Why do some CCW courses don't require range time?

[phorvick]

Win 73. The fact that in your case or the case of many others there was no range time, does not change the fact that it is required. If the FL authorities did not see that, or mandate it, or check it out, again does not mean it is not required. ....

In most cases it will never come back to bite anyone. But as the instructor, with my ass on the line, if that person does something dumb and they come back to me and I did not have records showing that they safely loaded and discharged a firearm, I could be in trouble.

As to when the law changed? It has been the same (I believe) for many years.

The mantra that no range time is required is because of the DD214 and Hunter Safety, and that many instructors assume that ANY NRA class counts (reloading for example)....that is true, but only if there was also a shooting component.

I cannot give reasons why FL would (and perhaps does) accept many classes that do not have the requisite range experience; I just know that for my backside, since the law requires it, so do I.

I understand there are exceptions...but, if I give a general safety class, or an NRA class, the law is clear that a minimal range experience is required.

Now, it is also possible that the FL people are unclear on the law. I have had FL staffers tell me that "as an NRA instructor, ANY class" you do is sufficient if I include my NRA number on the course completion form. But, that is contrary to their law. Hence...it is really a CYA situation where I believe that it is required, so I do a short range exercise, and on my certificate I indicate that "...the instructor verifies that he has personally observed the applicant safely load and discharge a firearm."

Maybe it is that lawyer background (I am a retired atty) that just gets me too nervous about "what is the worst case scenario that can happen?" I worry that I would not get the instructor shield from liability on the acts of a permit holder "trained" by me if I did not follow the letter of the law, as in such a case the person would not be properly trained in accordance with their statute.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Hmmm....that's a bit scary if you don't require ANY range time and you have people who can't even handle firearms correctly walking around with loaded CCW...

I don't want to be in the vicinity of people who can't handle firearms correctly doing a live-fire for a CCW class. Let them train on their own time. Chances are if they are too lazy to train they'll be too lazy to adjust their wardrobe and strap that thing on every day anyhow.
Maybe we should make criminals who carry concealed illegally prove they are competent with their guns too. For the children.
I don't recall innocents being hit with bullets or even NDs from people carrying concealed very often (CARRYING, not talking about idiots fondling loaded guns in the house or "cleaning accidents"). The shooting requirements sound so loose it seems more like a waste of time than an effective program.
Allowing the state governments leeway to decide what's required of you to do something just to stay legal is risking anti-gun intervention thrown in. "this year you have to hit the 10 ring 15 times at 50 yards in 10 seconds while standing on your head...ready....go!"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I don't want to be in the vicinity of people who can't handle firearms correctly doing a live-fire for a CCW class.

The best way to determine if a person can handle a gun safely is to watch how he handles a gun he thinks or knows is unloaded.

No range time needed for that.

 

[CountGlockula]

Let them train on their own time.

Good point Drew.

 

[Winchester 73]

Win 73. The fact that in your case or the case of many others there was no range time, does not change the fact that it is required. If the FL authorities did not see that, or mandate it, or check it out, again does not mean it is not required. ....

phorvick,
Well,it was my sons case(I used DD214)but no matter.
I understand what you are saying and there are obvious cracks in the FL law that someone could fall through.
Thank you for that detailed answer.

 

[Flyboy]

that's a bit scary if you don't require ANY range time and you have people who can't even handle firearms correctly walking around with loaded CCW

Don't go to Alaska or Vermont. They actually understand the Second Amendment.

By the way, what are their rates of violent crime, anyway? Can you justify your fears?

 

[boggyboy72]

My class reqired range time but no skill.Three people stood out to me.Young lady(90# with a pocket full of rocks)shooting big ol 1911 like a prlder lady who looked like she had never shot her .38 before(only safe place would be behind her).And guy with a High Point that jammed with every mag.I know a lot of folks like HP,but I will never trust my life to one.

 

[Vector]

"Why do some CCW courses don't require range time? "

Sadly, it is all to easy for some to obtain a CCW without showing proficiency in the use and safe handling of a gun. I compare it with getting a DL in that far too many people who don't know how to drive slide by and are a menace to everyone else on the roads.

 

[Winchester 73]

By the way,what are their rates of violent crime,anyway?Can you justify your fears?

Alaska and Vermont:

Here you go,Flyboy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Florida law doesn't require range time,only a safety course.Even this is waived ,as REB pointed out ,if you can produce a DD214,NRA training certificate,etc.

Sorry, but that is not 100% accurate. DD214 or state sponsored hunter safety course and a couple of others require no range time. However, with any NRA course or other firearm couse, the state requires the instructor to witness the student fire a gun and the instructor must maintain records listing each student he has witnessed shoot.

