Hi everyone. I'm new here, and haven't had time to go through all the previous posts yet. So sorry if this has already been touched on. Anyway, the question is, what does typical 'government-mandated' training for obtaining a CCW entail? Cost? Hours? Qualifications for passing? Just curious if any of you with your CCW from states that required training can fill me in on what you were subjected to, since it looks like that's what we may end up with here in CO. Just wondering what to expect. Thanks!
'government-mandated' training
- Thread starter BAB
- Start date
So far, the most recent "CCW convert states" have been going with 16 hours. Of that, typically some portion gets assigned to "legal use of deadly force", as in "when can you plug somebody". 2 to 4 hours worth. Handgun safety is the other big thing, and then with 16 hours to play with there'll either be some "basics of shooting skill" and/or "basics of tactical thinking". Some schools in Texas (a 16 hour state) go so far as to teach some IPSC-style "shoot from cover while ducking" drills.
California is still discretionary of course, but we've got a new limit of 16 hours of training that can be imposed, or 24 if applied uniformly to ALL permit applicants. I'd say if you can get away with 16, go ahead and accept that...it's not the most terrible burden in the world, although it's still not constitutional.
Jim March
California is still discretionary of course, but we've got a new limit of 16 hours of training that can be imposed, or 24 if applied uniformly to ALL permit applicants. I'd say if you can get away with 16, go ahead and accept that...it's not the most terrible burden in the world, although it's still not constitutional.
Jim March
Jim,
1. Texas = 10 to 15 hrs for CHL; 1 week for CHL Instructor
2. It's my understanding that TX CHL requires isosceles stance. No moving, absolutely no timed drawing of weapons. We give the command to load 5 (6 or 10) rounds and come to the Ready position. Some instructors permit the Weaver position, some don't.
1. Texas = 10 to 15 hrs for CHL; 1 week for CHL Instructor
2. It's my understanding that TX CHL requires isosceles stance. No moving, absolutely no timed drawing of weapons. We give the command to load 5 (6 or 10) rounds and come to the Ready position. Some instructors permit the Weaver position, some don't.
Ed Brunner
New member
This is a good opportunity to illustrate something. The government wants me to meet their arbitrary standard before they allow me to exercise my constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
I dont care if it is reasonable to want me trained-it is just another example of infringement.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
I dont care if it is reasonable to want me trained-it is just another example of infringement.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Ed,
For the first time, I believe I must respectfully disagree. "A well-regulated militia... etc." seems to be in line with Amdt #2.
Further, I would like to know the folks next to me have at least HEARD a little about gun safety, use of force, etc.
Like you, however, I do worry about the government "raising the bar" (probably "for the children", gag, choke) for some PC reason and making it too difficult for the common person to complete a minimum of training.
For the first time, I believe I must respectfully disagree. "A well-regulated militia... etc." seems to be in line with Amdt #2.
Further, I would like to know the folks next to me have at least HEARD a little about gun safety, use of force, etc.
Like you, however, I do worry about the government "raising the bar" (probably "for the children", gag, choke) for some PC reason and making it too difficult for the common person to complete a minimum of training.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Well regulated meant well equipped at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. If you want the people around you trained...see to it yourself. Don't get the government to force them to train at gun point.
FWIW, I have attended training sponsored by the local sheriff's department but not required of an CCW or firearm owner in this state.
"Government is not eloquence. Government is not reason. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington
[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited March 03, 1999).]
FWIW, I have attended training sponsored by the local sheriff's department but not required of an CCW or firearm owner in this state.
"Government is not eloquence. Government is not reason. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington
[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited March 03, 1999).]
Ed Brunner
New member
Dennis;Thank you for your respect.I am honored that this is the first time you have disagreed.
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written they were written in the language of the day.
The "well regulated militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are separate but interrlated.
We need to be able to have a militia to keep an oppressive government off our backs as they had done in their revolution.
