CCW training has apparently changed

[Coinneach]

I took my CCW training in, IIRC, 2000. We had the mandatory legal lectures, technical discussion, and practical exercise, involving shots at silhouette targets from 10, 25, and 50 feet.

I've been out of the shooting community for quite a while, due to this and that... you know. Seems things have changed pretty radically in Colorado.

Today, I was at a dealer, looking over the old rifles (and scored a sweet Mosin-Nagant M38). This dealer offers CCW classes: Monday evenings, 1800-2200.

Buh?

I asked how the hell they squeezed the practical in there. "Oh, that's no longer required," he said. "The hell? You just get talked at about the whys and wherefores, never laying a hand on an actual gun, and that's good enough for carry now?!" "Yeah. I know, it's damned stupid, and we STRONGLY encourage our students to take practical training, but at least we can carry in Denver now."

No practical required for concealed carry. Good Bog. :barf:

 

[0utlier]

You don't need any training in Alabama to get your CCW. Pay your $20 in Tuscaloosa and come back a week later to pick up your license. Of course in AL it is assumed you came out of the womb holding a 30.06. I went to pick up my license and there was a line. I'm pretty sure most people here carry.

 

[Sir William]

No wonder we don't have nationwide reciprocity! I guess all 50 states should just be like Vermont.

 

[woodland]

Yeah, no training in Washington either. Pay the money, wait, and pick up the permit.

I guess all 50 states should just be like Vermont

Yeah, I just heard someone say in a store the other day that in Vermont anyone can carry, open or concealed, resident or non resident. Is this true? Sounds good to me.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Colorado training is virtually undefined. The only thing really defined is that it be handgun oriented and taught by a teacher who meets certain qualifications.

The class I took was excellent and I also took an unrequired, but excellent, follow up course. I'd recommend anyone spending the $$ and taking the responsibility of CCW to get as much training as they can afford.

But I think the reason it wasn't written in to the law ... most of us agree there should be some training involved, but how much and how expensive? Give the anti's half a chance and they'll try to force anyone getting a CCW to take 2000 hours of training and qualify as expert with every weapon known to man. Plus a thorough psyce eval.

From the classes I've seen, though, sounds like the place you were talking to is really pushing the low end limit. Most classes are pretty much a day in the classroom and a few hours at the range. Which is sufficient, I think.

 

[pax]

Coinneach ~

As woodland said, there's no training requirement here in Washington, not even a lecture about the laws. You just go in, let 'em take your fingerprints, give them some money, and you're good to go. Been that way for my entire lifetime (WA was issuing carry permits when it was still just a pipe dream for most the rest of the nation).

Compare that to our next-door neighbor, Oregon.

Demographics between both states are roughly the same, but permits in Oregon, when all is said and done, end up costing significantly more than those in Washington simply because of Oregon requires some (minimal) training. I believe as a result, Oregon issues fewer permits than Washington does.

But here's the clincher: The mistaken-shooting rates among carry permit holders in both states is the same (eg miniscule). There's no extra blood running in the streets in WA that I ever heard of.

Apparently, whatever problem the mandatory training is designed to solve in Oregon, doesn't exist in Washington.

pax

 

[Biss]

Woodland you are correct

Yeah, I just heard someone say in a store the other day that in Vermont anyone can carry, open or concealed, resident or non resident. Is this true? Sounds good to me.

Woodland- The only thing required here is a valid drivers license and being at least 21. Despite the fact that vt is an extremely left wing state, we do do some things right up here . I mean even nutty ol' foot in the mouth Howard Dean was opposed to adding "tougher gun laws".
Mark

 

[Mannlicher]

I know that in Florida, most CCW tests seem to be given at gun shows. One stop shopping indeed.
When I took my test, and that was back when Fla was first kind enough to recognize a Constitiutional right, I had already been 'packing' for about 35 years, and I darn sure knew one of a gun from the other. Still, I sat through two 8 hour classes in order to get my ticket. Sure I learned something, but today, I don' think the shooting part is required.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Who is this "Coinneach" punk?

