You Asked For It, You Got It

People who are new to guns and /or not "into" guns might be surprised at how inaccurate they are, especially with a small handgun like a LCP 380 or snub.
I see people shooting at the indoor range and consistently placing hits (slow fire) inside a standard size silhouette at 7 yards is not a given.
Did I advocate for mandatory proficiency training? No I did not. I only made two statements of fact. I'll leave it at that.
 
bearcreek said:
In this sentence, what are you suggesting, exactly?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for what his intent was but what I got out of that is it if you advocate for required training before issuing a concealed handgun permit don't be surprised if the issuing authorities make the training and the qualification so difficult that most people can't pass it
 
Jim Watson said:
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?
Click to expand...
Or what about my wife who could never pass that qualification but wanted a gun for self-defense back when I used to work nights
 
This is somewhat off topic but I thought this would be a good place to put this.



This person's name is HR Funk. He is a current police officer in Ohio and a YouTuber. The reason I mentioning him here is because he has done a YouTube video of the police qualification course for, I think, every state in the country.

I think it's a good resource if you want to see what the qualification for police is where you're at.
 
Night Rider said:
I can't speak for what his intent was but what I got out of that is it if you advocate for required training before issuing a concealed handgun permit don't be surprised if the issuing authorities make the training and the qualification so difficult that most people can't pass it
Click to expand...
Well said. It is very clear that post-Bruen, jurisdictions with a history of opposing the rights of civilians to keep and bear arms are using new regulations to replace those struck down by the Supreme Court, as a means of infringing on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

I have historically been of the mind that compromise was a viable route to achieve regulation around our Second Amendment rights. I was wrong. Those opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms reject the validity of the Second Amendment, the natural right of a person to defend themselves, and any “compromise” that does not entail further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

NJ is attempting to impose barriers to the exercise of a constitutionally protected right in the same way that states imposed Jim Crow laws to limit the rights of black Americans. So, the answer is “no” and the response must be further litigation against NJ. When the state unequivocally recognizes the individual right to keep and bear arms and issues concealed carry permits accordingly, then one can discuss what type of training may be appropriate. And not until then.
 
Good point about Bruen. Antigun states will find historical precedents for extreme training regimes. Antigun scholary legal reviews are delving into history to provide pathways for such decision making. That's why some progun folks think the historical rule was a mistake and not well thought out. The next problem is whether Scotus will take up challenges to such antigun procedures in real time. They live in a time scale not responsive to everyday citizens' concerns and more concerned with dominance games, scolding and procedures. Evidence being that despite having the ability to support lower court TROs against such laws, they have passed on them, instead waiting for the lower courts 'to do their job'. Which might be fun in the court games but hurts the basic rights of people. They don't care.

It may also be the case that the gun folks on Scotus don't have the votes for stronger, clearer, decisive rulings. Kavanaugh and Roberts have been analyzed as weak when it comes to strong decisions. The folks who think that Thomas' or Alito's stink eye, watching you - means anything to a lower court are misguided.

Bruen is a very mixed bag which it did not have to be and the same for the remanded cases (crickets on those). These legal time scales are not acceptable in modern times. They are just games.

I was 'impressed' by Alito. In the Dobbs controversy, he seems to have claimed the decision was leaked so he could be assassinated and he complained that he had to ride around in a tank. However, he and Thomas were ok with turning down the NYS CCIA laws denying carrying rights for us without tanks.
 
Night Rider said:
I can't speak for what his intent was but what I got out of that is it if you advocate for required training before issuing a concealed handgun permit don't be surprised if the issuing authorities make the training and the qualification so difficult that most people can't pass it
Click to expand...
Could be. I got the impression that he was saying that people shouldn't advocate for voluntary training because that could be used by government to point to the "need" for mandated training. Hopefully he'll chime in and clear that up for us.
 
GEM said:
Good point about Bruen. Antigun states will find historical precedents for extreme training regimes. Antigun scholary legal reviews are delving into history to provide pathways for such decision making. That's why some progun folks think the historical rule was a mistake and not well thought out. The next problem is whether Scotus will take up challenges to such antigun procedures in real time. They live in a time scale not responsive to everyday citizens' concerns and more concerned with dominance games, scolding and procedures. Evidence being that despite having the ability to support lower court TROs against such laws, they have passed on them, instead waiting for the lower courts 'to do their job'. Which might be fun in the court games but hurts the basic rights of people. They don't care.

