Those of you that live in states with training requirements for a CCW...

[lucky_fool]

So you and "a lot of people" believe that training requirements are a conspiracy intended solely to prevent certain groups of people from legally carrying concealed weapons even if they pass the course and that CWP instructors are in on this conspiracy?

And a poll tax was just a method of collecting revenue, right?

The instructors don't have to be in on it. For many, if not most, of us on THR an extra 50-200 bucks to get a permit is irritating but not necessarily impossible to manage. For a lot of people it is impossible, or practically so. Can you imagine saving up for a year just to buy an old, worn police trade-in .38 only to be told that you need to pay as much for a permit to carry it (training class + permit fee) as you did for the gun itself?

 

[skipjack_1st]

MI

Plenty of classes/times available.

Required - YES

8 hour class with 3 hours range time.

Prificiency - Yes, (but you can just about do it with your eyes closed)

Test - Yes, written

Cost of class $125 on up.

Cost of permit, about another $125.

Think that about covers the query.

 

[MAKster]

In Virginia they will except any proof of firearms training. That could include a hunter safety class or an extremely basic three hour intro to handguns class. I don't buy idea that this is a ploy to discriminate against people. Ranges and instructors who offer classes are in the business of making money so they don't turn anyone way or flunk anyone. In the class I took it was classroom only so even if you were blind and had no arms you couldn't fail.

 

[Ed Ames]

In Texas there is definitely some room for abuse. Certified instructors are in a position to spike an applicant by raising questions about their mental stability. The CHL instructor I used said he had never done so but had initially considered it with a student who showed up covered in tattoos and peircings, shaved head, motorcycle leathers, etc.

I think widespread bias is held in check by two factors:

1) Most trainers are individuals/small buisinessmen who are encouraging CCW for at least partially political reasons. They want to see more CCW licensees even beyond the possibility of additional training or other sales.

2) There is no monopoly on who can perform training. That's the issue you run into when a sherrif or other political entity has control on who is issued a CCW. They, as the gatekeeper, cannot be chosen (except by voting with your feet) and cannot be bypassed the way one of 10,000 concealed carry instructors can be.

Put the training in police hands and you are right back to may-issue. Raise the standards for instructors high enough (so that only government orgs or really big businesses qualify) and you are back to may issue. That hasn't happened yet.

 

[jackstinson]

I am in Columbus,Ohio....Franklin County.

Classes are available at probably a dozen or more places within a 40 mile radius of where I live. Mine was 5 minutes from my home. Courses are available from a "1 day class" to "4 nights of short classes spread over a 2-week period" (for people like me who cant devote a single 12 hour day to the class).

I've never heard of anyone being refused a class around here.

Classes vary in cost....usually $100-$130. But some offer reduced rates if you really can't afford one. My class didn't even worry about the money, most of us paid them after it was over. A lot of places around here offering classes are more interested in getting you passed than making money. My fee barely covered the class material, range time, and ammo: instructors were volunteers.

Ohio requires 10 hours of class and 2 hours of practical range time.

The written test I took is the NRA Basic Pistol Course test...easy..it's BASIC.

The test was graded as we handed them in, then returned, and no one failed.
The range portion I took was 50 shots at 50 feet, a variety of handguns were provided by the course. The shooting part varies with different places offering courses though....but it is always 2 hours range time.

Every criteria is laid out before you start, everything clearly defined.

I don't know anyone who has failed the shooting portion anywhere around here. There may be some, but not due to discrimination. Most places go out of their way to help people pass. There is no state "shooting ability standard" to meet. For shooting the state only says, "must have two hours of practical training including range time and live-fire experience". Some courses do have their own scoring standard, the one I took did not. The range portion is required so you have on-hand experience firing a gun.

I'm sure there are statistics somewhere....but like I said, I don't know of anyone who has been turned down for or failed a class. Now, they may get snagged in the application for a CHL process due to background check or something, but not the class requirement. The state doesn't require you to shoot BadGuy's eye out at 50 yards 20 times in a row.

For what it's worth: my class had a full spectrum of ethnic groups and income levels. A couple had tattoos, rode bikes...one of those was a girl! I wear an earring, I wasn't banned. We all had fun and passed the course easily.
And also for what it's worth: The day after I completed the class I applied for my CHL (Friday afternoon). It cost $55. The Sheriff's office called me only 4 business days later to come down and pick it up.

