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

[Correia]

I've had professional training, and I am an instructor.

I'm dead set against any sort of mandatory instruction. I agree totally with pax.

If you mandate it, quality suffers. And it becomes a game of who can give you the quickest/easiest class that meets the regs.

Plus, from what I've seen, I can teach people to hit a piece of paper, and if I'm lucky, I can teach them to think. However I can't make them smart or responsible.

 

[JCF]

Professional training" does not equal proficiency in my book. It just means you sat through the training.

I suppose... I guess it just depends on the stringency of the evaluation.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the proposed training would make masters out of anyone, but that it would rather reduce the overall probability of complete and utter ineptitude among some of the law-abiding folk who have taken it upon themselves to go armed.

No, training doesn't equate to proficiency... but really now... a lack of training certainly isn't likely to be any better.

 

[crebralfix]

Anytime licensing is involved, IT IS NO LONGER A RIGHT. It is called a concealed handgun PERMIT because the state is PERMITTING you to carry.

In other words, you have to ASK the state for your right to keep and BEAR arms.

Since this is now well established, there is really nothing preventing them from changing the requirements to anything they want. One need only to look at the rules for California and New York to see this in action.

 

[CapnBald]

The best you can do

While I would very much like to attend one of the fine defensive training schools. I know that I could never afford the time and money to do it. What I did do was, when looking for somewhere to take the mandatory classes, to look for the best that I could do.
At the time I was living in Collier Co. Fl., and I found out that from time to time the Sheriffs Dept. gave classes. The classes were given by a 35 year veteran of the force and was assisted by Deputies, all on a voluntary basis. We had a total of 16 hours class time including 4 hours with the Dept.'s attourney and 12 hours range time. The range time was 3 hours a day for two weekends, with one deputy for every 2 shooters. These deputys were all dedicated shooters not just any deputy. They were all pro 2A and wanted to teach correctly. The total cost to me was ammo only, about 200 rounds a session minimum. Maybe not LFI training but the best that I could do.
I think that everyone who wants to carry a gun should seek out the best training that they can get within their means and then read the laws to keep up with any changes. Then go out and practice as often as they can.

 

[Pat McCoy]

As a firearms instructor since 1968, and coach since 1984 I always advise folks to get as much training as they can, and to then practice what they have learned.

BUT, the first responsibility, and right, a person has is to protect themselves, and there can be no requirement to have training that supercedes the rights and responsibilities.

 

[YK]

Have trained and voted "training required", would've preferred an option of "proof of proficiency strongly recommended".

Fully understand and agree with the validity of argument that the concepts of "right to keep and bear" and "requirement of any kind" are incompatible.

Still, voted as above. I am very intolerant of uninformed decisions. The decision to carry without any training is an uninformed decision.

I guess, the Second Amendment acknowledges our rights to an uninformed decision...

This is a tough one for me to reconcile.

 

[MCgunner]

Plus, from what I've seen, I can teach people to hit a piece of paper, and if I'm lucky, I can teach them to think. However I can't make them smart or responsible.

Best quote of the whole thread.

Anytime licensing is involved, IT IS NO LONGER A RIGHT. It is called a concealed handgun PERMIT because the state is PERMITTING you to carry.

In other words, you have to ASK the state for your right to keep and BEAR arms.

Well, I don't happen to believe any gun legislation is constitutional, but you have to work with the reality, i reckon, if you wanna stay out of prison. No, it's not a privilege, it is indeed a right. Read the second amendment. That doesn't mean big brother doesn't over-step their authority all the time and not just with firearms. That doesn't make phone taps of private citizens without a warrant any more constitutional just because it's "accepted". When we start to accept unconstitutional behavior of our government as just "the way it is" without decent, well, you get what's coming to you. Just look at 6 million former German citizens who were lead like sheep to the gas chambers. that's the extreme, of course, but this country is getting more and more complacent about such things IMHO and that's not good. And, until they take the right to vote and the right to free speech away, I'll exercise those to make my point. If everyone would, we could stop some of this unconstitutional behavior. But, slowly, this country is turning into sheep.

 

[Avenger29]

I do not believe professional training should be required for a concealed carry permit. I do not have a CCW yet. The main reason for me is that it would prevent people who cannot afford the specialized training from getting a CCW. Case in point, my family. We don't have much money for defense, especially classes. I do my own training drills, and I am competent with a shotgun or a rifle (I do not have a handgun, yet). I also have an issue with the gov't forcing me to do something I do not want to do or cannot afford to do. I should be able to carry a weapon concealed without a permit, but cannot.

I do believe that if you practice on a regular basis (once a month or so) and know the laws concerning self defense, and have good sense*, you will do absolutly fine in protecting yourself if the need arises. This is called basic compentency, and no class taught by a professional instructor is neccessary.

*if you ain't got this, no amount of instruction is going to help you

 

[gezzer]

I am still amazed by the Elitist attitude of some gunowners.

