines..."
jerkface11
Member
You seem to be assuming that these people wouldn't lie.
lemaymiami
Member
I don't live in that part of the country (or up in New York either, thank heavens...) but clearly if "instructors" aren't living up to their obligations -then everyone should take a hand in correcting the situation. That goes double for areas where local government is probably looking for any excuse to curtail licensing....
I was very pleased to see that most feel the same way about this topic. Since I was heavily involved with in-service training for working cops years ago I can agree that the tendency to shortcut or do less than required is an impulse that's always present. Keeping up standards is hard wherever you are.
I was very pleased to see that most feel the same way about this topic. Since I was heavily involved with in-service training for working cops years ago I can agree that the tendency to shortcut or do less than required is an impulse that's always present. Keeping up standards is hard wherever you are.
Trainers always want more hours. Trainers are consulted when the laws are passed, and since they get the "expert" input on how many hours are needed, that's generally what gets put into law.
In MO it's 8 - eight - hours.
Being prior service Infantry and mobilized on active duty as an MP for a year, the 8 hours was a boring waste of repetitive nonsense. Nonetheless, Officially required, all because our state legislators refuse to acknowledge military training. I've carried locked and loaded on duty in six months time than I have in the ten years since CCW.
No, I obviously don't live in the crime infested neighborhoods that some perpetually fear they do.
Point being, requiring 8 or 16 hours of training, if it's BS, the number of hours won't make it any more effective. You could read two Mas Ayoob books on CCW and fighting with handguns and get more from it. Hours do NOT mandate the quality of the course content.
If anything, a 40 hour course would not do the job for 25% of the applicants. Simple bell curve demographics, folks, and even the experts drop their .45 in the john and shoot it. So, let's not pontificate about how many hours are necessary, because we all know their are some who could walk in, shoot a target, and pass a written test in one hour flat, and others who couldn't pass a simple reloading exercise without muzzling the adjacent range shooter. (And at least my instructors held the line on that.)
The 16 hour requirement is just political BS and supported by the "trainer's union" to cover the worst case scenario. In that regard, we can never train enough. We just have to accept that in a free land, we will live with the mistakes of others.
In a monarchy, we dictate who can do what. Where do I stand on the progressive line of what's needed for training? Out there about 6 months, which is ridiculous, as it would be unConstitutionally prohibitive. So, I live with the 16 hour grads who still don't have a clue and hope they don't shoot me in the next stall.
In MO it's 8 - eight - hours.
Being prior service Infantry and mobilized on active duty as an MP for a year, the 8 hours was a boring waste of repetitive nonsense. Nonetheless, Officially required, all because our state legislators refuse to acknowledge military training. I've carried locked and loaded on duty in six months time than I have in the ten years since CCW.
No, I obviously don't live in the crime infested neighborhoods that some perpetually fear they do.
Point being, requiring 8 or 16 hours of training, if it's BS, the number of hours won't make it any more effective. You could read two Mas Ayoob books on CCW and fighting with handguns and get more from it. Hours do NOT mandate the quality of the course content.
If anything, a 40 hour course would not do the job for 25% of the applicants. Simple bell curve demographics, folks, and even the experts drop their .45 in the john and shoot it. So, let's not pontificate about how many hours are necessary, because we all know their are some who could walk in, shoot a target, and pass a written test in one hour flat, and others who couldn't pass a simple reloading exercise without muzzling the adjacent range shooter. (And at least my instructors held the line on that.)
The 16 hour requirement is just political BS and supported by the "trainer's union" to cover the worst case scenario. In that regard, we can never train enough. We just have to accept that in a free land, we will live with the mistakes of others.
In a monarchy, we dictate who can do what. Where do I stand on the progressive line of what's needed for training? Out there about 6 months, which is ridiculous, as it would be unConstitutionally prohibitive. So, I live with the 16 hour grads who still don't have a clue and hope they don't shoot me in the next stall.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I don't know which group of people "wouldn't lie."
The instructors? No report of them saying anything.
The students? From two different classes reporting the same thing, but by doing so nullify their time and money spent by every student in those classes. (How many of those 96 people are going to spend the time and money AGAIN? Especially with no guarantee that it won't happen again)
That it happened "downstate" means absolutely nothing. The tentacles of Chicago reach throughout the state, bolstered by anti-gun legislators in Springfield.
From the story, key details are noticeably lacking: shorted by how much?
Has this problem ever, ever been reported in any other state? Many of which have had such classes for 20+ yrs. Yet, in the first few weeks in IL, it's been reported twice within days of each other?
IF the instructors cut corners, fine, yank their certification. But remember, it's Illinois, notoriously anti-gun for decades where every law abiding gun owner has been registered with the state since the mid 60's after paying for the privilege to utilize their Second Amendment right.
The anti-gunners were dragged kicking and screaming against the CCW law that the courts ruled they MUST provide.
To consider a scenario where anti-gun plants were put into IL CCW classes isn't nearly as crazy as some might think.
Last edited:
UpperAtmosphere
Member
The first eight hours of your certification can come from a variety of sources - prior military or law enforcement service, an NRA course, concealed carry training for other states. Even the state's hunter safety class counts for four.
The second eight hours is supposed to be Illinois-specific stuff, but I'm sure it is exceedingly similar to what you get in other states. It includes the live fire qualification and info on where you can and can't carry, proper concealment, so on and so forth.
The second eight hours is supposed to be Illinois-specific stuff, but I'm sure it is exceedingly similar to what you get in other states. It includes the live fire qualification and info on where you can and can't carry, proper concealment, so on and so forth.
Blackbeard
Member
Frankly, I'd expect a license-selling operation to be in Chicago, not cracked down on by Chicago. If the downstate guys were shorting their students they can and should be shut down to preserve the integrity and reputation of the honest trainers.
^^this
...^^^and this.
Sure, I was ready to get out of there after eight hours (North Carolina), but I also realized there was plenty more that could have - maybe should have covered.
And once we got to the range, there was no doubt a few needed quite a bit more time.
AlexanderA
Member
This highlights the wide variation in training requirements across the country. In Virginia, we can take a simple online training course that involves no actual firing practice. Are concealed carriers in Virginia less safe, or more apt to misuse their guns, than those in states with stricter training requirements? I haven't seen any evidence of that. (For that matter, are concealed carriers in "constitutional carry" states, with no licensing requirement at all, more likely to abuse their guns?)
The background of this is that the criminal elements -- those that would misuse guns -- don't care about training any more than they do about licensing in general.
What strict training requirements really do, it seems to me, is place yet another hurdle in front of the law-abiding. (As a side effect, they provide full employment to gun instructors.) Don't misunderstand -- gun training is a good idea, but it should be voluntary.
The background of this is that the criminal elements -- those that would misuse guns -- don't care about training any more than they do about licensing in general.
What strict training requirements really do, it seems to me, is place yet another hurdle in front of the law-abiding. (As a side effect, they provide full employment to gun instructors.) Don't misunderstand -- gun training is a good idea, but it should be voluntary.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked