Training and Concealed Carry Permits (PLEASE read 1st post before answering poll)

[pax]

Just a little intel-gathering on the denizens of THR's Strategies & Tactics forum.

Important:

Non-LEO members: "professional firearms training" means training above and beyond what your state requires in order to obtain a concealed carry permit (CCW). Please don't bugger it up by listing your state-required permit class as professional training.

LEO members: "professional firearms training" means a course specifically designed for the armed civilian, not courses designed primarily for Law Enforcement Officers on the job. The question is whether you've taken professional training specific to off duty carry as a civilian. Please don't bugger it up by listing your Law Enforcement training.

Military members: "professional firearms training" means a course specifically designed for armed civilians. Please don't bugger it up by listing your military training.

I have made this an open poll, so your name and answers will be visible in the poll results.

pax

 

[Old Dog]

Hmm. Good questions. I've had (1) substantial firearms training in the military, (2) regular training as a member of the law enforcement community, and (3) also taken advantage of a couple really good commercially-offered training courses geared toward the armed civilian.

Reqarding training as a requirement for issue of a CPL, well, my feelings on this have evolved over the years. Having spent many, many years in both the military and law enforcement, I used to cringe when thinking of people carrying loaded handguns who never had even the most basic firearms familiarity training ...

But, since living in Washington (lo, these past thirteen years or so, off and on), -- one of only three or four states that do NOT mandate training in order for civilians to be issued licenses to carry concealed handguns -- I've noted that the majority of gun crimes and gun accidents seem to occur with those who do NOT possess state-issued CPLs. Seems most CPL holders -- even those with zero formal training - I've known are pretty darn responsible firearms owners, who've taken it upon themselves to learn as much about guns as they can, and practice shooting whenever they can ... And, seems as though most CPL holders I know avail themselves of at least basic formal handgun training course as their finances and time permit ...

I'm kind of at the point where I believe that responsibility with guns comes from within, and doesn't necessarily have to be taught. Anyway, plenty of well-trained knuckleheads out there who own nice guns and pack 'em regularly who maybe don't have the common sense God gave a turnip ...

But of course, I do believe that the more training one acquires, the better ... and that Joe and Jane Citizen, if he or she commits to carrying a concealed handgun regularly, should avail themselves of as much training as opportunity affords them ...

As a Constitutional right -- the bearing of arms -- one notes that the Founding Fathers didn't specify training requirements. Indeed, back in the day, one got one's firearms training, as a child, usually from one's dad out in the local woods or fields, and that certainly seemed to be enough back then to carry the day ...

 

[Trebor]

I have to admit I'm conflicted on this issue. I'm an instructor and I believe anyone who carries *should* receive the best training possible.

But, I also believe that the "Right to bear arms" means just that. While any responsible person who carries *should* be trained, for the good of themselves and the community, I'm against having the government mandate training at any level.

The responsible firearms owner should make every effort to seek out the best training they can get. But, they shouldn't have to show proof of any training to own, transport, or carry a firearm.

I can easily see how "mandatory training requirements," whatever their original intent, can easily be misused to strip citizens of their rights. The best parallel example I can think of is how the "poll tax" or "Literacy tests" were used to strip blacks of their right to vote after the Civil War and into the 20th Century.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm going to have to agree with Trebor. Responsible people train. But there are too many civil rights issues with mandatory training. I answered that I've not had professional training because all of my training, even that that I've paid for out of pocket has been credited to my LE training record. I've never taken any state's CCW course.

Jeff

 

[RyanM]

By "professional training," I assume you mean something beyond simple safety classes?

If that's the case, I definitely don't think training should be a requirement for CCW. Not all training is very good at all. And many people, no matter how well trained, will simply fall apart under extreme stress anyway, especially in their first life-threatening encounter. I'd rather arm people that have range time only than ones who only have the latest whiz-bang tactical shmactical training that has absolutely no relevance to any reasonable self-defense scenario.

On the other hand, safety is every gun owner's responsibility. I wouldn't mind it if CCW required basic knowledge of safe firearms handling, only as long as the state provides instruction for free, that the classes are at convenient times and not excessively long, and also if people could take the safety test without needing to go through the training. I wouldn't be opposed at all to something similar to the test for getting a driver's license. A simple written quiz (mostly on legal stuff, like when it's acceptable to shoot in self-defense), then you have to demonstrate that you're able to safely pick up, put down, load, unload, etc., a handgun, and hit a man-sized target from 5 yards (I'd count such an easy marksmanship test as "safety" rather than "proficiency"). 30 minutes tops and you're done.