 

[Henry Bowman]

"Training," from a third party safety standpoint, is a solution without a problem. WA, where pax lives and where I lived for 11 years, and both IN and PA, which border my current state of residence, have no training requirement for the shall issue CCW. I challenge anyone to show that there is a safety problem in any of these states that would be affected by mandatory training. I believe that it is nothing more than a feel-good measure added to get CCW laws passed that has never been shown to have any positive effect on safety. The requirement is popular in those states (like OH) where people have been disarmed for several generations and simply can't imagine that restoring freedoms will not come at a high price to "public safety."

 

[GEM]

I'm very mixed on this. I certainly understand the RKBA opposition to the mandatory training for a CHL. That position leads logically to opposition to the concept of permits altogether. Why have them without a training component? A law making carry illegal for felons and kids (if you think that is a good idea) takes care of it.

So opposing training means that you feel that permits themselves are meaningless.

I also know that there is little evidence between the crime and or accident rates between training and nontraining states. From the data on that - I think it is a function of the demographics of those who get permits - usually older, more thoughtful, a touch more well to do because of the cost. This covariance of demographics with permits makes it hard to really analyze the permited vs. the nonpermited. It's like arguing that guns made Switzerland and Vermont low crime - confounded by demographics.

To return to the issue - TX mandates professional training with an emphasis on conflict resolution. Is it professional shooting training - no, it is not. But I think that the discussion of when force can be used and the like is a good mediator to keep the irresponsible from actions that can make the gun carrying public look bad.

I hate to say it but some of the posts on gun forums have wet down my enthusiasm for not taking a look at the folks who are licensed. If you don't want licenses at all, that is a different debate. However, the need for stickies about blood lust convinces me that if the state gives you the imprimatur to carry, there is a responsibility to ascertain that you have some understand of the use of force.

About tactical training - I think it is an excellent idea - I am also taken aback by endless discussion of guns and stopping power for the newbie without the realization that training is more of a variable than the difference between a SW Model 10 and a Kimber 1911 or whatever.

Sorry to ramble but my summary position is that I think a license from the state should include training on the use of force in that state. About tactical training - no - but if you don't you are foolish.

I think the average CHL is saved by the fact that most DGUs are deterrent and no shots are fired. That distribution of events is probably the reason we don't see bad outcomes from the average gun owner.

 

[Soybomb]

From the data on that - I think it is a function of the demographics of those who get permits - usually older, more thoughtful, a touch more well to do because of the cost.

Just to throw a wrench in, New Hampshire's license is $10 for residents, and Pennsylvania costs $19 and neither have a training requirement. These are two states off the top of my head and of course neglect the states that don't require a permit at all.

I think I kind of look at it the other way around. If you don't think people should be required to have a permit to keep and bear arms, you certainly can't support even further infringement upon it by supporting training requirements too.

But I think that the discussion of when force can be used and the like is a good mediator to keep the irresponsible from actions that can make the gun carrying public look bad.

This is kind of what worries me, its very brady bunch to say "I think....(insert imagined situation here resulting in a shoot out over a parking space)." Lets quit imagining and guessing. We have states that don't require a permit at all, we have states that don't require training for permits, we have states that don't require training for permits that don't cost any more than lunch, we have states that don't fingerprint for permits, etc. Drop the hypothetical and lets look at what actually happens in the real world before we voluntarily accept limitations on the right to carry for no reason at all.

 

[GEM]

I see those points. However, the permit population has some strong selection factors. Given that only about 1 - 4% of citizens get permits in shall issue states, I think that the low crime rate we get, comes from those that are responsible getting permits.

There have been folk failed in gun classes for permits as instructors have deemed them a tad unstable.

So like I said, I'm mixed. My opinion is that the low crime rate of permit holders and low crime rate in states like Vermont is due to the demographics of the applicants and the state.

Does that then suggest that we don't need training as that selection factor is the protective one and not the training - perhaps. Would having a nontraining permit in a state like TX with a different demographic lead to more crime by CHLs - might be or the idea of getting a permit of any type might still be a protective selection factor. Could be.

Would a Vermont system work in states with high crime populations? Many cities and states have used carry laws to deal with urban gang crimes like in Boston and some local rules in TX.

Complex, isn't it. I'm going to stick with supporting the TX system in areas that don't seem to have the demographic protection. If you want to think that is Brady position - that's life.

PS - just read some of the posts in the nearby "shoot to kill" thread. That's why, I have my position.

 

[MCgunner]

I understand your qualms, GEM. I'm against the manditory training only on grounds of the second ammendment. It's a principle with me. I do think non-violent dispute resolution, gun safety, safe gun handling, all these things should be understood before a person carries. I just believe that we have a right to keep and bare arms regardless.

Back here in the real world of Texas politics, the training is required, and I've complied with it. It still chaps me that I have to spend so much and take all that time out to excersize a right given to me constitutionally, but a practical man plays by the rules. I'm no "republic of Texas" militia type. And, I totally agree with you about the guys that think hardware is the answer, "stopping power" or firepower. I especially cringe at the guys that think a revolver doesn't have enough firepower. That gives me visions of someone opening up, dumping 17 round magazines in a fight without regard to where they're shooting or what's behind the target.