Jack

 

[Robert Hairless]

And a poll tax was just a method of collecting revenue, right?

The instructors don't have to be in on it. For many, if not most, of us on THR an extra 50-200 bucks to get a permit is irritating but not necessarily impossible to manage. For a lot of people it is impossible, or practically so. Can you imagine saving up for a year just to buy an old, worn police trade-in .38 only to be told that you need to pay as much for a permit to carry it (training class + permit fee) as you did for the gun itself?

Although there's no requirement that anyone think logically or even rationally on the Internet those are skills worth developing if only as a hobby. Give it a try.

No one was talking about poll taxes. They're probably an interesting subject but they're not even marginally relevant to this discussion. The original poster used the analogy of literacy tests, which is at least reasonable in terms of the central point he tried to make: that instructors use their discretion to bar people of a certain race--which race is unspecified and blurry, as is appropriate to what is essentially the issue of a vast conspiracy--from getting permits even if they passed a written and a shooting test. Poll taxes do not involve either such tests or discretion.

Can I "imagine saving up for a year just to buy an old, worn police trade-in .38 only to be told that you need to pay as much for a permit to carry it (training class + permit fee) as you did for the gun itself?" Yes, of course I can. So what? If someone has forced you to buy "an old, worn police trade-in" upload that mind controlling rascal right now and I'll straighten him out for you, since you're unable to do it yourself. I hate it when people transmit controlling messages to other people's dental fillings. That horror must cease and I will put a stop to it for everyone.

Can you imagine buying an old, worn trade-in used car and then discovering that you have to put gasoline in it for the same price paid by someone who buys a brand new car? Or can you imagine marrying an awful person and having to pay the same marriage license fee as the person who married a nice person? Or buying a ticket to a movie you don't like and paying the same price as someone who saw the same movie and liked it?

Such conspiracies are all around us, alas, but only the most sensitive of us are able to detect them. Have you ever noticed that the only time you see bad reception on a television set is when there's a program you want to watch? There is evil in this world.

I haven't observed any conspiracy on the part of CWP instructors to block the permits of people from any race, religion, or national origin. In fact all the CWP instructors I know are out trying hard for minorities to enroll in their classes and get their permits. The reason should be obvious to anyone who isn't looking for conspiracies under every bed: those are the people who usually are most in need of the ability to defend their lives and those of their families.

Every CWP instructor I've ever met is doing this work to increase the number of honest people who have the means of self defense. Those instructors pay for their own training and certification as instructors, take courses and pass examinations to be certified, must maintain their credentials, must submit their courses for state approval, and are required to teach them exactly as they were approved. Of course they are human beings too and therefore are subject to the same frailties as other human beings, but what's been suggested as a virtual conspiracy could be grounds for arrest and suits if they were caught. Surely someone who was the victim of such a conspiracy would have complained.

Search the messages in The High Road during the past few months for the report of a Sherrif who was caught and punished for not giving the proper course in his state. Remember we are talking about CWP courses and instructors, not about "may issue" states or officials who abuse their trust. By the way, I don't know a CWP instructor who wouldn't report another CWP instructor for doing what has been suggested by the original poster.

For whatever it might be worth, I do not like the idea of compulsory CWP courses as a condition of getting a permit. I also do not like the idea of needing a permit to carry the means of self defense. I believe that the ability to defend one's own life is a right, that the defense of one's family is a duty, and that there should be no need for a permit to do either. I abhor that concept. But it's absurd to think that CWP instructors as a class are somehow motivated by prejudice against any race, religion, or national origin, and that's the issue raised by the original poster--not a worn .38 trade in.

 

[Black Majik]

California

Just a few questions:

What state are you in?

-CA

Is the availability of the training reasonable (days and times available, class sizes, etc.)?

-Yes, we have a few places that offer classes and training. Two that are very popular in Socal

How often are people who attempt to sign up for the training turned down for whatever reason?

-Depends on county

How much does the training cost?

-$179.00

How long does the training take to complete?

-I think it was a 8 hour class

Is there a written test?

-Yes, cake

If so, how difficult is it? Is the test graded immediately and handed back so the student knows how they did, why each answer was correct or incorrect, and personally verify that the correct answer was the same for all students? Very easy

Is there a practical test?