Obviously a militia has to be armed.Simple reason suggests that the militia cannot ask the oppressive government for arms.
So our founding fathers formed a government that was forbidden to infringe in any way on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Why do you think the government wants to disarm us?
If you havent noticed,things like disarmament are accomplished incrementally, That is why we cant give an inch. We have already given too much.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written they were written in the language of the day.
The "well regulated militia" and "the right to keep and bear arms" are separate but interrlated.
We need to be able to have a militia to keep an oppressive government off our backs as they had done in their revolution.
Obviously a militia has to be armed.Simple reason suggests that the militia cannot ask the oppressive government for arms.
So our founding fathers formed a government that was forbidden to infringe in any way on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Why do you think the government wants to disarm us?
If you havent noticed,things like disarmament are accomplished incrementally, That is why we cant give an inch. We have already given too much.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
BAB - I think what we'll get is a requirement for basic firearms safety training - the county sherrifs don't want to be responsible for saying "okay, you're trained" and then get sued when someone has an accident. In Colorado now the training requirements range from "no training" to "sit in this class for many hours" depending on what county you live in.
We ARE on the same side here, and it is a small, but I believe important difference that I am trying to resolve for myself (as opposed to trying to inflict my opinions on you).
In "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adams, on page 112, he indicates his opinion of English usage at the time for our Forefathers:
QUOTE-------
A well regulated militia [that is, well functioning, and well trained in the use of ordinary personal firearms] being necessary to the security of a free state [we have seen all the evils attendant to the existence of a standing army and know that our personal and community safety and security, as well as our freedom, must come from ourselves, equipped with our own arms and ammunition, trained (or well regulated) by ourselves] the right of the people [an individual right just as we possess in the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; ......
UNQUOTE-------
I like that definition. IMHO, the Second Amendment not only guarantees our rights, but implies the federal requirement for "the people" to buy arms, ammunition, and practice as we each deem necessary to become trained and maintain proficiency.
-----
How 'bout that, Ed? Let's go shootin'!
In "The Second Amendment Primer" by Les Adams, on page 112, he indicates his opinion of English usage at the time for our Forefathers:
QUOTE-------
A well regulated militia [that is, well functioning, and well trained in the use of ordinary personal firearms] being necessary to the security of a free state [we have seen all the evils attendant to the existence of a standing army and know that our personal and community safety and security, as well as our freedom, must come from ourselves, equipped with our own arms and ammunition, trained (or well regulated) by ourselves] the right of the people [an individual right just as we possess in the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; ......
UNQUOTE-------
I like that definition. IMHO, the Second Amendment not only guarantees our rights, but implies the federal requirement for "the people" to buy arms, ammunition, and practice as we each deem necessary to become trained and maintain proficiency.
-----
How 'bout that, Ed? Let's go shootin'!
I gonna get flammed for this, but here goes....
Technically, it is not a const. right to CARRY a firearm CONCEALED, but simply to own one? I'm not sure on that, so set me straight if I missed something. I live in CO and really have no problem with a training and testing requirment. I'm quit confident I can pass any requirement (reasonalble ofcourse, I can't jump tall buildings in a single bound) they throw at me. I mean come on....I constantly see people complaining of the misconception that all gun owners are kill happy and untrained, wildely shooting at anything that moves. What better way to back up the fact that "I can use this firearm as good or better than you expect me too, give me your best shot!" What better way to prove what we know and how we feel!?
This would be a very effective step in our quest for equality in the world.
Lets face it....firing under stress while on the move without any training is VERY BAD. Are you comfortable thinking that Joe Average just got his gun and after visiting the range a few times, he decides that he's gonna get a CCW?
Does Joe know when and how to pull that gun?
Does Joe know how to hit a target while moving?
Does Joe know how it feels to hit a target while under ANY kind of stress?
Does Joe know about overpenatration?
Is Joe confident that he could hit his intended target without wildely spraying bullets at innocent people? (like your sons and daughters?)