But, I think the man is right that says "you can't teach responsibility". In the end, we do what the state requires us to do and I'm just danged happy I don't have to carry illegally anymore. There are states without "shall issue". So, I jump through the hoops, get my prints made EVERY time, same mug shot EVERY time, same paperwork notarized EVERY time, same qualification (at least I'm shooting), same classroom material, same test, etc, etc. But, I do what I gotta do. Funny thing, though, I took a driving test once to get my driving license. Didn't even HAVE to take a course if I'd waited till 18. Now, to renew, I go down and give 'em money at DMV and they renew it for me. I've never taken a renewal course, another driving test, I'm trusted with a 3000+ lb van on the highway in traffic (figure out the kinetic energy on THAT one) on the basis of the fact that I passed a test nearly 40 years ago. When I'm 90 years old, should I live that long, so long as I can pass the mickey mouse eye test, they'll still just give me a license, no matter my reflex times, no matter how clear (or not) my mind is.....go figure, and driving IS a privilege.

 

[kludge]

722500 ft*lb (6,000 lb van at 60mph - 3,000lb is more small sedan-ish)


...but the victim will not be able to absorb near that much energy.

 

[MCgunner]

Rofl, well, I coulda dug out the title to find out a rough weight. It's a long wheel base 3/4 ton chassis, too.

 

[marinr]

Trebor and pax stated my position better than I would have.

I've had recurring military training, but it's job-related. In my jurisdiction it was sufficient for a CCW permit, so I haven't yet received professional instruction beyond that.

 

[sacp81170a]

Pax's premise didn't include state requirements for CCW, but training above and beyond those.

??? I didn't read that anywhere in pax's premise. I've had professional training outside my training as an LEO, and I'm a CCW instructor in Arkansas. The only reason I vote for mandatory training is that Arkansas law requires the applicant to demonstrate the ability to safely handle the type of firearm for which the permit is issued (Restricted is revolver only, Unrestricted is any legal handgun). I'm also conflicted, but think that asking someone who applies for a permit to demonstrate a minimal knowledge of the firearm they wish to carry is a good thing. Technically the law doesn't even say they have to fire for qualification, but that's the best way to check safe handling procedures and help folks who may be completely unfamiliar with firearms learn how to safely handle one.

Anything beyond that is too far. My vote is for a choice not included in the poll, "Mandatory demonstration of safe firearm handling." I have seen folks who were so unsafe we had to make them come back after some remedial training, but they are very few and far between.

 

[Striker]

From post #1, pax's opening post on the thread

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.

Don't think I read it wrong.

 

[sacp81170a]

I stand corrected. Dang these new glasses...

 

[Templar223]

+1 on Trebor's initial remarks.

Having a modicum of training is, IMHO, a good thing. Florida has done it with remarkably good results.

Case in point: Local guy I know had no training and pulled his gun inappropriately (well, at least how he was articulating it initially) against a bad guy who had victimized him.

If he had training, he would have known it was not appropriate to draw. Having failed that, he would have at least known how to articulate the threat as he perceived it to greatly reduce his subsequent legal bills.

In general, people do fairly well even if they are usually pretty sloppy about safety (muzzle control, finger on triggers). By getting training, you're doing yourself and those around you a huge favor.

So yes, I'm an instructor, have had training, and am a civil rights activist. Having said that, I think people who want to carry a gun should have taken at least a few hours aside in their lives - at some point in their lives - and learned a few things about safety, the judicious use of deadly force, and some tactics.

ETA: But am I opposed to offering licenses to the untrained? No.

John

 

[B36]

Mandated instruction? No

As a long time instructor, with many certifications, I am against mandatory training to have the right to defend yourself.

My state does not have a requirement and whenever it comes up in our legislature, I write letters opposing the idea.

 

[beretta9]

I don't believe additional professional training should be required. I took an 8 hour class and think that is enough to get a permit. I would highly recommend professional training for everyone if possible.

 

[Havegunjoe]

Training should NOT be required.

I'm an instructor and would highly recommend training to anyone who asks but I am against the State requiring it. A person's right to self defense shall not be infringed, not even for training. I am also against the State issuing a permit for something that is a right too. Anytime you allow the State to regulate a right be aware that they can make rules so restrictive that nobody could pass them. So now you have a right to carry a gun, you just can't pass their test.

 

[NevadaDep]

I believe a 4 hour basic firearms safety course should be a requirement before being able to purchase a firearm. This should be a one time course though and the state should cover the cost of this training.

CCW holders should have to take and advanced firearms course.
The cost of this course should be covered by the state and, the ccw should have no expiration date.
In my personal opinion this course should cover. Legalities pertaining to firearms, concealment, weapon retention, remedial action drills, fire arms etiquette and last but not least, a basic marksmanship qualification course followed by an entry level practical weapons course.
This should be a one time course. CCW holders should have to qualify bi annually at a certified range with certified personnel,they should also run an NCIC check bi annually (preferably at your requal ) to keep your permit valid.