CPL Too Easy?

C

camoman621

Inactive
I'm 52, been around firearms my entire life, hunting, target, competitive shooting, etc., and an NRA life member for nearly forty years. Finally decided to get my CPL. Took required class last Saturday and must say that I left the class afraid for the general public. About 60 students in the class of which most have never owned a handgun and about half of which have never owned any type of firearm, but are all of a sudden qualified to carry a loaded weapon in public. Watching the class shoot on the range was nothing short of scary. A large number of them not being able to consistently hit a stationary full size body target at 21ft in good light, with no stress, and with no one confronting them with a weapon. Seems to me that being able to qualify to carry a deadly weapon should be a little more labor intensive.
 
And I would argue that a license to protect yourself and your family is unconstitutional.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I have a CCW permit (for reciprocity, and other purposes) but I live in a Constitutional carry state.
 
You don't mention your state, or whether or not the class was the NRA Basic Pistol class. If it was the NRA class, the instructor should be reported to the NRA (who won't do anything about it, but that's another story).

When I got my carry permit ten-plus years ago, and more recently when I became certified by the NRA to teach Basic Pistol, the emphasis was solely on safety and the live fire requirement was basically being able to shoot one cylinder (for revolvers) or one magazine) in the general direction of the target without doing anything egregiously stupid.

About a year ago the NRA significantly tightened up the requirements for the live fire portion of Basic Pistol. Shooters are now required to shoot several groups, at varying distances, one-handed, demonstrating an ability to actually shoot something approximating a group. Then the exercise is repeated using a two-hand grip. The revised course of fire calls for an absolute minimum of fifty rounds per student, and more if any of them can't shoot a half-decent group the first time up.

A lot of instructors either aren't aware of this change, or knowingly choose to ignore it. I think that's a bad thing, because it gives all of us a bad name. The bottom line is that unless you class was offered at an outdoor range with a whole bunch of assistant instructors to help conduct the live fire exercise, there's simply no way that 60 students could be run through the revised live fire course in one day -- probably not even in a weekend.
 
One problem is that people forget that rights come with responsibilities attached -- if they ever knew that in the first place. If someone is going to carry a loaded gun in public, they have a responsibility to know how to carry and use it safely. I don't know how you get this across to people, especially in a culture in which products are marketed with the promise that just buying the [car... table saw... gun...] will make you a better person and an expert in its use.

The conflict between the government's legitimate interest in ensuring that people behave responsibly in public, and the degree to which that interest infringes on their rights, is an interesting problem -- to put it mildly.

And as AB notes, not all classes are created equal. The recent increase of interest in self-defense among the general public gives a strong motive for unscrupulous instructors to offer inadequate training (large class sizes, etc.).
 
The great lake state of Michigan. All we had to do on the range was shoot two different targets at 21ft with two hand grip. We had to wait once for one gentlemen because he couldn't figure out how to load his weapon. It was the NRA basic pistol cpl class. Basically we spent about 1 hour on the range and 7 hours listening to a group of guys telling stupid stories about their life experiences.
 
Don't get me wrong. There was some good basic information given out during the lectures, but most of the time had to be taken up answering and re-answering the same questions.
 
In Virginia it can be done without spending a second with a real instructor or on the range. I qualified in 5 minutes over the internet. It took longer to enter the credit card info than to do the class and pass the test. The info given on the class was basic gun terminology and basic safety. Not helpful to anyone that doesn't already know it.

Yes it worries me that it's so easy.
 
For what it's worth, the Arizona CWP class is supposed to be 8 hours, and almost all of it is spent in the classroom. It goes over state law, use of force law, and what to expect in court if you do have to use your weapon in self defense. The marksmanship portion is 5 shots at 5 yards, 5 shots at 10 yards inside a rather large box in a silhouette. You have to hit 7 out of 10.

When people use the, "Well, people who are carrying have a responsibility to know how to use it." I agree with you, but it's not the state that should force the responsibility. If what you said were the case, we'd have all sorts of stats on un-permitted people legally carrying in Arizona, doing all sorts of stupid things. (Kinda like the Wild West argument for shall issue permits.) Yet, we don't see that happening. And those that do, they go to jail, because they did something stupid with a gun.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with requiring a permit. It ensures the person isn't a criminal (not that not having the ability to obtain a permit would stop a criminal from carrying...but that's a different argument for a different day), and gives some measure of sense that they can, in fact, hit the broad side of a barn.

