Thoughts on CCW classes...

Mandatory CCW training is the product of a political process several steps removed from the question of achieving reasonable practical proficiency with a handgun. So it's not unexpected that successful completion of a required CCW class doesn't necessarily prepare one adequately for the street.

While we don't need (or shouldn't need) government telling us we must have training, the wise and responsible gun owner, especially one who plans to carry a loaded gun in public or keep a gun for self defense, will voluntarily get training (well beyond anything required by government) to be safe, proficient and to understand his legal responsibilities.

It may be one's right not to get training (beyond anything required by government). But if someone makes that choice, don't expect me to congratulate him for it.
 
It may be one's right not to get training (beyond anything required by government). But if someone makes that choice
Click to expand...

unfortunately, that's what I see a lot of at these classes... I guess I don't know how many actually carry, since I don't personally know all the attendees...

but if you remember the "gun marches" after the last school shooting & the government's knee jerk reaction, the news was full of accidental shootings at the rally's & gun shows that weekend... may have been highly "sensationalized" but... unsafe, uneducated gun owners, make it easy for the news to make us ( as a group ) look like a bunch of careless idiots...

I guess this is my problem, IMO, if we are "forced" to take a class, I don't want careless or uneducated people passing the class, then showing up in the news, making me look like an idiot to my neighbors...
 
I imagine all across the country as people are taking more interest in guns and carrying concealed, quality instructors are going to be tougher to find. I could tell my own horror stories from the class I took up here in Alaska about ten years ago. Now Alaskans no longer have to have the license to carry concealed, not sure if thats a bad or a good thing, considering every yahoo who wasnt carrying before is now.
 
I honestly I feel the classes offered around here are too easy, they don't spend enough time with legalese ( where you can carry, where you can't ) & even if you could hit the broad side of a barn with your gun on the range...
Click to expand...

IME, Paul Horvick does an excellent job re: legal issues....

He's south of Detroit Lakes, but will travell to give classes.

http://shootingsafely.com/2201.html

As for practical instruction/training, that is up to the permit holder: If you want to get good, or even Great with your pistol, that is up to you, and there are great instructors out there. It should not be a requirement for being able to Carry. The first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun.
 
Quote:
Magnum Wheel Man; I have to agree that anyone who assumes the right of armed self-defense also needs to assume the responsibility of competence.

Training should not be a mandatory requirement for carrying or using a weapon in self-defense. If a person uses a weapon such as a gun in self-defense but injures an innocent, willing or not, he or she will be held accountable.
Click to expand...

Thats not, in any way, a confidence inspiring statement...
 
I’ll preface by saying: Texas requires an all day class with a shooting component. There is a written test and a shooting test (scoring required, but not difficult). The classes are typically expensive and the permit likewise is $150 if IIRC.
My classes have been by two different instructors (original and renewal) but at the same range. Both also understood the importance of providing quality barbeque. The first instructor was the better CHL instructor, the second was a better instructor for learning actual shooting techniques.

IGNORING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD A TEST REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE For my $.02 I believe you should get what you pay for.

The class should teach three things.
1. The actual law.
2. Potential scenarios on justifiable and non justifiable use.
3. Conflict avoidance or resolution techniques.
I feel there is great effort on items related to the test. There is very little on conflict resolution and on when you can/can’t draw. The classes seem to focus on where you can or can’t carry and very basic run through on when you can use/can’t.


I hate when the newb CHLers are at the range practicing before their shoot. Most are horrific and even my (then 12 year old) daughter commented on how badly they shoot.
 
Making training mandatory is counter to the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, depending on the requirements, its not actually. Bill of Rights protections generally can have slight limitations, the extent of which depends on stare decisis related to each Amendment. However, if the requirement is not invasive, it could definitely be made a right, especially as CHLing can be argued to an actively beyond mere "castle protection."
 
Since the Second Amendment is to protect our right to keep and bear arms (from government infringement) which is as much a civil right as free speech and freedom of religion, I would argue that the government shall not place any training requirement for people to exercise their civil rights. If government can set a bar of "training" before someone can have their civil rights; then we have no civil rights. While a firearm is only a tool, and not a civil right; it is necessary for one to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

You must distinguish what is a constitutional government action and what is a desirable personal action. I submit that training is the realm of the individual. Freedom includes the freedom to fail. With millions of individuals there will be an infinite variety of reason that one may choose various levels of training, or no training at all. While I may seek education in the law, training at well qualified firearms establishments multiple times, and train weekly; I would not seek to impose my wishes on others. Nor would I expect that I be subject to the whims of others in exercise of my freedom.
 