Yes. Went through a training course for first 3 hours. Last hour was qualification

If so, how difficult is it? Are the criteria for passing very clearly defined, and does the student have the opportunity to see their target so they can personally verify their passing/failing?

-As long as most shots fall COM then you'll pass. Competence with firearm is also noted. Very easy. Guns that jam won't be qualified.

 

[lucky_fool]

Robert Hairless, I apologize. I went back and read the original post and I see that my comment didn't really fit. That's what I get for reading a bunch of replies and thinking about a different subject before replying.

I was really referring to poll taxes being analogous to the gov't requiring people to pay to take a class and then requiring a fee for the permit. If you look at it from that perspective I hope the rest of my post makes sense. (I know it doesn't make sense in relation to the OP).

That said...

Can you imagine buying an old, worn trade-in used car and then discovering that you have to put gasoline in it for the same price paid by someone who buys a brand new car? Or can you imagine marrying an awful person and having to pay the same marriage license fee as the person who married a nice person? Or buying a ticket to a movie you don't like and paying the same price as someone who saw the same movie and liked it?

"Although there's no requirement that anyone think logically or even rationally on the Internet those are skills worth developing if only as a hobby. Give it a try."

I'm not saying that a person who buys a cheap gun should pay less of a fee than one who buys an expensive one. I'm saying that by requiring a person to pay for a class and a permit fee to carry legally the government is purposely trying to add a barrier to entry that makes it more difficult for a poor person to legally carry (hence the reference to poll taxes).

Just for the record, literacy tests didn't have anything to do with anybody's discretion, either. The original literacy tests involved having separate boxes for each ballot position and those boxes had written labels. If you couldn't get the right ballot in the right box then the ballot didn't count. That then moved to regulations forbidding more than one person in a ballot booth at a time so an illiterate person couldn't get help from someone who could read. Again, no discretion involved. It was simply a legislated barrier to entry designed to disenfranchise a particular segment of the population.

As to the point of the original post, I think we both agree on that.

For whatever it might be worth, I do not like the idea of compulsory CWP courses as a condition of getting a permit. I also do not like the idea of needing a permit to carry the means of self defense. I believe that the ability to defend one's own life is a right, that the defense of one's family is a duty, and that there should be no need for a permit to do either. I abhor that concept. But it's absurd to think that CWP instructors as a class are somehow motivated by prejudice against any race, religion, or national origin

+1

 

[waterhouse]

I signed up for my class online. There was no check box on the sign up form for my race, religious beliefs, gender, socioeconomic status, or really anything else. My class varied widely in race and even gender, although it was a small class so statistically the results aren't worth much.

We took a state mandated multiple choice written test. You fill in the bubbles, they grade the sheet in front of you. I forget how many questions you were allowed to miss, but the number was relatively high and I think the most anyone missed was 2.

The shooting test was also easy to pass. Even the new shooters kept their shots on the silhouette, even if some shots were on the upper shoulder area or low hip.

The class was about $120, which included fingerprinting and photo fees.

From a money standpoint, or even a time standpoint, I can understand how people that can't afford the money or time might be "shut out" of the system, but as far as the class goes there is nothing in the testing that would prohibit anyone from passing.

 

[fletcher]

What state are you in?

NC

Is the availability of the training reasonable (days and times available, class sizes, etc.)?

Yes. Many different places offer the class, with a large variety of times, class sizes, and so forth. Mine was about 18 people on a Saturday/Sunday.

How often are people who attempt to sign up for the training turned down for whatever reason?

Couldn't say.

How much does the training cost?

Fairly large range of prices, generally between $60 and $100.

How long does the training take to complete?

I don't recall the exact numbers, but I think it was ~8 hours of class time and a proficiency test.

Is there a written test?

Yes

If so, how difficult is it? Is the test graded immediately and handed back so the student knows how they did, why each answer was correct or incorrect, and personally verify that the correct answer was the same for all students?

It was very easy IMO. The tests were graded immediately or overnight, seeing as we received our "successful completion" certificates at the end of the class. I didn't get any feedback, but I got all the questions correct.

Is there a practical test?

Yes, but it's pretty much a joke.

If so, how difficult is it? Are the criteria for passing very clearly defined, and does the student have the opportunity to see their target so they can personally verify their passing/failing?

If you can hit the lid of a trashcan at 8 yards you will do very well on the test. Nobody failed it in mine or my dad's class. Everyone got their target back IIRC.