But, as Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and other Constitutional Carry states are showing is, the number of people doing stupid things with guns doesn't change just because you don't have to get a card first.
 
In Georgia, all you have to do is pass the background check and let the girl at the Probate Office warm up the laminator as you get your fingerprints done.

No training at all.

I'm very pro-training. In fact, I just signed my sister up for the NRA basic pistol class.

That being said, I am anti-government mandated training.
 
Florida technically has a one shot requirement. Yet even with a million permit holders, accidents are rare.

I'm not worried about it. Most people I've met who took the class without any other training and wanted to carry regularly sought out additional training.
 
I'm very pro-training. In fact, I just signed my sister up for the NRA basic pistol class.

That being said, I am anti-government mandated training.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my feeling. And a required permit is government mandated training in almost every single instance.
 
I agree, but don't agree.

I hated to see the people in my class who had never owned a weapon before think, "gee, 12 hours of training and I'm able to carry and shoot to defend myself." If they really thought that slow fire at 10 feet with no pressure is all they need to be qualified, we are in trouble! Fortunately, I think that the class I had was big on safety, but small on shooting proficiency.

Personally, I think a person needs to take 20 - 100 hours of training and have a test at the end, but as we've seen in OH, customers want the easiest way to get what they want. It is so bad here that there are stories of guys taking $100 cash, having you shoot 1 round of 22lr in a barrel of sand.

The worst was the guy who took money and sent out certificates. He is in hot water with the state.
 
Do you need mandatory training to vote?
Do you need mandatory training to print a newsletter or start a web page?
Do you need a mandatory class in comparative religion to choose a faith?

Mandatory training for a basic human right is an interesting concept.

Certainly electing an idiot might cost more lives than the number of gun accidents by untraining CPL types.

That being said, I think you have a moral responsibility to try to be competent with a firearm, understand legalities and moral principles related to taking a life if you intend to use it in circumstances that might injure an innocent or overract to an incident.
 
Without knowing the OP's location, we can't really say whether the instructors at his course were in any way at fault. Some states do not require any live fire at all; some only require that X number of shots be fired downrange, without injury to the shooter or bystanders, and no mention of required hit percentage.

Other states have more stringent requirements.

So, since the OP indicated this was a CPL course, we don't know if the instructors were negligent, or simply following state requirements.

Personally, as an instructor, I'd offer extra time and instruction to try to bring the poor shots up to some semblance of speed, but that might not be something that could be required, if the shooter did not want it - again, depending on location.

But, as others have said, while I am all in favor of training (receiving it or giving it), I loathe government mandates for training on something that is supposed to be a right, not a privilege.

Also, it has been noted multiple times on TFL that states which have Constitutional carry have not racked up higher gun accident rates than the states that require training. So, while it seems intuitive that concealed carriers should be trained, empirical data don't seem to suggest much difference.

In which case, it is even harder to argue for mandatory training in order to exercise the right.
 
I remember a good friend of mine who taught Driver Education in school. He made the same statement about his "recruits". He maintained that some of them would NEVER be safe to put on the interstate highways with a deadly weapon like a full-sized vehicle.
 
Seems to me that being able to qualify to carry a deadly weapon should be a little more labor intensive.
Click to expand...

Agree fully. Not a big fan of .gov mandating things but many new shooters don't bother to get proper training.
 
Heh. Having a clearance was a pain for Pops until he got his CCW permit, his NICS checks always went for three days before they came back.

That being said, I don't understand what he is trying to prove other than the current background check system works if you are not a prohibited person.
 
Nice post Glenn. Very well stated. +1

It reminds me that if we really want to save lives, we need bathtub registration, excise taxes and mandatory training. We all should have a BOID, or be required to bath with someone with a BOID for safety!

BOID - Bath tub Owners Identification Document
 
Do you need mandatory training to vote?
Click to expand...
We do technically have mandatory education in this country, not that it is itself required to vote. Perhaps if they'd bring back riflery or pistol-shooting in schools this becomes a complete non-issue?

TCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top