 

[Byron Quick]

I'm in the camp with Trebor and Jeff. Mandatory training would open up a Pandora's box of government abuse aimed at further infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm all for training. I'm for safety. I'm for responsible firearms ownership.

I'm not about handing more power over anyone to government bureaucrats. They have too much already.

Think Vermont and Alaska should require all its residents and every non-felon who crosses its borders to show proof of training? Each and every one can carry a concealed weapon.

 

[Soybomb]

I believe anyone who carries *should* receive the best training possible.

But, I also believe that the "Right to bear arms" means just that. While any responsible person who carries *should* be trained, for the good of themselves and the community, I'm against having the government mandate training at any level.

I couldn't say it any better myself. There are many states that do not require permits or do not require training to get a permit and I've seen no evidence to indicate there is a problem that needs fixing. As usual people's imagination runs wild with what might happen and they throw a little government at it. We have a sample to look at though, such speculation is not necessary. I am somewhat disappointed that now about 30% of our members support this. I would challenge those 30% of current voters to show me evidence that the states without training requirements are less safe than the states that do. Its terrible that low income people who might live or work in areas that will make them far more likely to need a handgun than me need to pay hundreds of dollars in some states just to get that privilege.

. I wouldn't mind it if CCW required basic knowledge of safe firearms handling, only as long as the state provides instruction for free,

You're paying for it either when you take the class or in april when you pay your taxes, but employees and government bureaucracy always comes at a price.

 

[Odd Job]

Oops, hope my South African oar has not spoiled this...

1) Not LEO
2) Have professional training
3) Believe training is necessary

(This applies to when I am in South Africa and carry whenever I'm out of the house)

Edit: M2 Carbine explained it very nicely in another thread.

 

[NukemJim]

Non LEO. Had professional training. Then took NRA CCW course. Then became a believer in requiring more training than minimum after observing people in course and course requirements. /Shields up/

Yes the possibilities of abuse are there, there is no perfect solution. You could set up restrictions in such a bill to reduce the chance of such abuse but with or without such requirements govermental interference with 2A rights is/are going to take place. Such as Ill, Wis, NYC, Wash DC, ....


NukemJim

 

[geekWithA.45]

The right of arms *comes*with* the _responsibility_ to be proficient, but it is not *contingent*upon* passing any sort of litmus test.

In parallel, I've had the thought that the right to vote comes with the responsibility of having a functioning knowledge of civics, but I wouldn't make it contingent upon passing a literacy or civics test, as much as I'd like to.

 

[MCgunner]

On the other hand, safety is every gun owner's responsibility. I wouldn't mind it if CCW required basic knowledge of safe firearms handling, only as long as the state provides instruction for free,

Texas requires a 15 hour course and it definitely ain't free. :banghead: It's inadequate IMHO, too, only 3 hours on firearms safety and they're not there to teach marksmanship. You need to know marksmanship before you go into it. It's full of PC crap as with any government required course and totally inefficient, of course. After all, the government sets the agenda. The "non-violent dispute resolution" is a little PC, but opens the mind a bit to avoidance of trouble. It's pretty much a waste compared to the simple NRA classes I used to teach which concerned both safety and safety and marksmanship and safety. Of course, we had no non-violent dispute resolution in that course, just safety and safety, some marksmanship, and safety.

Anyway, I don't believe ANYTHING should be required other than perhaps a qualification that can demonstrate knowledge of gun safety and proficiency. If you can't pass that, well, there are courses. It should be a real qualification, too, not the joke the state has here. Proficiency with the firearm is only logical if you're going to carry and, perhaps, USE the thing in public. For me, it's a civil rights, second amendment thing. Gun ownership, and, yes, the right to BARE arms, is a right written in the constitution. There are no stipulations as to training in the constitution, just a declaration of your basic right to own and carry a firearm (which has been stomped on for so many years and still is). Even with the new CCW permits available, those in Texas who've not paid up a student loan, or are behind on child support or any number of BS PC violations now days, are not allowed a permit. Now, the felony thing or 5 years since a misdemeanor, well, that's logical. But, since when was being behind on a student loan or in default a crime? Are we going to open debtor's prisons? Is there any less need to be armed for someone that owes on a student loan? There's a lot wrong with the way the politicians set up the CCW laws in Texas. After all, IT IS A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS, AFFIRMED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! Advanced training should be up to the individual, not mandated by government. After all, it'd be easy enough for the government just to mandate confiscation of all firearms and that'D end the safety debates.

