You Asked For It, You Got It

[Jim Watson]

Frequently posted, "If you are going to carry a gun, you need training."
Well, if you live in New Jersey, you are going to need substantial training and practice.
They are putting in a new curriculum with a tough shooting qualification. I bet it is someplace's police qualifier. 1 to 25 yards, timed from the holster, standing and kneeling, strong and weak hand, on the clock reload. "Point shoulder" at 15 yards and in. Huh? Point shoulder shooting went out with swivel holsters and cartridge loops.

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

So, if you get the slide from "should have training" to "must have training", consider who is setting the requirements and what his motivation might be.

 

[bearcreek]

So, if you get the slide from "should have training" to "must have training", consider who is setting the requirements and what his motivation might be.

In this sentence, what are you suggesting, exactly?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Frequently posted, "If you are going to carry a gun, you need training."
Well, if you live in New Jersey, you are going to need substantial training and practice.
They are putting in a new curriculum with a tough shooting qualification. I bet it is someplace's police qualifier. 1 to 25 yards, timed from the holster, standing and kneeling, strong and weak hand, on the clock reload. "Point shoulder" at 15 yards and in. Huh? Point shoulder shooting went out with swivel holsters and cartridge loops.

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

So, if you get the slide from "should have training" to "must have training", consider who is setting the requirements and what his motivation might be.

I already know the answer but I have to ask, If an armed citizen used the methods prescribed in their training - by taking a 25-yard shot at an armed assailant, for example - would the state consider it justified? My guess is a big fat, NO!

 

[bearcreek]

I already know the answer but I have to ask, If an armed citizen used the methods prescribed in their training - by taking a 25-yard shot at an armed assailant, for example - would the state consider it justified? My guess is a big fat, NO!

Distance, in and of itself, is not what determines a "good" shoot from bad.

As I said in the other thread about this, I am opposed to mandatory firearms training, but the NJ training requirements aren't a bad minimum for new gun owners (in all states) to (voluntarily) shoot for. It's not a particularly difficult course of fire, it's a good baseline, IMO.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Distance, in and of itself, is not what determines a "good" shoot from bad.

In the state of New Jersey. You are 100% sure of that? No doubt in your mind at all? Don’t you think a prosecutor would file charges based on the defendant refusing to retreat as required by New Jersey law? Be careful about assuming when it comes to laws and the power of a state attorney.

 

[Kleanbore]

In the state of New Jersey. You are 100% sure of that [that distance is not the sole factor in justification]? No doubt in your mind at all?

I am.

Don’t you think a prosecutor would file charges based on the defendant refusing to retreat as required by New Jersey law?

Different subject.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I am.


Different subject.

Same subject, different avoidance technique. Move to Jersey and let us all know how that works out. I’m perfectly happy avoiding the state and their communist government with all my being. Some folks liked the Soviet Union too. Most effective system for controlling national resources ever devised. Not for me, thanks.

 

[bearcreek]

In the state of New Jersey. You are 100% sure of that? No doubt in your mind at all? Don’t you think a prosecutor would file charges based on the defendant refusing to retreat as required by New Jersey law? Be careful about assuming when it comes to laws and the power of a state attorney.

That's not what I said. I'll write it again, for emphasis. Please note the bolded portion. "The distance, in and of itself, does not determine a "good" shoot from bad". There is nothing in NJ law that mandates the distance at which a defensive shooting is justified or not. Obviously it's something that may factor into a case.

 

[Kleanbore]

Same subject, different avoidance technique.

Distance is one thing. It's importance will depend upon what the assailant is armed with--firearm or contact weapon.

Failure to retreat, when retreat with complete safety is possible., is something else entirely In some states it is required. In some, it is not. In others it is not required ,but it can me considered as it may relate to reasonableness, while in others it may not be considered

 

[Jim Watson]

In this sentence, what are you suggesting, exactly?

I suggest that the author of a strict qualification might intend to limit issue of permits, not ensure good marksmanship.

It's not a particularly difficult course of fire, it's a good baseline, IMO.

Not difficult for a practiced shooter with a service pistol.
But how about Uncle Ed with his Chiefs Special and its original box of ammo from ten years ago? Or is he the sort of person that shouldn't carry a gun?

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

That's not what I said. I'll write it again, for emphasis. Please note the bolded portion. "The distance, in and of itself, does not determine a "good" shoot from bad". There is nothing in NJ law that mandates the distance at which a defensive shooting is justified or not. Obviously it's something that may factor into a case.