A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught said course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph; any person who conducts a course pursuant to subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., or subparagraph 7., or who, as an instructor, attests to the completion of such courses, must maintain records certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm;

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0790->Section%2006#0790.06

Of course, this presents a problem as some NRA classes do not require shooting a firearm to get the certification for completing the class, yet the state accepts that certification for proof of training.

 

[Winchester 73]

Of course, this presents a problem as some NRA classes do not require shooting a firearm to get the certification for completing the class, yet the state accepts that certification for proof of training.

Exactly.My son and his class's situation.
Thank you for more clarification.

 

[Flyboy]

Thanks, Winchester, but it was rhetorical. Vermont is ranked at 48, and Alaska at 23, which doesn't suggest to me that their lack of a permit--let alone a range time requirement--is letting "unqualified" people carry. In other words, there's nothing to be "scared" of.

 

[Winchester 73]

Thanks, Winchester, but it was rhetorical. Vermont is ranked at 48, and Alaska at 23, which doesn't suggest to me that their lack of a permit--let alone a range time requirement--is letting "unqualified" people carry. In other words, there's nothing to be "scared" of

Agree,100 per cent.

 

[phorvick]

Prior response deleted for nitpickingness!

The statute speaks for itself.

 

[Winchester 73]

However, in fairness, if I am doing an NRA class that does not involve shooting I don't ask "why" the student is doing the class. If the student provides FL with that certificate and it is accepted, then I see no issue with the instructor. BUt, if the instructor advertises/promotes this as meeting the requirements for Florida, that just is not true under the plain language of the statute.

Understood.Fair enough.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"I still don't see where the Second Amendment authorizes the need for classes before being able to legally conceal a firearm." --PTK

True. It also doesn't state you have to be 18 or 21 to own a handgun. It also doesn't state you cannot have committed a violent felony in the past. It also doesn't state you cannot have suicidal or homicidal tendencies. You see, sometimes we can see something is commonsensical and create laws accordingly. For my self, I personally didn't care that I didn't have to qualify because I'm comfortable with my knowledge and skill with firearms. But I can definitely say that I would not want to be in a public place with some of the people in my class whent the SHTF and they have to pull their firearm that has 20 rounds through it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't want to be in a public place with them when it's all sunshine and lollipops, and they sit down on a bench opposite me and the chapstick in their pocket pulls the trigger on their snubby and bang, I'm bleeding from my chest. I'm telling you, some of these people were not competent with firearms.

Then you really should resign from this forum and sign up with the Brady campaign, because your advocacy for "commonsense" regulations to make YOU feel more secure are contrary to the United States Constitution. That may by itself be an uncomfortable realization for you, but that's the fact. The fact that various laws have been enacted to "regulate" the ownership and/or carry of firearms does not make such laws right and proper under the Constitution. It only makes them laws in contravention thereof that the courts have not struck down.

Yet.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I realize that blood has failed to run in the streets. Yet, aren't you just a little apprehensive that there are people carrying out there who have NO CLUE THAT THE "FOUR RULES" EVEN EXIST? For those of you in these "free" states, why is a demonstration of safety such a facist and jack-booted government fist?

My state requires a class, but does not require live fire. I'm fine with that. I'd be even more fine if they didn't require a class, and didn't require a permit, because then we'd be following the Constitution.

The raw fact is, the odds are astronomically higher that I'll get shot as a by-stander to some gang banger drive-by than that I will get shot by a lawful citizen carrying a handgun without having attended Thunder Ranch and Gunsite.

 

[Winchester 73]

Aquila Blanca,right on brother.
What is it about "shall not be infringed" that some folks just don't understand?
Four simple words and yet so much controversy.
It does not make sense,does it James Madison?

 

[cowssurf]

Aguila, you quoted me and then said: "Then you really should resign from this forum and sign up with the Brady campaign, because your advocacy for "commonsense" regulations to make YOU feel more secure are contrary to the United States Constitution. That may by itself be an uncomfortable realization for you, but that's the fact."

Holding positions contrary to the United States Constitution does not of itself make me uncomfortable in the least. I am not ruled by a document of man. I am ruled by my conscience. I'm glad our nation has not shown itself to be ignorant of the Constitution's flaws. We all realized that black people are not merely three fifths of a person, and we changed that hideous portion of the constitution. We also realized that the people are smart enought to directly elect US Senators instead of having state legislatures do it, and we changed that. We learned it is wise to put a limit on presidential terms, and changed that. Now if we could just get rid of the out-dated electoral college that discourages voter turn out and reduces the selection of the president to a handful of swing states du jour, I'd be even happier.