All that said, I do think a person should be aware of all the concealed carry and use of deadly force penal codes. The required Texas course does do a decent job of educating students on that. Hardly anyone that doesn't go through that course has a clue of the penal codes and there are lots and lots of old wife's tales out there about use of deadly force. Lots of bubbles get burst in that course on that subject matter.

In parallel, I've had the thought that the right to vote comes with the responsibility of having a functioning knowledge of civics, but I wouldn't make it contingent upon passing a literacy or civics test, as much as I'd like to.

You'll never have to worry about that one, ACLU lawyers would be ALL OVER it. They're quite selective about the rights they support, though. The constitution, ALL of it, is law and ALL of it should be respected and followed by government to the letter. Remember poll taxes? That was a long time ago, but it was considered a violation of civil rights. So, is a required course and a license fee to carry constitutional by those standards? Food for thought.

 

[Dave88LX]

Wow, I'm in the minority here eh?

I'm active military. Only "training" I had was the M-16 (AR-15) in basic training. That was the first time I ever even handled a weapon. I forgot about that before I voted, but I don't know if that's considered "professional" training. I have no handgun training though. IMO, with as many idiots as there are out there, I feel some type of professional safety/training should be required to carry, since more than just that one person will be involved with the weapon (the entire public, as opposed to just their house, or the gun range).

 

[Striker]

Concur with Trebor's arguement so voted no. But I'm still conflicted. While most would agree that common sense dictates that a responsible individual would be proficient with his/her chosen firearm, common sense ain't all that common anymore.

So this begs the question (I'm gonna get flamed). How do we insure the public safety of legitimate, lawabiding, non-carrying populace from a non-proficient CCW person who is justified in using deadly force, but hurts an innocent bystander due to his lack of proficiency?

No easy answer, but it I think about it everytime I personally gear up and walk out the door.....

 

[pax]

So far, it looks like my original hypothesis is a bust -- there does not appear to be any correlation, either positive or negative, between having had training and believing training should be required.

Interestingly, looking at the names on the poll so far (you can click one of the numbers to see them), it appears that people who are actively involved in training others are less likely to think the laws should require training. Small sample size, I know, but interesting anyway.

Trebor pretty well articulated most of my own position. I would add something else, though: one reason I oppose mandatory training is because I believe that when training is required by law, the quality of available training goes down. Instructors who are guaranteed students whether the course is any good or not simply don't have a lot of incentive to make their classes very attractive to students (they'll have students regardless, because the students just want the paper and not the training). Instructors are less likely to have a personal investment in the quality of the class when the course has been written by someone else. In contrast, when an instructor is personally responsible for what he teaches, and writes his own course material, and has to attract students who are not required to be there, the quality of the instruction goes up. That's just human nature at work.

That's instructors. For students, I believe people are more likely to realize they need training, and to seek out better training, when they are completely untrained than they are to seek out training after sitting through a minimal course required by law. Face it, those classes rarely teach the responsible person much of anything anyway -- but they do serve to convince a lot of people that firearms instruction is boring and a bit silly/unnecessary for anyone who is smart enough to know which end the bullets come out of. Worse than that, a lot of people tend to believe that some minimally-required course is actually enough training. It is not.

So I am in the odd position of opposing mandatory training, not because I think training is unnecessary, but because I believe it is utterly necessary.

And I oppose laws that require training not in spite of the fact that I think every gun owner should be as absolutely well-trained as he can afford to be, but because I believe that.

pax

 

[MCgunner]

So this begs the question (I'm gonna get flamed). How do we insure the public safety of legitimate, lawabiding, non-carrying populace from a non-proficient CCW person who is justified in using deadly force, but hurts an innocent bystander due to his lack of proficiency?