New Jersey law specifies a duty to retreat and a duty to avoid confrontation, including language pertaining to imminence of the threat. It’s in the link of the OP. You might want to read the linked documentation more carefully. The specific requirements for range qualification are only a small part of the overall requirements for being issued a permit and carrying a weapon. My concern is that if an armed citizen puts to use the range training will that be considered a reasonable response and reason for not prosecuting. I used AS AN EXAMPLE! the 25 yard shoot but that’s not the only qualification requirement. I have serious doubts a prosecutor will consider, “…but that was part of the training,” a valid defense for a citizen shooting someone they claim was an imminent threat.

 

[bearcreek]

New Jersey law specifies a duty to retreat and a duty to avoid confrontation, including language pertaining to imminence of the threat. It’s in the link of the OP. You might want to read the linked documentation more carefully. The specific requirements for range qualification are only a small part of the overall requirements for being issued a permit and carrying a weapon. My concern is that if an armed citizen puts to use the range training will that be considered a reasonable response and reason for not prosecuting. I used AS AN EXAMPLE! the 25 yard shoot but that’s not the only qualification requirement. I have serious doubts a prosecutor will consider, “…but that was part of the training,” a valid defense for a citizen shooting someone they claim was an imminent threat.

Do you know what the phrase "in and of itself" means?

 

[bearcreek]

Not difficult for a practiced shooter with a service pistol.
But how about Uncle Ed with his Chiefs Special and its original box of ammo from ten years ago? Or is he the sort of person that shouldn't carry a gun?

I'll say it again, I guess, since you must have missed it before. I am opposed to mandatory firearms training requirements. Please keep that in mind. I'm not suggesting that Uncle Ed should be required to pass any sort of test to carry his Chief's Special. That doesn't mean that Uncle Ed shouldn't strive, of his own volition, to be better. Some people shouldn't carry guns, just as some people shouldn't drive cars. Folks seem to have a hard time, on gun forums particularly, with the word "shouldn't". The use of that word does not necessarily mean that the user is suggesting government intervention. I believe that people shouldn't drink soft drinks, smoke cigarettes, carry guns without getting training first, shop at Walmart, buy $75,000 pickup trucks, or live in cities with populations larger than 10,000. I am absolutely, 100% opposed to any of those things being mandated by the government.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Do you know what the phrase "in and of itself" means?

I sited the distance as one example among many.
Yes, a prosecutor can and most likely would use distance alone as a reason to file charges based on the reasonable response, imminent threat and duty to retreat language. Unless the attack is taking place in a desert area with no cover for 25 yards in any direction and the threat is a person wearing signage that they are a violent criminal and armed better than the citizen and there is video evidence supported by trusted witnesses - the prosecution will succeed.

I think this discussion is at a loggerhead. You’re convinced the target requirements are perfectly reasonable for the vast majority of the population and I’m convinced they are designed to put innocent people in jail, confiscate their property and provide the fear of harm necessary to impose a tyranny and get rid of the idea of individual freedom. We are never going to agree so let’s just let it go. Be happy.

 

[bearcreek]

I think this discussion is at a loggerhead. You’re convinced the target requirements are perfectly reasonable for the vast majority of the population and I’m convinced they are designed to put innocent people in jail, confiscate their property and provide the fear of harm necessary to impose a tyranny and get rid of the idea of individual freedom. We are never going to agree so let’s just let it go. Be happy.

One point of clarification and then I will indeed "let it go". Please note the bolded portions. The target "requirements" are a good baseline for the population at large to shoot for. A goal, attainable with a little training and practice, by almost everyone who carries a handgun. There will be those, of course, like elderly or disabled folks, who are unable to do things like drop to a knee. Those exceptions don't mean that those standards aren't still a good goal for people, in general, to voluntarily reach for.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes, a prosecutor can and most likely would use distance alone as a reason to file charges based on the reasonable response, imminent threat and duty to retreat language.

Hogwash, unless the attacker is armed only with a contact weapon.

 

[CapnMac]

consider who is setting the requirements and what his motivation might be.

I'm going to guess that OP's point here is that the ability to create training standards means being able to create unattainable standards.

Rather than to begin a discussion on which piece or part of the training would become a legal measure for self Defense.
What NJ is gong to consider, in a "must retreat" State, is legitimate Self Defense is already fraught with difficulties to define.

