Have to take ccw class over again in MO

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ford

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Messages
512
Location
KCMO
Just found out today that I have to take my ccw class over again.
It seems that the Range jumped the gun a bit.
Apparently the Sheriff decided not to okay the lesson plan. I guess the Sheriff of Clay County told the Owner of the gun ranges lawyer that it looked ok. The range owner went ahead on that verbal and started having classes, he had not yet gotten a signed agreement from the sheriff. Now the sheriff does not like the lesson plan. So the first 27 people that took the class have to take it over again.
I don't have to pay for it again but I am a little dissapointed because now I have to wait another week or so before I can apply for the permit. The next open class is not untill the 19th.
 
Not knowing all the particulars...

makes it kind hard to offer an opinion- but it sounds like BS to me.

Whether a particular sheriff "likes" it or not is irrelevant. Take a look at the text of the act at-

http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/biltxt/truly/HB0349T.HTM

Specific text describing what constitutes an acceptable couse is located in the folllowing subsections of 571.094-

23. A certificate of firearms safety training course completion may be issued to any applicant by any qualified firearms safety instructor. On the certificate of course completion the qualified firearms safety instructor shall affirm that the individual receiving instruction has taken and passed a firearms safety course of at least eight hours in length taught by the instructor that included:

(1) Handgun safety in the classroom, at home, on the firing range and while carrying the firearm;

(2) A physical demonstration performed by the applicant that demonstrated his or her ability to safely load and unload a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol and demonstrated his or her marksmanship with both;

(3) The basic principles of marksmanship;

(4) Care and cleaning of concealable firearms;

(5) Safe storage of firearms at home;

(6) The requirements of this state for obtaining a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement from the sheriff of the individual's county of residence and a concealed carry endorsement issued by the department of revenue;

(7) The laws relating to firearms as prescribed in this chapter;

(8) The laws relating to the justifiable use of force as prescribed in chapter 563, RSMo;

(9) A live firing exercise of sufficient duration for each applicant to fire a handgun, from a standing position or its equivalent, a minimum of fifty rounds at a distance of seven yards from a B-27 silhouette target or an equivalent target;

(10) A live fire test administered to the applicant while the instructor was present of twenty rounds from a standing position or its equivalent at a distance from a B-27 silhouette target, or an equivalent target, of seven yards.

24. A qualified firearms safety instructor shall not give a grade of "passing" to an applicant for a concealed carry endorsement who:

(1) Does not follow the orders of the qualified firearms instructor or cognizant range officer; or

(2) Handles a firearm in a manner that, in the judgement of the qualified firearm safety instructor, poses a danger to the applicant or to others; or

(3) During the live fire testing portion of the course fails to hit the silhouette portion of the targets with at least fifteen rounds.

25. Qualified firearms safety instructors who provide firearms safety instruction to any person who applies for a concealed carry endorsement shall:

(1) Make the applicant's course records available upon request to the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides;

(2) Maintain all course records on students for a period of no less than four years from course completion date; and

(3) Not have more than forty students in the classroom portion of the course or more than five students per range officer engaged in range firing.

If the instructor meets the requirements of the law, and certifies that you met covered the material previously described, in accordance with the statute, and fired a qualifying score- the sheriff has to issue the endorsement. This is a "shall issue" law and it leaves no room for the "likes" and dislikes of local politicians.

The law also contains instructions and formats to apply for redress with the local courts when you are improperly denied. In your shoes I would

1) contact the sheriff and ask for specifics about the alleged deficiency of the course material. He may have a perfectly good and lawful reason for denying the certifications, but you won't know until you ask.

2) contact the instructor and ask for copies of any correspondence he has received from the sheriff

3) based on what you find out, decide whether or not to file the appeal with the small claims court.

The sheriff is immune from liability so long as he acts in "good faith". He's on his own if he does not-

37. The office of the county sheriff or any employee or agent of the county sheriff shall not be liable for damages in any civil action arising from alleged wrongful or improper granting, renewing, or failure to revoke a certificate of qualification or a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to this section, so long as the sheriff acted in good faith.

Good luck, hope y'all get it worked out w/o a big donnybrook in court.

3)
 
Bummer!

The price we pay for being trailblazers?

I agree with Sarge, but I wonder what the definition of a "qualified instructor" is? Is it possible that the course material was OK but the instructor wasn't "qualified"?
:confused:
 
The owner told me that the Instructor is qualified but the sheriff did not like his lesson plan. The Instructor that I took the class from is on vacation and does not even know about all this. The range has now hired another Instructor for a total of two. The new class sounds like they go over alot more stuff. I don't ????????????????????//
 
This doesn't suprise me and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of these cases. If the sherriff is opposed to concealed carry, he will certainly do everything he to make it incovenient.

Actually it has already been that way. To purchase a handgun in the state, one must get a permit from the Sheriff first. State law allows the Sherriff up to a week to issue the permit. The law DOES NOT REQUIRE any amount of time to elapse before it is issue. Some counties will issue the permit immediately while others will take a week. A year or two ago I went to pick up a permit applied for a week prior. After arriving at the Sheriff Dept, I had to wait almost half an hour for them to "run it through the computer". In other words, the thing probably sat on a desk for a week before they did any kind of "backgroung" check. In the same county, permits were issued immediately when applied for a couple years before that. The Sheriff just decided he'd make his own waiting period.

The only thing person can do if denied a permit is take the Sherriff to small claims court to force the Sheriff to issue it. I guess the Sheriff could just not issue permits and wait to be taken to court just to make things difficult.