If you've taken the Texas CCW course, you know that there are laws (in Texas, anyway) that cover that possibility. You are responsible for where your bullet goes (why I DO worry about over-penetration in barriers like walls). If you hit grandma or baby Doe down the street and it's your bullet, involuntary manslaughter I'd think would be the charge, though I'm not a lawyer/prosecuter. You'll have a felony and some prison time, pretty good deterent don't ya think?

I don't know how piling on with more laws would help. I mean, it's already a capitol offense to murder someone, yet, when two east Texas rednecks pulled a black man to death with a rope behind their pick up, they pass ANOTHER law concerning "hate crimes". Was that really necessary when they got put to death by lethal injection for KILLING A MAN in the first place, first degree murder? Just more redundent laws on the books to gain votes for legislators. I think they call it "feel good" legislation. I don't guess such a thing HURTS in that case if you can gain NAACP votes in the next election, but in the case of requiring training, you're stepping on civil rights. I've seen some pretty pathetic shooters qualify for the permit even WITH the course requirements in Texas. Proficiency is a personal decision and I don't think you CAN legislate it. You need more than courses to be proficient with a handgun, you need regular practice and a mind set for it. You can't require such things, it has to be accepted by the individual.

JMHO of course.

The number one way to insure the public is "safe from armed individuals" is simply to outlaw and confiscate all firearms. Think about THAT one for a minute....

 

[RyanM]

You're paying for it either when you take the class or in april when you pay your taxes, but employees and government bureaucracy always comes at a price.

I'm paying for some of it, sure. And so are the millions of liberal ninnies who would never own a firearm. End result, lower price for the people who actually get the training and CCW.

-----------

Anyway, I don't believe ANYTHING should be required other than perhaps a qualification that can demonstrate knowledge of gun safety and proficiency. If you can't pass that, well, there are courses. It should be a real qualification, too, not the joke the state has here. Proficiency with the firearm is only logical if you're going to carry and, perhaps, USE the thing in public.

That's pretty much exactly what I mean. Ideally it would be just a test required, and training would be provided for free by the state, if someone wants to take the training, but not mandatory.

 

[hso]

Pax,

I don't look at the training issue from a political/legal standpoint, but from a safety statistics perspective. I can't find any indicators that Weapons Carry Permit holders represent a statistically significant safety threat to themselves or others. As such I don't see the need for any controls being applied. Look at the states that require training and those that don't and then look at the accidental death or injury by firearms statistics for them and you don't see any increase in the potential for injury in those states that do require training over those that don't. Since there's no public health and safety driver I see no need for regulation. If there were I would have a different perspective

OTOH, you and most folks here know that I'm a very strong (nearly rabid) proponent of training for anyone that makes the decision to carry a weapon of any sort.

 

[Striker]

McGunner,

I agree that while there are ample consequences for irresponsible/non proficient people. But legal consequences aside, it doesn't do a thing for grandma and baby doe if they are are on the receiving end of an errant round from a "good guy".

Pax's premise didn't include state requirements for CCW, but training above and beyond those. My point is that I believe that one must accept the responsibility to not only be able safely manipulate a weapon, but to be effective with it should the need arise.

The number one way to insure the public is "safe from armed individuals" is simply to outlaw and confiscate all firearms.

I vehemently disagree with that premise. One way to insure the public is safe from armed individuals is to ensure that said individuals are as proficient as possible, not to disarm them. To reiterate, I don't know how we do that as a whole....but it's a question I constantly think about and personally address thru repetitive training and practice. This is my personal decision and YMMV.

I am rabidly pro 2nd amendment. But like hso, put me in the equally rabid category of being a proponent for training for anyone who decides to carry a weapon. Having said that, I still voted no, as I agree with the rationale articulated by Pax in her follow up post.

 

[roo_ster]

Never been a LEO, was military for a time, have taken some post-military training directed at concealed carry.

Like others have said, training is a good idea but packing heat by the citizenry ought not be contingent upon it.

If a state does require training, I would be in favor of an approach that allowed prospective CCW-ers to choose their own training and present a copy of a completion cert to the state. Novices could spend thier time/$$$ on novice-level courses & more advanced folks could spend hteir time/$$$ on more advanced courses.