There's more thna enough to debate on whether a State ought be able to arbitrarily set 'civilian' training standards by legislative fiat. Suppose they decide the minimum passing score is 95% and requiring 1 MOA at 50 or 75 meters with one's carry handgun, to get your permit. That would be a functional ban on RKBA in such a State.

 

[Jim Watson]

I approximated it today, shooting my late Uncle's Charter Arms Pathfinder .22 off the bench instead of out of a holster and not kneeling.
I got a 90% which is better than I really expected. Dropped one shot at 15 yards and four at 25.

My GSSF friends would undoubtedly clean it with a G42 or G43 hideout.

I still think it is an unrealistic and repressive requirement for the non-enthusiasts.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....If an armed citizen used the methods prescribed in their training - by taking a 25-yard shot at an armed assailant, for example - would the state consider it justified? ....

Whether or not your intentional act of violence will be found legally justified will be determined based on the details of the incident. There might be times in which a 25(+/-) yard shot would be found to have been justified, and times in which a 25(+/-) would not.

 

[rust collector]

As a long-time-ago attorney, I am imagining the waiver and release of liability form that will be required before the testing is administered. Not only is the test based upon the efforts of persons with unknown qualifications, involving obsolete shooting positions and physical efforts that become more difficult/risky with age, and live fire from holstered carry, but when the inevitable happens, the state will be absolved because the required waiver was signed.

The closer you look at the process, the clearer the true objective becomes. It's a recipe for disaster, and this 40-year hunter safety instructor would not touch it with the proverbial pole.

 

[AlexanderA]

Training should be voluntary and recommended, but not mandatory.

The problem is not the training itself, but the qualification test at the end of the training. It seems that the New Jersey test (for example, firing with the weak hand) would exclude some people with minor physical infirmities. It's one thing to have policemen pass these tests, but another thing to have them apply to ordinary citizens.

 

[starnbar]

Frequently posted, "If you are going to carry a gun, you need training."
Well, if you live in New Jersey, you are going to need substantial training and practice.
They are putting in a new curriculum with a tough shooting qualification. I bet it is someplace's police qualifier. 1 to 25 yards, timed from the holster, standing and kneeling, strong and weak hand, on the clock reload. "Point shoulder" at 15 yards and in. Huh? Point shoulder shooting went out with swivel holsters and cartridge loops.

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

So, if you get the slide from "should have training" to "must have training", consider who is setting the requirements and what his motivation might be.

That is almost a carbon copy of the old NRA police course I qualified under back in the 80s

 

[scaatylobo]

Ok,flame on all you like.
I was an armed citizen LONG before I became an LEO
I have seen officers and citizens ALL make horrible mistakes as to gun handling.
And I hear too often "folk lore" as to when to shoot,how to shoot,how to carry,and yes this list is much longer.
So in my NOT so humble opinion,I would LOVE and appreciate any in my AO who are armed [ OC,or CC carry ] be very well trained and disciplined shooters.
btw ,I was an LEO firearms instructor and saw scary stuff daily from officers !.
I am a HUGE backer of the RIGHT to bear arms !!.
But I fear that too many are better in front of their boob tube --- than they are at the range.
How to handle this,and not deprive any of their rights is above my pay grade.

 

[Jim Watson]

That is almost a carbon copy of the old NRA police course I qualified under back in the 80s

Right, I have a library of agency qualifications and while I don't have the NJ POST, all that stuff is very common.

They are demanding that you shoot as well as a full time cop without providing training. We can say you ought to have training but it is not required or provided, you have to learn on your own time and expense... or not.

 

[GEM]

It's clear that the training requirements in various states have dual purposes, a modicum of reasonable abilities vs. so restrictive as to reduce the carry population. Whether the vetted , extremely vetted vs. unvetted groups with permits differ in the real world for successful SD or tragic incidents is unknown at this time. In TX, there is/was a substantial shooting test that was child's play for anyone with training and most physically competent folks. However, the trainers will tell you of some horror show shooters. We will see what the constitutional carry states produce as far as accident rates and not legal shootings claimed as SD.

As far as it is being a right - well, we got rid of various strictures on voting. Having the number of incompetent, bigoted or corrupt fools elected decrease or increased with the removal of those rules?

That being said, if you don't train to reasonable competency or study up on issues - you may have the right to vote or carry, but it's not something I promote. Yes, there are financial obstacles for poorer folks to do more than buy a gun, I get it.