Does Joe ANYTHING about the laws involved with this incredable responsibility?
Granted, 99% of gun owners take responsibility and enjoy practice, practice, practice...I'm one of them. But all it takes is one....and we all lose. Education is the key people...and no one knows we are educated unless we show them that we are. With responsable testing, only those that are qualified, have worked hard and are confident will get the privelidge of CCW.
Technically, it is not a const. right to CARRY a firearm CONCEALED, but simply to own one? I'm not sure on that, so set me straight if I missed something. I live in CO and really have no problem with a training and testing requirment. I'm quit confident I can pass any requirement (reasonalble ofcourse, I can't jump tall buildings in a single bound) they throw at me. I mean come on....I constantly see people complaining of the misconception that all gun owners are kill happy and untrained, wildely shooting at anything that moves. What better way to back up the fact that "I can use this firearm as good or better than you expect me too, give me your best shot!" What better way to prove what we know and how we feel!?
This would be a very effective step in our quest for equality in the world.
Lets face it....firing under stress while on the move without any training is VERY BAD. Are you comfortable thinking that Joe Average just got his gun and after visiting the range a few times, he decides that he's gonna get a CCW?
Does Joe know when and how to pull that gun?
Does Joe know how to hit a target while moving?
Does Joe know how it feels to hit a target while under ANY kind of stress?
Does Joe know about overpenatration?
Is Joe confident that he could hit his intended target without wildely spraying bullets at innocent people? (like your sons and daughters?)
Does Joe ANYTHING about the laws involved with this incredable responsibility?
Granted, 99% of gun owners take responsibility and enjoy practice, practice, practice...I'm one of them. But all it takes is one....and we all lose. Education is the key people...and no one knows we are educated unless we show them that we are. With responsable testing, only those that are qualified, have worked hard and are confident will get the privelidge of CCW.
Ed Brunner
New member
Yes Dennis,we can go shooting!
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Ron S -
No gunnie I know is comfortable with the idea of someone buying a Desert Eagle .50 as his first gun, then hitting the streets with no training.
The problem is that the Feds want to set the training requirements, and those requirements are *not* reasonable. For example, Gov. Owens' requirements can't even be met by Olympic-caliber shooters (and the guv got an earful from me on that one).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a class offered by an certified instructor, and most (if not all) of us recommend that course of action. In El Paso County, the law currently states that you must have taken and passed the 12-hour NRA Basic Of Personal Protection course, and provide the shurf with a copy of the certificate.
Training: hell yes. Government-mandated training: hell no.
No gunnie I know is comfortable with the idea of someone buying a Desert Eagle .50 as his first gun, then hitting the streets with no training.
The problem is that the Feds want to set the training requirements, and those requirements are *not* reasonable. For example, Gov. Owens' requirements can't even be met by Olympic-caliber shooters (and the guv got an earful from me on that one).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a class offered by an certified instructor, and most (if not all) of us recommend that course of action. In El Paso County, the law currently states that you must have taken and passed the 12-hour NRA Basic Of Personal Protection course, and provide the shurf with a copy of the certificate.
Training: hell yes. Government-mandated training: hell no.
Coinneach--couple questions for you (or whoever else can answer). First off, where did you get the info. on Gov. Owen's absurd standards for CCW applicants? I'd like to know what he is doing so I have the facts when I send him my earfull. Second, the text of HB1316 says: "HANDGUN TRAINING CLASS" MEANS ANY HANDGUN SAFETY OR TRAINING CLASS OR COURSE THAT: (a) IS OFFERED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; OR (b) IS OFFERED BY A JUNIOR COLLEGE, COLLEGE, OR UNIVERSITY OR BY A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC INSTITUTION, ORGANIZATION, OR HANDGUN
TRAINING SCHOOL AND USES INSTRUCTORS OR CURRICULUM CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OR BY THE PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS AND TRAINING BOARD; OR IS A CERTIFIED HUNTER SAFETY COURSE; OR IS A FIREARMS TRAINING COURSE PROVIDED FOR CERTIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
There's no mention of standards or who sets the standards, or even if each course needs to adhere to the same standards. My question then is who sets the standards?