I used to know a guy by that name a long time ago. Big ugly bald SOB. He never calls, he never writes. . . .

 

[USP45usp]

Coinneach,

Welcome back under the name/moniker that we used to know you.

And please, allow me to be the same person (as in, not the same punk but as in the same which has grown up abit) as I was before.

I strongly disagree with your post. Why is it that we need or be forced to have training so that we can be permitted to carry.

And exercise in Rights that was around long before government mandated that those who wished to keep and bear arms need to pay for and attend the school of their, or the governments, choice?

As much as I understand yours and others wish that those that wish to carry out their Rights to Keep and Bear Arms be trained, I cannot agree that it should be mandatory. It was never a mandate to do so in order to keep and bear your arms as an individual.

Yet, I can understand where some may mistake the wording of the Founding Fathers when they expressed the need for those with arms to be trained for the protection of America. Yet I would say that the training that they spoke of is now non-funded by the very government that they produced, the home land minuteman are now tossed aside and actually demonized by the very government set up to provide the training needed and was expected.

So therefore, we shouldn't take away an individuals right to keep and bear arms just because they haven't been trained. The smart ones will seek training and will know the laws which govern their state, but we shouldn't be first to take away from those that haven't. They have a right to life also.

Again, nice seeing you again Coinneach and please don't take my reply(ies) wrongly, I have nothing but the upmost respect for you and I enjoy reading you now as I did then. I simply just disagree with you on your thread and since I respect you as I do, decided to add to the discussion.

Wayne

 

[Coinneach]

Don, beats me. I would never be so inconsiderate.

Wayne, I stated my original premise badly. No, the Great State of [your state here] has no right or authority to mandate any level of training for carry. As others have stated, the Vermont model is ideal.

My beef is that, although the requirements have gotten easier, the trainers are treating those requirements as good enough, as always seems to happen with .gov minima. Maybe they are, maybe not. Personally, when I was a trainer, I wouldn't sign off anyone who couldn't demonstrate safe and accurate handling in the classroom and on the range.

It seems to me that the dealers and trainers are doing their clients a disservice by not including actual trigger time in the training, whether or not it's required.

Oh, and although the practical section has been eliminated and the courses are now 25% as long as before, the prices haven't changed. I can't get behind that; if you're offering less, you charge less.

 

[smince]

You don't need any training in Alabama to get your CCW. Pay your $20 in Tuscaloosa and come back a week later to pick up your license

HMMM?!? Mine is $25 (DeKalb Co.) but we don't have to wait. Get it in like 10 minutes or less.

 

[USP45usp]

I agree on that point, that if you have to take a class then it should involve some trigger time.

What gets me is the fact that even though I won't or wouldn't mandate it, that people won't pull that hundred or so out of their pockets (best left for pizza being brought to their door I guess) and take a few courses.

Some of the best times of my life has been behind the trigger while being instructed by someone with more knowledge and experience than I. When I was younger, learning the rules (basic) and now older, taking that shot without hesitation with full knowledge of what I am doing and not doubting my skill.

As I've mentioned, the smarter ones will take courses and continue to learn. Those that either won't or refuse to spend the money, I won't pass judgement upon them or even try to get laws passed because of them. I can only hope that they take the responsibility to seek out some sort of training.

Wayne

 

[Lion In Winter]

Let's have mandatory training for Marriage and creating offspring first. This will do much to minimize any need for dangerous tools training by the state. Come to think about this, are not parents, fathers in particular, responsible to teach their children about such things?

 

[pax]

My beef is that, although the requirements have gotten easier, the trainers are treating those requirements as good enough, as always seems to happen with .gov minima.

That, in a nutshell, is a major component of why I oppose mandatory training.

pax

 

[crashresidue]

Lyon in Winter said:

"Let's have mandatory training for Marriage and creating offspring first. This will do much to minimize any need for dangerous tools training by the state. Come to think about this, are not parents, fathers in particular, responsible to teach their children about such things?"

Roger THAT!!