With regards to the Second Ammendment. I'd personally like to see it clarified in favor of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I hope SCOTUS rules in favor of Heller. I also am a proponent of shall issue CCW in all states and territories of the USA. That does not mean I believe there shouldn't be sensible firearms laws. Do you concede that violent felons should not lawfully be allowed to obtain firearms? What about mentally unstable persons like the sicko that shot up the students and faculty at Virginia Tech? Shouldn't we keep the laws that bar them from obtaining firearms? I think students of age and who could've shown proficiency with firearms should've been allowed to ccw at Virginia Tech. I am totally pro individual ownership and ccw shall issue rights. But to proclaim that I should suddenly switch camps and join the Brady Campaign is silly. I am diametrically opposed to their positions. Explain to me how I am anti-gun because I think that for someone to obtain a permit to carry a gun in a public place they should show a reasonable proficiency with a weapon and show an understanding of laws? That is the exact same thing we require of people who want to drive on public roads. If you want to drive on private roads without a license, no one can prevent as long as you own the land. If you want to purchase a gun and keep it at home for protection, that is your personal right that should not be infringed. But just as for driving, I have no problem with determining a person's proficiency and knowledge before they carry a firearm on property that is not theirs. I also believe that no mentally stable law-abiding citizen of age should be restricted from obtaining a ccw as long as they show reasonable proficiency. Why is that anti-gun? That is pro-gun and pro-gun safety. What is wrong with endorsing gun safety? What is wrong with requiring an understanding of gun safety. Just as you can support reasonable limits to free speech (you can't lawfully scream "Fire!" in a public place when there is none, and you can't lawfully slander people) and still be a lover of free speech, you can support reasonable limits to keeping and bearing arms (no violent felons, adolescents, mentally unstable, and no ccw permit if you don't even know how to load and safely handle a lethal weapon) and be a huge proponent of individual firearm ownership and and shall issue ccw permits in all states and territories (which I am). We have laws for obtaining and maintaining a driver license, and we are not up in arms over our right to drive a vehicle. Just the same, why is it such a big deal to require proof of firearm proficiency and an understanding of the state's laws, before issuing a ccw permit? Why is that bad?

 

[Feanaro]

reasonable limits to free speech... you can't lawfully scream "Fire!" in a public place when there is none

The case which put that phrase into popular lexicon had nothing to do with fire and everything to do with suppressing dissent against the first World War. An activist was spreading leaflets in opposition of the draft. No violence was done nor was there any threat of violence... he just disagreed with the government and happened to be a political minority(socialist).

and you can't lawfully slander people

Slander is rarely a criminal offense, it's a tort case. Additionally, you can often slander someone right into hell... as long as the slander is obviously false. S'called parody.

 

[jackstinson]

I have heard people say, "CCW carriers should at least be able to strip and clean their buns."

Now I don't think anyone has ever mentioned stripping and cleaning our buns.
Ohio doesn't require anything concerning my buns for concealed firearms carry. Now I'm sure I'd get arrested if I didn't conceal my buns out in public. Is there an amendment which guarantees the right to bare buns?
I strip and clean my buns every morning. My mama taught me clean buns are a happy buns.
Jack

 

[Flyboy]

Do you concede that violent felons should not lawfully be allowed to obtain firearms? What about mentally unstable persons like the sicko that shot up the students and faculty at Virginia Tech? Shouldn't we keep the laws that bar them from obtaining firearms?

If they're dangerous, they shouldn't be allowed out in the first place. If they're not dangerous, you're denying them their rights based on what you think they might do ("precrime"). That's called prior restraint, and it's generally held to be a bad thing.

What is wrong with endorsing gun safety?

Nothing whatsoever. The problem is when you turn a right into a privilege by requiring permission. If we allow any restriction on the right, then it becomes simply a matter of degree. What is an appropriate level of training? I suspect we could come up with dozens of answers. That creates an easy means by which the state can abuse the process to deny you your rights.

We have laws for obtaining and maintaining a driver license, and we are not up in arms over our right to drive a vehicle.

Actually, some of us are. Do you really think that minimal test assures safety? In aviation, I have to get recurrent training (at least biennially) to stay current. In a car, all I have to do to prove my qualifications to continue driving is demonstrate the ability to write a cheque that won't bounce.

BTW, do you really think that system does any good? What stops people from driving without licenses?

 

[Soybomb]

Sadly, it is all to easy for some to obtain a CCW without showing proficiency in the use and safe handling of a gun.

Vector can you show me that people with permits in states wihtout training/class requirements are less safe than those in states with such requirements? If not how you justify your "sadly" comment?

 

[jrfoxx]

I don't think live fire is required for an OR permit, but mine was about 5hrs in class, plus 100 rds live fire with both hands, and single handed, both weak and dominant.Good class,Everyone appeared to shoot quite well

 

[cowssurf]

Flyboy, you said: "If they're dangerous, they shouldn't be allowed out in the first place."

That is a very naive statement if you really believe it makes for a good argument. It ignores recidivism statistics and a basic understanding of sentencing and parole practices in our country.