Given the leeway, politicians would surely come up with standards that almost no one could meet or even afford. I am of the beleif that a half page of text telling them the rules, the liabilities, and the limitations. with a good dose of pounding the "accountability for each bullet" factor into their heads is as far as the state needs to go. It should leave them with a desire to get training and become the safest, most diligent, and law abbiding gun toter on the planet. I'm a certified NRA Basic Pistol Instructor and although that class qualifies a person for CCW in Colorado, I dont believe it comes close to preparing a person to carry a gun on a regular basis. I hope that people will get training as part of their own desire to be responsible, not just to satisfy a requirement and get a certificate.:)
 
I've been hanging around here for a few month learning things and I know I don't have much say in this, as I don't have my permit yet. In fact I'm going to a class in 3 weeks. But I find it interesting to read what people are thinking about us "newbies".

I never shot a handgun before. I have shot some rifles and I own a shotgun that I go to the range with once in a while (clays and sometimes slugs). So, where I may have a handle on range rules, I have no idea how I will do when it comes to handguns. In CT you are required to take a class in order to get your gun permit/ccw permit (all-in-one permit).

Anyway... while looking for a class to take, I noticed that most of these trainers held classes with 20-30 people in it. I think that is outrageous to try to "train" that many people in a 7 to 8 hour class (classroom and range). Not to mention that these people get charged on average $150 to take this class. These "classes" are just a "wink and a nod" type deal if you ask me.. you pay them, you go through the motions and you get you paperwork for the state.

I think it is a responsibility of the person who is trying to get the permit to choose wisely if they actually want to learn anything. There are instructors out there that will only hold small class sizes (up to four max) or even only one-on-one classes. I would think 8 hours with 1 to 4 persons would net better results then 8 hours with 30 people.

So, for myself.. I wanted to actually learn something. I signed up for a very small class with an instructor with a credential list a mile long. He specifically states that he focuses on safety, law, understanding of handguns and how they work. he also will make sure you have proper shooting technique with both revolvers and semi-autos, in at least 3 calibers while at the range. I hope I did good in my choice and will find out in 3 weeks!.
 
WASP... just the fact that you are posting here, gives me a clue, that you are more than the average newbie, you have the desire to learn, etc....

... & while I agree with the "constitutional right" thing... &, that just about anyone on here falls into the "more educated" portion of shooters, because they are actually taking an interest rather than someone just doing the minimum to exercise their right...

... however, just how painful would it be for any of us, if your spouse, or child were killed by some "uneducated" person exercising their constitutional right, but your family member dies because of an AD that could have easily been avoided by training.... your family member dies, because someone chose not to get training, & was purely exercising their constitutional right to carry...

my problem with it, which I think makes this issue more difficult to find a solution to, is "you" ( Joe average who does nothing more, ( gets no additional training ) but exercising your constitutional right ) puts mine & my families lives at risk, with your ignorance... while writing the last paragraph, I'm thinking of the idiot that pulled the trigger on an "unloaded" shotgun, pointed into the croud, at a gun show, to show it was unloaded, & put several people in the hospital ( I think this happened during the week of all the gun marches, as it was sensationalized in the news that week )
 
Last edited:
There is no mandatory training required to purchase, own or use a firearm here in the United States. Have you stopped to consider the reasons WHY there has been no mandatory requirement for 225 years?
 
now we are starting to get too political for me...

but how is requiring training "actually" countering the 2nd amendment ???

if that training is easily available for everyone, I don't see it as anti 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
Think about it...

Q. Who gets to decide the training standards?
A. "The government".

Q. Who gets to decide what manner of proof of training is required?
A. "The government".

Q. Who gets to decide the standards the trainers must meet.
A. "The government".

Q. What is the Second Amendment really about?
A. Giving the people the tools necessary to fight "The government".

Begging permission from "The government" to possess the tools needed to fight "The government" defeats the Second Amendment.