Are any statistics available on people who attempt to take the training and are turned down, or attempt to complete the training and fail, especially denial/failure percentages by race?

If there are, I wish someone would give them to me.

I think you can all see where I'm going with this. A license is not "shall issue" if the test-givers have any personal discretion whatsoever over who can take the training, and who passes it. A lot of people, me included, are of the opinion that some states' training requirements (not to mention licensing fees in many cases!) are little more than a literacy test, intended solely to prevent certain groups of people from legally carrying concealed. How do the facts stack up against this belief?

There were scoring and grading systems in place, and I think everything was at least available for review if you asked. It is my impression that if you have the least least idea of the law and how to shoot, you'll pass with ease.

 

[FiREhAwk]

I live in NC and passed my Firearms Safety Training Course last week. It was instructed by a certified NRA instructor. We had 7 people in the class which was all he would do at one time. The class was 8 hrs with a few breaks. The first few hours was him giving a good lecture, acted out some scenarios and passing out notes for us to go over. We watched a very boring movie which just reinforeced the things he told us. He provided the firearms a revolver and 1911 respectivly and we went over the parts and operations. How to load and recover from malfuctions and what not. Went over the different holsters and ways to conceal carry. We went over the different types of ammo, pros and cons of different calibers and a little bit of physics. We qualified one at a time at (I think) 3, 5 and 7 yards into a small target. We then went back over the notes and took the test. No one missed no more than 3 questions (you had to miss more than 5 to fail) and everyone qualified at the range. I was the youngest one there by at least half (Im 22) and I had a good time and learned more than I thought I would. The class was only $45 where as if I had went to one the the ranges or gun shops they charge around $100. Now I just need to go down to the Sheriffs Department and follow through.

 

[texas bulldog]

waterhouse,

where did you go, if i may ask? (apologies for thread hi-jack)

thanks.

 

[esol]

What state are you in? --- CT

Is the availability of the training reasonable (days and times available, class sizes, etc.)? --- pretty much whenever / where ever... most gun stores and shooting ranges offer classes, along with several private individuals... there are weekday, weeknight and weekend day/night classes available... and ive seen everything from individual training to 20+ person class sizes

How often are people who attempt to sign up for the training turned down for whatever reason? --- no idea... only reason i have seen is the class was already filled (the instructor i know likes to keep classes below 10 or so people)... in which case they are offered a class at another time

How much does the training cost? --- my class cost me $90 (private individual) ive seen prices ranging from $70 - $150

How long does the training take to complete? --- my class and others i have sat in on with friends was about 6 hours

Is there a written test? --- yes, its the standard test issued by the NRA for hand gun safety

If so, how difficult is it? --- i guess that depends how well you listen and absorb information, nothing on the test was not covered durring the class Is the test graded immediately and handed back so the student knows how they did, why each answer was correct or incorrect, and personally verify that the correct answer was the same for all students? --- yes, it is corrected and gone over right after everyone is finished, any wrong answers are covered again and explained so that the person who got it wrong understands why their answer was incorrect, and what/why the correct answer is

Is there a practical test? --- yes

If so, how difficult is it? --- not really hard at all... you are expected to competently and safely handle and fire a revolver and a semi auto pistol... basically just show that you understand the 4 rules... nothing too crazy Are the criteria for passing very clearly defined, --- wasnt really pass / fail at that point (in the class i took) and does the student have the opportunity to see their target so they can personally verify their passing/failing? --- yes they can see / keep their targets... again wasn't really "pass / fail", at that point the instructor was more concerned with your safe handling of a firearm than your accuracy

Are any statistics available on people who attempt to take the training and are turned down, or attempt to complete the training and fail, especially denial/failure percentages by race? --- i have no idea

I think you can all see where I'm going with this. A license is not "shall issue" if the test-givers have any personal discretion whatsoever over who can take the training, and who passes it. A lot of people, me included, are of the opinion that some states' training requirements (not to mention licensing fees in many cases!) are little more than a literacy test, intended solely to prevent certain groups of people from legally carrying concealed. How do the facts stack up against this belief? --- in the class that i took and the classes i have sat in on, unless someone is overly careless, or clearly states that they have ill intentions for owning a firearm, then there is nothing to stop them from getting their safety cert. if they do display either of those characteristics, the instructor will simply excuse them from class (often refunding their money), and they will not get their safety cert. it is then up to them to find another course with another instructor and try again. no one is saying they cant have a permit. the instructor is simply saying that he will not sign off on it.