TRAINING SCHOOL AND USES INSTRUCTORS OR CURRICULUM CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OR BY THE PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS AND TRAINING BOARD; OR IS A CERTIFIED HUNTER SAFETY COURSE; OR IS A FIREARMS TRAINING COURSE PROVIDED FOR CERTIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
There's no mention of standards or who sets the standards, or even if each course needs to adhere to the same standards. My question then is who sets the standards?
Coinneach,
Well, ya, if an olympic shooter can't do it, I won't be able to either (there's that tall building they want us to leap). Were did you read about Owens proposed training and testing? I'd like to read this. I assumed that training and testing would be similiar to what police\military\reserves would go through. But I agree that Gov mandated training - if it's requirements are so ludicrous that it is impossible to pass - is a very bad idea. I guess I'm being hopeful that IF RESONABLE training\testing is enstated, then there is hope and open mindedness on our way of life. We could once and for all prove at a federal level that we are capable and start turning the tables in our favor just a little. But alas, it seems that this is not the case. If anyone can give me the url for the requirments that mr. owens is proposing, it would be appreciated.
Well, ya, if an olympic shooter can't do it, I won't be able to either (there's that tall building they want us to leap). Were did you read about Owens proposed training and testing? I'd like to read this. I assumed that training and testing would be similiar to what police\military\reserves would go through. But I agree that Gov mandated training - if it's requirements are so ludicrous that it is impossible to pass - is a very bad idea. I guess I'm being hopeful that IF RESONABLE training\testing is enstated, then there is hope and open mindedness on our way of life. We could once and for all prove at a federal level that we are capable and start turning the tables in our favor just a little. But alas, it seems that this is not the case. If anyone can give me the url for the requirments that mr. owens is proposing, it would be appreciated.
If the Federales re-instituted the draft (military, not beer) for both males AND females (gotta have Equal Rights!), then everyone should get a taste of firearms safety, use, etc. Isn't training for war the "ultimate government-mandated training"?
Maybe not. In my 20-year Air Force career, they had me shoot LESS than a thousand rounds. I had to go out and insult/challenge "grunts" so they would make me go shooting with them. (heh, heh.)
(Brer Rabbit: "Oh, please don't throw me in that briar patch." )
Please, NO comments about how I wasn't really in the military. (sigh) I know that!
Maybe not. In my 20-year Air Force career, they had me shoot LESS than a thousand rounds. I had to go out and insult/challenge "grunts" so they would make me go shooting with them. (heh, heh.)
(Brer Rabbit: "Oh, please don't throw me in that briar patch."
)Please, NO comments about how I wasn't really in the military. (sigh) I know that!
Sorry about the slow reply...
I got the information about training requirements from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, via another RMGO member. I wrote to the other member asking for specifics, but so far have not gotten any further info.
And in other news, Colorado SB156 was killed in committee by a vote of 10-3 yesterday afternoon. The bill would have made Colorado a Shall-Issue state. The committee member I and some co-workers contacted was one of the supporters, BTW.
Here's hoping HB1305 goes through and HB1316 gets stomped into the ground...
I got the information about training requirements from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, via another RMGO member. I wrote to the other member asking for specifics, but so far have not gotten any further info.
And in other news, Colorado SB156 was killed in committee by a vote of 10-3 yesterday afternoon. The bill would have made Colorado a Shall-Issue state. The committee member I and some co-workers contacted was one of the supporters, BTW.
Here's hoping HB1305 goes through and HB1316 gets stomped into the ground...
Yes, we Coloradans must push for HB1305. It's tentatively due to be discussed next Tuesday, March 9 in the Senate Local Government Committee. Names of these committee members are here: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/senate/members/slocal.htm Give 'em a call in support of HB1305!