Now to address your safety concerns...

A caged bird is "safe".
Just not free.

Don't sacrifice your freedom for the illusion of safety.

Everyday you are surrounded by dangerous people.
And many of these people are armed with firearms, some legal and some illegal.
Making laws that infringe on the Second Amendment will not make you any more safe.
No gun law will make you safe.
 
Training is not counter to the second amendment. IIRC, "well-regulated" meant, among other things back in those days, well-trained.
 
Training is not counter to the second amendment. IIRC, "well-regulated" meant, among other things back in those days, well-trained.
Click to expand...
If the framers of the Constitution had wanted mandatory training as a requirement for gun ownership they would have put it in the Constitution.

They did say that the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Making training mandatory would certainly be an infringement.

There is no mandatory "training" required in order to exercise our other Constitutional Rights, and for good reason...they are our RIGHTS.
Not government granted privileges.

And again, no gun law will make this world any safer.
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun deaths are carried out by criminals who don't obey laws.

Gun laws are just another way to try and disarm the people of this nation so that they no longer have the tools to resist "The government".
 
I didn't say it should be mandatory, rather that the second amendment does indeed address this issue - A well-regulated militia... What that really means is a well-trained and running group of citizens.

The elephant in the room is *who* decides the training and how much. I'm fine with people owning firearms without training and don't have problems with people convicted of crimes having firearms. It's what one does with them that should be the concern. A felon has just as much right to defend themselves as gramma.

My point is that the second amendment does indeed address the issue of training.

BTW, I don't see where I can quote a response for replies. Where is it?
 
When i took my ccw class at my gun club, the instructor asked afterwards what i thought.I told her that after having been an M.P.,and getting a B.A. in criminal justice i felt it was lacking.Also that some of both the instructors and students left me feeling leery of their skills.She said it met the state requirement,and it was to give people with zero knowledge a first step.She also said that she recommends to everyone, that they take classes to further their training ,but no one would probably do it.
 
What that really means is a well-trained and running group of citizens.
Click to expand...
No, the 2nd Amendment is in the "Bill of Rights" which refers to individual Rights, not group Rights.
It would be odd, to say the least, if the framers of the Constitution had made the first 10 amendments individual Rights except the 2nd one.
That would make no sense whatsoever.
 
Here's another perspective:

  1. The usual CCW class, where one is required, will run one or (rarely) two days. It will generally be weighted toward the legal issues.

  2. The standard, first level class at Gunsite is five days (although they offer an abbreviated class). The standard, first level class at Front Sight runs four days. Those are most heavily weighted toward shooting skills.

  3. Massad Ayoob's first level class (MAG-40) runs 40 hours, split roughly 20 hours shooting and 20 hours legal/social/tactical issues.

  4. The full curriculum for NRA Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home classes, including the advanced material optional in the personal protection classes, would take, probably, four to six days to cover adequately.

  5. There is no way that a required CCW class or eight hours (or less) to sixteen hours would be able to cover 40 to 50 hours of material.

  6. And really, the first level Gunsite/Front Sight/MAG-40/NRA Basic plus the two personal protection classes are just a start.
 
No, the 2nd Amendment is in the "Bill of Rights" which refers to individual Rights, not group Rights.
It would be odd, to say the least, if the framers of the Constitution had made the first 10 amendments individual Rights except the 2nd one.
That would make no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about. You need to do a little more reading of the Federalist Papers. I don't disagree whatsoever that the right to bear arms is an individual right but what the framers were talking about were well-trained citizens who form the body of an unorganized militia.

Think of it this way: they were saying to keep ourselves free from tyranny, citizens should be trained to arms and there should be no infringement on owning them.

The intent and thinking is all in the Federalist Papers.

Edited to add that while I have a CCP from two states and am former LE, I don't believe that we should have to get permits to carry firearms. I believe the NFA is wrong as is the GC on 1968. I believe I should be able to buy pretty much any firearm the military or police use. It's what we do with that right that matters, not that we exercise it. In other words, prosecute the bad guys that use arms to commit crimes.

But that doesn't mean the training shouldn't be something EVERYONE who owns a firearm should do. The problem is *who* decides what that training should be. Sure as hell, NOT the government, especially the current one!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top