 

[OregonJohnny]

I am in Oregon. The requirements here are very loose, in my opinion. I had to sign up for a class ($35 if I remember correctly) a few weeks in advance. The class was about 4 hours long, and was just a lecture. Safe handling, different types of CCWs, and VERY brief generalizing of laws, responsibilities, liability, etc. There were no "hands-on" demonstrations, no range time, and no test of any kind. You get a certificate that you take to your county Sheriff's office. You then pay about $60, fill out a background check form, give all 10 finger prints and get your picture taken.

I really feel that although it should be available to every person who meets the requirements (age, clear background check, residency), it should be more thorough. I guess what I'm trying to say is that although I've been shooting many different types of guns for years, I would have gladly taken tests and qualified on a range, because I want the OTHER people in the class to go through all this. I don't know how experienced they are, and the more training the average person gets, the better I'll sleep at night knowing the "average" person with a CCW has been thoroughly trained and made aware of all laws and liability issues.

 

[Soybomb]

I really feel that although it should be available to every person who meets the requirements (age, clear background check, residency), it should be more thorough.

Forgive me for beating my worn out old drum now, but why? We hammer on the brady bunch all the time for legislation based on feeling and guesses rather than looking at the real world data. Can you demonstrate what problem you're trying to fix or are you just complicating the process of getting a ccw based on your own imagined fears?

 

[Rokyudai]

Hey Ryan,

Just to add to the confusion with regard to NY state vs. NYC carry requirements. I think the NY poster is correct in pointing out "his" county's requirements as they definitely vary from county to county.

When I lived in NY, the county I resided in had no prerequisite for training courses or tests. You filled out the application, obtained your 4 or 5 references, paid the fee (appx. $120), and went to the pistol permit clerk's office to be fingerprinted and photographed. The information was sent off at that point. I waited almost 9months (this was 5 years ago) for that puppy to arrive.

Then I move to Texas....and waited maybe 40 days for my CHL after all was said and done.

 

[rickomatic]

I'd love to answer your questions, but I haven't passed my 1st Amendment class yet.

 

[OregonJohnny]

Soybomb,

Your response to my post:

"Forgive me for beating my worn out old drum now, but why? We hammer on the brady bunch all the time for legislation based on feeling and guesses rather than looking at the real world data. Can you demonstrate what problem you're trying to fix or are you just complicating the process of getting a ccw based on your own imagined fears?"

OK, people always use the comparison, "well, a car can be used as a deadly weapon, we should ban cars..." In reponse to your question, if a person must demonstrate real-world driving skills in order to get a drivers license, why not have to demonstrate firearm operating skills in order to get a CHL? In my criticism of Oregon's CHL regulations, I stated that I wished a range qualification was part of the process. This wouldn't limit anyone from obtaining a CHL except for someone that couldn't demonstrate firearms operation skills. Fine by me! So tell me, how is that complicating the process based on my "imagined" fears, as you say?

 

[transformerguru]

OregonJohnny you should look in to the Oregon Firearm Academy. That is where I took my class for my CHL. It is an awesome 8 hour basic class then you have the option in taking more advanced classes. Just type the name in to any search engine and check it out.

 

[OregonJohnny]

Yes, I have looked into it. It sounds great, and I'd love to take some of the courses but they seem to be booked up months in advance, plus they are a bit pricey. The defensive shotgun course sounds especially cool.

To clarify, I feel comfortable in my own firearms skills, but I'd be happy to participate in a required range qualification if it was mandatory for all CHL applicants. It simply cannot hurt to require range training for a CHL. I don't believe it would deter anyone from seeking out a CHL, and the more training all applicants get, the safer we ALL are. (Except the bad guys, of course)

 

[RyanM]

2) There is no monopoly on who can perform training. That's the issue you run into when a sherrif or other political entity has control on who is issued a CCW. They, as the gatekeeper, cannot be chosen (except by voting with your feet) and cannot be bypassed the way one of 10,000 concealed carry instructors can be.

Put the training in police hands and you are right back to may-issue. Raise the standards for instructors high enough (so that only government orgs or really big businesses qualify) and you are back to may issue. That hasn't happened yet.