Now, HB1316. Hmmm, in current form, it sucks. But Representative McKay, the House sponsor of SB156, told me that he plans to offer amendments to the bill to bring it up to speed with (the now dead
) Senate bill. He was going to do this at second reading, which is scheduled for today. We'll
see how it goes (or if they even do it...they've been pushing 2nd reading back all week).
Now, HB1316. Hmmm, in current form, it sucks. But Representative McKay, the House sponsor of SB156, told me that he plans to offer amendments to the bill to bring it up to speed with (the now dead
) Senate bill. He was going to do this at second reading, which is scheduled for today. We'llsee how it goes (or if they even do it...they've been pushing 2nd reading back all week).
Mike in VA
New member
CCW in VA costs $50, is good for 5 yrs., and proof of some sort of 'recognized' (military, LEO, NRA, etc) gun safety trainnig is required. The permit is issued the by Clerk of the Circut Court in the county of residience. I live in (liberal)Fairfax county, where the Clerk also likes to 'see' some indication of proficiencey, so I took a course (at a very reasonable $50) that also had a shooting component. Although he can't legally require it, he does like to 'see' it, so if you want a carry permit, you play the game.
I understand and pretty much agree with Ed's position about gov't interference with an inalienable right, but I also agree with Dennis and others in that I sure share the concern and would to know the folks out there packin' have more than a clue about safe practice and the law concerning lethal force, etc. I've seen enough stupid people just at the ranges and I wouldn't want too many of them walking around in public armed if they're any reflection of the gun owning public.
So what's the answer? Some one said that most RESPONSIBLE gun owners take safety and training seriously, but I'm not comfortable with that, as responsible gun owners are a subset, not a superset, of the gun owning population. I also learned in the Army that people do what you INSPECT, not what you EXPECT. I guess what I'm saying is, that pragmatically speaking, if you don't set some sort of legal requirement for CCW training, it ain't gonna happen.
We TGL folks are a self selecting sample, in that were are probably a bit more affluent, educated, computer literate than the population at large, so we shouldn't let our expectations (I haven't heard anyone here who isn't trained) interferre with the reality of the situation - there are a lot of gun owners out there that need basic education just to be safe with a gun in the house, let alone on the street. I don't want to sound paaternalistic, nor do I wish to inflict a mandate, but I don't have another good answer, but IMHO, laisez fare (sp?) don't get it. How can we do better without becoming 'nannies' ourselves?
Off my soap box, everyone have a nice weekend.
M2
[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited March 05, 1999).]
I understand and pretty much agree with Ed's position about gov't interference with an inalienable right, but I also agree with Dennis and others in that I sure share the concern and would to know the folks out there packin' have more than a clue about safe practice and the law concerning lethal force, etc. I've seen enough stupid people just at the ranges and I wouldn't want too many of them walking around in public armed if they're any reflection of the gun owning public.
So what's the answer? Some one said that most RESPONSIBLE gun owners take safety and training seriously, but I'm not comfortable with that, as responsible gun owners are a subset, not a superset, of the gun owning population. I also learned in the Army that people do what you INSPECT, not what you EXPECT. I guess what I'm saying is, that pragmatically speaking, if you don't set some sort of legal requirement for CCW training, it ain't gonna happen.
We TGL folks are a self selecting sample, in that were are probably a bit more affluent, educated, computer literate than the population at large, so we shouldn't let our expectations (I haven't heard anyone here who isn't trained) interferre with the reality of the situation - there are a lot of gun owners out there that need basic education just to be safe with a gun in the house, let alone on the street. I don't want to sound paaternalistic, nor do I wish to inflict a mandate, but I don't have another good answer, but IMHO, laisez fare (sp?) don't get it. How can we do better without becoming 'nannies' ourselves?
Off my soap box, everyone have a nice weekend.
M2
[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited March 05, 1999).]