Gentle winds,
cr

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Coinneach said,

I took my CCW training in, IIRC, 2000. We had the mandatory legal lectures, technical discussion, and practical exercise, involving shots at silhouette targets from 10, 25, and 50 feet.

Just curious, are you counting the practical exercise as training? If so, it doesn't seem all that different from the Texas CHL firing qualification which is not considered training, but testing.

I am with you on the matter that carry permits should require more actual training on gun handling and have harder shooting qualifications. However, a lot of folks think that such things are unnecessary, burdensome, and are just a way to bilk CCW people out of more money. They consider such matters as infringments on their rights.

I don't mean to pick on cops with this next statement. I am not critiquing or judging, just pointing out an observation since cop shootings comprise the largest available set of data on defensive use of handguns in the US. Most LE agencies require their officers to be training in gun handling before they ever go out on the street and the require that officers requalify on a regular basis. From what I have read, some departments do it quarterly, half year, or yearly. Even with having training and then demonstrating their competence with handguns at each requalification, it is still difficult for most departments to have shooting hit percentages be above 30%.

So, the Colorado CCW is every five years to renew. If it is difficult to hit the mark by those who get training and requalify on a regular basis, I doubt that a short training session every 5 years is going to do much to make Colorado CCW folks that much more effective in their shooting skills.

The fact that Colorado does not require a demonstration of one's capabilities at the time of taking the class does not seem all that bad. They still require proof of competence and have basically streamlined the CCW permit procedures, allowing several different types of information to be used as justification for one's gun handling competence.

The information can be found at this link...

http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/Statutes/18-12-203.asp

 

[KSFreeman]

I understand the concern, but it is misplaced. Here in Indiana we have been carrying pistols for hundreds of years, (over 70 years under a statute) and have had no problems.

"Training" can be used as an administrative weapon to interfere with one's civil right to carry a weapon. I believe that the culture is far more important to encourage training rather than the law.

Internal controls trump external controls every day.

 

[azurefly]

Unless things have changed in Florida since 1997, you don't have to do any practical shooting to get your CCW license here, either.


Personally, I think that's how it ought to be, if as you say they were requiring people to qualify with shots out to 50 feet.

Is that a personal defense distance? Is it reasonable to hold someone to be able to shoot a silhouette at 50 feet with a 3" barrel defensive carry gun?? I am not so sure I'd do all that well with my GLOCK 27 at that distance. Should I have to? Or should I have to also own and bring a gun that's better for that distance, and qualify with that, even though I won't be carrying it?

I think that no one who is mentally and physically competent (as well as not having a record of violent-crime convictions) should be able to be denied CCW licensure. And I don't think that a person need be all that great shakes with their carry weapon.

Should they be able to demonstrate their ability to competently handle the gun, as in load, unload, and manipulate all its functions? Sure. But as long as they can fire when they intend to and make sure not to fire when they don't intend to, and as long as they can hit a man-sized target within about 20 feet a couple of times out of five, I think they have what they need to be allowed to carry a gun for personal protection.

A sharpshooter they need not be. Let's remember that they tell us statistically, encounters where a CCW gun is used to stop a crime, most often it's not even fired.


-azurefly

 

[Garand Illusion]

"Training" can be used as an administrative weapon to interfere with one's civil right to carry a weapon. I believe that the culture is far more important to encourage training rather than the law.

I totally agree with the above. If the anti's could make a CCW law ineffectual by putting in/adding at some point a ridiculously difficult training requirement, they damn sure would.

And carrying a CCW requires a commitment not just to a training class, but to regular retraining and studying situations and mental preparation (which everyone on this board obviously does).

But that said ... there are many people who didn't grow up in a gun friendly house, or grew up in an irresponsibly gun friendly house, that I think it's necessary to provide a level of required training. When I took my class, for instance, I could certainly shoot effectively (though the excellent teacher did give me some great pointers) but I learned about the law and what it meant and that I couldn't have picked up very easily.

So ... I'm all in favor of a basic training requirement, not to exceed maybe 12 hours total, for a CCW license to be issued.