It may also be the case that the gun folks on Scotus don't have the votes for stronger, clearer, decisive rulings. Kavanaugh and Roberts have been analyzed as weak when it comes to strong decisions. The folks who think that Thomas' or Alito's stink eye, watching you - means anything to a lower court are misguided.

Bruen is a very mixed bag which it did not have to be and the same for the remanded cases (crickets on those). These legal time scales are not acceptable in modern times. They are just games.

I was 'impressed' by Alito. In the Dobbs controversy, he seems to have claimed the decision was leaked so he could be assassinated and he complained that he had to ride around in a tank. However, he and Thomas were ok with turning down the NYS CCIA laws denying carrying rights for us without tanks.
Click to expand...
Take the time for a good, long, in-depth read of Adams’ post-Presidential writings. He made it clear that the Constitutional Convention knew there would be corruption in the future government, including the courts. The system is designed to move slowly in order to prevent a coup from being able to seize power quickly; nothing happens quickly in government, by design. Marx calculated ways to use the system as it was constructed to destroy what it was intended to be and much later people like Debbs came along who figured out how to break the system and speed up the spread of corruption. But it took Frank Nitti and his scholarly apprentice, Saul Alinsky, to turn corruption into a process - and now it’s a “legitimate” business.
 
Shawn Dodson said:

A 25 yard shot is a possibility if defending another person:​

2022 New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 2C - The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Section 2C:3-4 - Use of force in self-protection.​

2022 New Jersey Revised Statutes Title 2C - The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Section 2C:3-5 - Use of force for the protection of other persons​

Click to expand...
Read section 2 very carefully:
“ (2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; ”

If there is any doubt that simply turning around and walking away would or could have prevented the need for use of force, the victim becomes the offender.
 
GeoDudeFlorida said:
Read section 2 very carefully:
“ (2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; ”

If there is any doubt that simply turning around and walking away would or could have prevented the need for use of force, the victim becomes the offender.
Click to expand...
2C:3-5 use of force for the protection of other persons, applies.
 
GeoDudeFlorida said:
Okay. If you live in New Jersey and have to defend yourself from a distance as far as 25yds, I hope you get a reasonable prosecutor reviewing the case.
Click to expand...
The context of my original post is "defending another person", such as what Eli Dickens did when he shot and killed a potential mass shooter, at a distance of 40 yards, at Greenwood Park Mall, in Greenwood, Indiana last summer.

That a private citizen would have to defensively shoot 25 yards or farther, in defense of self or another, is highly unlikely but the odds aren't zero.

However, I believe NJ's requirement to qualify at 25 yards is absurd. 25 yards is the length of a tractor trailer. A more reasonable and realistic max distance is 15 yards, which equals 3 car lengths, and would be similar to circumstances in which your car is disabled on the side of the road with a flat tire or other problem and a bad guy(s) take advantage of your vulnerability to rob, rape, or abduct.

Whereas NJ's 25 yd qualification is simply intended to further impede the ability of private citizens from being lawfully licensed to carry a concealed handgun. IMO, it's an arbitrary and capricious qualification standard because it's not supported by any valid data about the overwhelming majority CCW defensive gun uses.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
However, I believe NJ's requirement to qualify at 25 yards is absurd. 25 yards is the length of a tractor trailer. A more reasonable and realistic max distance is 15 yards, which equals 3 car lengths, and would be similar to circumstances in which your car is disabled on the side of the road with a flat tire or other problem and a bad guy(s) take advantage of your vulnerability to rob, rape, or abduct.
Click to expand...
When the Illinois Police Training and Standards Board finally got around to publishing a statewide qualification course in the 2005/2006 timeframe they made 25 yards optional. Not even every police department requires their officers to shoot at 25 yards.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
The context of my original post is "defending another person", such as what Eli Dickens did when he shot and killed a potential mass shooter, at a distance of 40 yards, at Greenwood Park Mall, in Greenwood, Indiana last summer.

That a private citizen would have to defensively shoot 25 yards or farther, in defense of self or another, is highly unlikely but the odds aren't zero.

However, I believe NJ's requirement to qualify at 25 yards is absurd. 25 yards is the length of a tractor trailer. A more reasonable and realistic max distance is 15 yards, which equals 3 car lengths, and would be similar to circumstances in which your car is disabled on the side of the road with a flat tire or other problem and a bad guy(s) take advantage of your vulnerability to rob, rape, or abduct.