 

[MCgunner]

If a state does require training, I would be in favor of an approach that allowed prospective CCW-ers to choose their own training and present a copy of a completion cert to the state. Novices could spend thier time/$$$ on novice-level courses & more advanced folks could spend hteir time/$$$ on more advanced courses.

The way the state does it, if you wanna get a license, you take the course from a school or individual that took the training course to be an instructor in Austin. That course takes about a week, not sure the cost. I have a couple of friends that got it and teach it for a sideline income.

The first time I took the course to get my license, it was from a school that already turned a good profit teaching defensive driving. The guy that taught it was part school owner and was NOT a gun guy. He just took the course in Austin and taught from his lesson plan. He was not big in the safe gun handling portion of the course.

My first renewal, I took the course from a friend who knew of my proficiency since he's seen me clean everyone's clock with a handgun in competition more than once at our gun club. So, he ran me through the written test in about 5 minutes and we shot the qualification just for the fun of it. Not the normal, but he knew me and I was his only renewal that day.

The third renewal was from a guy that has his classroom behind his house and a private range across the street out in the country. He was quite professional about it and knew his stuff, IS a gun guy, owns a gun shop in town, also. I will go back to him next time if I can't get my buddy to do another 30 minute class and qualification again....

I originally took the NRA Pistol and Rifle instructor's class on rumors of the CCW before it was passed thinking that would be the class required, along with some other gun club members. It was a lot of fun and I taught mostly the 4H kids on occasion, but it didn't turn out to be the class required for the CCW. It was a good experience, though, for ANYone getting into shooting and without a good mentor. I wasn't using my instructor's certification much and a guy at the church wanted to borrow my lesson plans, so I loaned 'em to him and never saw 'em again.:banghead: After that, I just dropped the certification. It was only 10 bucks a year, but I needed that stupid lesson plan and I wasn't actually teaching it at that time.

 

[Soybomb]

I feel some type of professional safety/training should be required to carry, since more than just that one person will be involved with the weapon (the entire public, as opposed to just their house, or the gun range).

Boy I gotta disagree there. If you're living next to me in an apartment your guns are very much a threat to me through that drywall. Maybe this is the right step to take to mandatory training for all gun ownership....

How do we insure the public safety of legitimate, lawabiding, non-carrying populace from a non-proficient CCW person who is justified in using deadly force, but hurts an innocent bystander due to his lack of proficiency?

Perhaps that isn't something gained by a few hours course but instead people that carry deadly weapons are actually just pretty careful with them? Doesn't CA require people to demonstate competency with their newly purchased guns? I don't hear the mandatory training advocates calling for that in all states. Certainly my neighbor who doesn't know how to operate his shotgun or rifle is as big as a threat to me as my neighbor who doesn't know how to operate his handgun, concealed or not. I've seen no statistical evidence yet that it makes a difference. And I'm not all that surprised either. People talk about how easy qualifications are in states that do have them, yet when we're talking handgun self defense and concealed carry we generally are talking about such short distances anyway that extreme marksmanship skills aren't required. Not to mention the stress factor that to my knowledge isn't included in any state sponsored classes.

I'm paying for some of it, sure. And so are the millions of liberal ninnies who would never own a firearm. End result, lower price for the people who actually get the training and CCW.

As a libertarian I can't support feel-good do-nothing legislation that costs me and everyone else money.

 

[JCF]

I believe evidence of a state-approved professional training course in your wallet should be requisite to concealed carry. Not issued by the state. Not databased. Simply evidence that must be provided if and when you are stopped by LE, or if you happen to dispatch someone, that demonstrates your competency. Sorry if that offends, but I've just come across too many pistol wavers exercising their "God-given right" to feel confident in God's ability to supervise them all.

 

[Striker]

....but I've just come across too many pistol wavers exercising their "God-given right" to feel confident in God's ability to supervise them all.

Good one!

 

[kludge]

I picked "D" since my training was not related to CCW.

However I am planning to take the NRA Pistol Instructor course this year.

 

[WYO]

"Professional training" does not equal proficiency in my book. It just means you sat through the training. Because training for licensing purposes is usually "least common denominator" training, I really don't see much benefit in such a requirement. A person who wants to learn will do it, whether reading a book and practicing the skills on the range by himself, taking classes, or some combination of both. A person who doesn't want to learn won't, regardless of the "training."