That's pretty much precisely the issue I was thinking of. So far, everyone who's responded has said that in their state, private training is fine. However, I'm pretty sure that at least one state (I forget which now, but it's one that issues permits at age 18) requires you to receive training from a state-approved person. That's only one short step away from state-controlled training.

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

So you and "a lot of people" believe that training requirements are a conspiracy intended solely to prevent certain groups of people from legally carrying concealed weapons even if they pass the course and that CWP instructors are in on this conspiracy?

Which of those certain groups of people do you and those great many other people have in mind? And is it all CWP instructors who are engaged in the conspiracy or only some of them? I've never heard of this conspiracy before. The conspirators must know how to keep a secret.

Meanwhile, back in the real world ....

In every state I know, most CWP instructors for civilians are individuals who put themselves at risk to help other people meet the training requirement for permits in that state. I doubt that any of them would do it if they had no discretion about such matters as when they taught, how many people they taught, and whether they could decline to put their names on that certification for people in whom they had less than minimal confidence.

I don't know a CWP instructor who doesn't reserve the right to terminate a student for unsafe behavior, for example.

If I were a CWP instructor I am sure I would not certify a student who pointed a gun at me or anyone else even if he scored perfectly on both the written exam and the qualifying exam.

I also wouldn't certify a student who I overheard make statements about "wanting to carry because the damned _____ are ruining the country and he "wouldn't mind popping a few." (Fill in the blank with any race, religion, national origin.)"

You've pretty obviously missed my point entirely.

To steal a page from your book, why don't you work on reading comprehension skill? Lesson 1: read what a person says. If they do not say something, then chances are at least 50/50 that they do not believe what they did not say.

To steal another page, apparently, in your rose-tinted, myopic view of the world, racism is no longer a daily problem, and CCW instructors are absolutely pure of heart. No CCW instructors can or will ever have any racist leanings whatsoever, and they especially will never act on them.

Ever.

CCW instructors are human. They are subject to the same human faults as everyone else. Some will be racist, some will be homophobic, some will be anti-semetic. Some will have such leanings to such a degree that they will interfere with the process of obtaining a CCW as much as possible, for such people. Some may even commit more direct crimes against such people, like arson, assault, or murder.

No class of people, not cops, not priests, not CCW instructors, is immune to human failings.

The purpose of this thread is to see how many crooked instructors there are. So far, none. However, the number of instructors that THR members have interacted with directly or heard of secondhand, is a very small sliver of the total.

You need to learn to distinguish between shades of gray. There is a middle ground between "all CCW instructors are racist, and, in fact, part of a vast conspiracy" and "no CCW instructors are racist, and, in fact, they are all of superior moral fiber and all possess above-average judgement." It's not that hard to find.

Frankly, all of your posts I've read have been borderline trolling. Your posts are well-written and have some thought put into them, but you always assume that because a person expresses some opinion you disagree with, they have to be some kind of crazy extremist that also believes everything else you disagree with.

Quit constructing straw men, and you may find yourself actually changing peoples' minds.

 

[Superlite27]

What state are you in?
Missouri
Is the availability of the training reasonable (days and times available, class sizes, etc.)?
yes
How often are people who attempt to sign up for the training turned down for whatever reason?
Rarely. Sometimes because they are full. Just have to locate another easy to find instructor
How much does the training cost?
Usually around $125
How long does the training take to complete?
8 hrs (must have 2hrs covering MO state law)
Is there a written test?
Yes
If so, how difficult is it? Is the test graded immediately and handed back so the student knows how they did, why each answer was correct or incorrect, and personally verify that the correct answer was the same for all students?
Average (several questions about MO state law)
Is there a practical test?
Yes 20 rounds from type of gun carried. I fired 20 auto, 20 revolver. I'm covered for everything.
If so, how difficult is it? Are the criteria for passing very clearly defined, and does the student have the opportunity to see their target so they can personally verify their passing/failing?
Easy I believe 70% must hit a man sized target from 7 yrds.
Are any statistics available on people who attempt to take the training and are turned down, or attempt to complete the training and fail, especially denial/failure percentages by race?
No. My instructor informed everyone that safety violations would get them the boot, though. I did have a guy from India in my class. He passed. I also had a guy who had NEVER FIRED A GUN. He passed too.