On another occasion since then, I applied for another permit. A week later, I called the office to make sure it was ready before making the trip. They said it was and I could pick it up. I went to get it and they said the computer was down and couldn't issue then. This was not the place to argue or debate anything. They were nice enough to take my phone number to call me when the computer would be up up again. I went straight home from the office. When I got home about twenty minutes later, there was a message on the answering machine from the Sheriff's office saying the computer was back up. I again called to verify I could get it and they said I could come back. I asked them if they could just go ahead and do whatever they do to process it so it would be ready by the time I got there. They said no. It was policy to not "run it through" until the $10 permit fee was received (basicly admitting they do absolutely nothing for that whole week since the permit is not paid for until picking it up).

I went back to the office. Now there were a few other people there waiting in line to get their permits. Another guy there said the computer had been up and down all week. This same thing apparently happen to him, but worse.

The state law says the Sheriff has up to a week to issue the permit. It doesn't say anything like "unless the computer is down". The system had been in place before computers were being used anyway.

Perhaps I'm being excessively cynical, but my guess is similar things could happen with the new CCW situation. Especially since it's new and unfamiliar to many.
 
Well, at least you get to put some more bullets downrange, and thats a good thing. Or is it just the classroom portion?

Hope the ClayCoMo Sheriff has no more chances to rethink his review and approval of lesson plans, but being an elected official and all...

It won't be long tho' . Hang tough. Enjoy the next lesson plan and classroom time. Probably learn something new besides.

Adios
 
This is why I'm going to wait a month or two, let them work out the bugs, and any issues (personal, political, legal, paperwork, etc), before I take my class.

Taking a class over, as long as there is no charge, isn't neccessarily a big deal, but it is a bit inconvienent.

What happens if you actually apply for the permit, and you have to fill out 4 different apps before they decide on a format? I'll just wait till a few are issued, then go for mine. I really hate having to make several trips for something that should be done once.

Also, does any one know if this means they'll get rid of the Purchase Permit for CCW holders? Sure would be nice to be able to actually take a gun home at the ACTUAL time of purchase...
 
Also, does any one know if this means they'll get rid of the Purchase Permit for CCW holders? Sure would be nice to be able to actually take a gun home at the ACTUAL time of purchase...

No, this does not get rid of the purchase permit.

The purchase permit should have been done away with when the NICS check started.
 
Geeze, talk about opening an instructor up for liability. He has to teach both the firearms law and justifiable use of deadly force. You can almost bet he is going to wind up in court for the first questionable shooting involving one of his students.

In Florida, along with the assorted classes and licenses that are accepted for proof of training, is an automatic qualification for anyone having been in the military. A copy of your DD-214 counts as training. Anything like that in MO?
 
There may be no need to take it again if these sheeple get their way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Group prepares lawsuit challenging conceal and carry law
10:39 PM CDT on Friday, October 3, 2003

Reporter: Mike O'Connell, News 4

(KMOV) -- The future of concealed guns in Missouri could come down to the interpretation of 10 words. Those 10 words were inserted into the Missouri constitution 128 years ago.

The fight over concealed guns in Missouri went from defeat at the ballot box is 1999 to victory in the legislature's veto session in September, but now the battle may be headed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

"I think the people who are challenging this on the merits have a very good case. And, in fact, if you had to ask me, I think the Supreme Court of Missouri will through the law out,"

News 4 has learned a small group of handgun control advocates is preparing a constitutional challenge to the conceal and carry law. The legal case is based on a portion of the Missouri constitution adopted in 1875 that deals with the right to keep arms. In Article 1, Bill of Rights Section 23, the constitution reads, "...the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Attorney Bevis Schock isn't a party to the potential lawsuit, but he specializes in constitutional cases.

"So, it comes down to what does the word justify mean?" Schock said.

John Wolf of the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance has been working to legalize concealed guns in Missouri since 1994. He said that he sees no ban in the constitution. He said in his mind, this is not something for the courts to decide.

"It has been decided legislatively, they may not like the way it went down, they may not like the fact that the governor had his veto overridden, but that's the breaks," Wolf said.

But concealed gun opponent Terry Barber is hopeful about a legal challenge.

"I would applaud any effort to stop the bill, any legal effort to stop the bill would be excellent," Barber said.

Schock, a Libertarian, would like to see concealed guns legalized, but he's not hopeful the law will be upheld.

"I'm basing that on the language and, quite honestly, on the makeup of the court. There are four left wing Democrats and three right wing Republicans," he said.

A small group of handgun control advocates is secretly preparing this lawsuit. It likely would be filed in Cole County Circuit Court in Jefferson City the day the law goes into effect. It would probably then go from that court to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The law takes effect on October 11, which is a Saturday. Monday, October 13, is Columbus Day -- a holiday. The lawsuit most likely would be filed on Tuesday, October 14.
 
I spoke with a good friend living in Clay county about the CCW issues there. The sheriff is very ANTI CCW. His comment to my buddy was that he was going to jack the price of the permit up till no one could afford it, (he's not able to do that, the law caps the amount he can charge).

I'd look to more bullsh*t coming from this sheriff regarding CCW. Sounds like he needs to be sent to the un-employment line.

Semper Fi
 
I've heard about the Clay COunty sheriff being anti-gun.

One more reason for me to wait till I move a couple counties south in a few weeks.


Anyone know the political stance of Cass County?
 
If the original class met all the requierments of the law, maybe the 27 students and the range should sue this jackass sherriff!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top