Whereas NJ's 25 yd qualification is simply intended to further impede the ability of private citizens from being lawfully licensed to carry a concealed handgun. IMO, it's an arbitrary and capricious qualification standard because it's not supported by any valid data about the overwhelming majority CCW defensive gun uses.
Click to expand...
Adding that context changes the tenor of the conversation. Thanks.

I still hope anyone in NJ who shoots at 25yds is investigated by a reasonable prosecutor.
 
Jim Watson said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

The NJ requirements have nothing to do with training other than an excuse to put an insurmountable barrier of expense, time (i.e. more money), and effort before permit applicants. This is Anti 2A politics at "best" with no intent to make anyone better. It is also steeped in racism and classism since only those that can afford the cumulative expense and time for training can bear the expense. This will probably fall with a lawsuit hinged on the unhinged bigotry built into it...I hope.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
The NJ requirements have nothing to do with training other than an excuse to put an insurmountable barrier of expense, time (i.e. more money), and effort before permit applicants. This is Anti 2A politics at "best" with no intent to make anyone better. It is also steeped in racism and classism since only those that can afford the cumulative expense and time for training can bear the expense. This will probably fall with a lawsuit hinged on the unhinged bigotry built into it...I hope.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

From the standpoint of training, I think it's unreasonable to require the same level of training/qualifications for police as a citizen exercising a right.

A police officer could be required to shoot 25 yards as a job requirement. A qualification at 25 yards as a condition of employment is reasonable.

No citizen is required to shoot a person at 25 yards. It's allowed, as Shawn Dodson points out. But it's never required. You have the right to shoot at 25 yards if necessary, and you want to. You can decide you're only going to shoot if an attacker is 3 yards away. You could carry blanks and decide you're just going to scare the bad guy away, because you'd rather die than live with killing somebody- I don't agree with it, but you have that right.

So if there isn't a requirement to shoot, I don't think it's reasonable to require a level of marksmanship before carrying.
 
As far as qualifying in todays setting those of us who shot the old nra course which included 50 yard shooting I doubt many LEOs could pass today. We used mod 10s which were well used.
 
I used to shoot PPC which includes a 50 yard match. But then I am an enthusiast and had plenty of practice. Uncle Ed will be hurting at 25. But you can miss every time at 25 if you hit every time at 15 and in... which I doubt Uncle Ed can manage.
 
Most people suck at shooting handguns. Even people who think they're pretty good fall apart when a little speed, distance, or movement is applied. I wish there was a qualification course that had to be met to carry a gun in public but I don't see a way to implement it without it being a constitutional issue. The only thing I can think of is to incentivize it to a degree people can't turn it down.
 
Do you know if this new NJ requirement is specific to one municipality or county or is intended as a statewide standard? Does it apply retroactively to those who were in the first tranche of permits granted ?

Not a NJ resident anymore but still many family (all big 2A supporters and activists in the NW part of the state) and the bunch who have already been issued permits didnt report anything much like that, more of a safety briefing and a "hit the target at 15 feet" type qual... But that was for people who may have literally been "first in line" and local LE was still very much struggling to put something coherant together and avoid legal action.

Even in my now home state of Nevada, different instructors and schools have much different ways of "meeting" the state standard for X amount of hours in the classroom and X amount of rounds fired.
 
Shanvanvocht said:
Statewide requirement
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Appreciate the knowledge. Doesnt suprise me those running the state will go to any length to limit and curtail folks legal rights, including defying court orders. There has been some great studies done about the history of gun control law in New Jersey, with similar parallels to California in being specifically targeted to restrict the 2A rights of immigrants, the poor and minorities.
 
rust collector said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly—this is meant to discourage people seeking a CCW permit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

geim druth
New Jersey carry permit requirements
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Cbob
C
GunnyUSMC
  • Locked
Louisiana POST Pistol Course
Replies
14
Views
4K
boom boom
boom boom
G
  • Locked
A New York City "what would you do?" question
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
TheEgg
T
I
  • Locked
Can you, do you train enough?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
1K
Kleanbore
K
tahunua001
  • Locked
Ideas for a beginner's training course.
Replies
8
Views
436
herrwalther
H
Back
Top