I'm sure that instructors across the board fall into the usual way of things. Some good, some bad. I was lucky to have an instructor who took his teaching seriously. If a student had a problem, HE WAS INSTRUCTED. The guy who had never fired a gun before was taught. He did the same things everyone else did. When he fired his qualification, the instructor coached him. "Now take your time, and.......squeeeeeeeeeeze." He passed.

I'm sure there are instructors out there who are racist, who pass everyone, who take themselves too seriously, who don't know the first thing about guns, who are ex-SEALS and get too technical, who fail people for sneezing, who are alcoholics....all kinds. Just as there are all kinds of people who desire to legally carry a gun for protection.

 

[Soybomb]

OK, people always use the comparison, "well, a car can be used as a deadly weapon, we should ban cars..." In reponse to your question, if a person must demonstrate real-world driving skills in order to get a drivers license, why not have to demonstrate firearm operating skills in order to get a CHL? In my criticism of Oregon's CHL regulations, I stated that I wished a range qualification was part of the process. This wouldn't limit anyone from obtaining a CHL except for someone that couldn't demonstrate firearms operation skills. Fine by me!

I'm not sure you've chosen the best argument honestly. Aside from the lack of a constitutional right to drive you're suggesting that thanks to the DMV tests we're keeping unsafe drivers off the road. I think you're going to have a hard time finding people that will say that the dmv test keeps bad drivers from getting a license.

So tell me, how is that complicating the process based on my "imagined" fears, as you say?

Who is going to pay for the testing? Who is going to be in charge of administering the rules governing the testing? Surely you see how required testing not only adds administrative duties to the CCW process but how it also complicates the process for me as well. Instead of filling out a form and dropping it in the mail I have to take time out of my 2 days a week off to attend a testing session and pay whatever it will cost.

Again I ask you, what problem are you trying to fix? You used quotes around the word imagined. Does that mean you have data to support your position? If people in states without a training/testing requirement are less safe than those in state with such requirements, show me the evidence. If they aren't, don't support making it more of a pain to get a permit for no good reason. Just like I said earlier, lets not fall into the brady bunch trap of asking for legislation based on our imaginations when the real world data exists. Best wishes and make believe are great but there is no reason to guess here.

 

[OregonJohnny]

No where did I ever make the statement, “Thanks to DMV tests, we’re keeping unsafe drivers off the road”. I asked that if driving tests are required to get a driver’s license, why not a range test for a CHL. Certainly you can agree that a required driving test to get a drivers license versus simply turning in a form to get a drivers license makes the roads somewhat safer. Not completely safe from bad drivers…but safer. A friend of mine has a brother who has failed the driving portion of the Oregon test multiple times. Am I glad he’s not on the road? Yes.

If a person had no idea how to safely and effectively use a firearm or had no proven understanding of the legal issues regarding the use of a firearm, would I feel comfortable with them carrying a loaded pistol around in public? No.

I am assuming that the people who post on THR are all gun enthusiasts. Why else would we be here? And gun enthusiasts who take interest and participate in gun culture are very likely proficient when operating their firearms. I guess I’m hesitant to assume that all people who ever receive a CHL are properly trained. Maybe this will never affect me, and I should leave well enough alone.

No, I don’t have hard evidence to prove that states that require a range test have fewer problems than those that don’t. But I haven’t heard anyone complain about having to participate in a range qualification portion. I certainly wouldn’t. It sounds like you would. That’s fine, I’m sure you are perfectly trained and qualified.

When it all comes down to it, there is no existing problem that I am trying to fix. I am not saying the world would be a significantly safer place if Oregon required a range qualification portion of the CHL course. I’m simply saying that if it did require it, I’d wholeheartedly participate and be glad for the opportunity. Heck, the person next to me might even learn a thing or two from the experience and go on to save their own life or the life of someone else simply because they were better trained. That can’t be a bad thing, can it?

 

[chris in va]

Here in VA...

$100 including range time. Classes aren't homogeneous, instruction varies according to whatever the instructor feels is necessary. Range time isn't a requirement. Fairly easy to get a class, but somewhat hit or miss where you find out about one. I got my permit in about 35 days.

Never heard of someone getting turned away from a class, even so there's usually another one in a week. Material covered is a no brainer, anyone with common sense can do it.

I've seen classes that only last two hours, others are all day. Don't really understand that concept, but whatever.