Went to my CCW Class this past weekend.

B

berreez

Inactive
WOW... I just completed my CCW class this past weekend in Missouri. There were probably 20 people in the class and there were a lot of married couples and women.

Now Missouri is a “shall issue” state and after reviewing the state laws I’ve got to say they are geared towards the CCW holder.

Anyway, what really surprised me was the inexperience of several people. Some had never fired a pistol until that day. The instructors worked hard on the range with them but I just couldn’t help but thinking that they shouldn’t have a permit until they gained some experience.

I don’t what to come off the wrong way but what might happen if they ever had to pull their weapon? I just feel a person needs to be comfortable with a pistol before they ever consider carrying one in public. Now I’m all about protecting oneself, but you shouldn’t put others in danger doing it.
 
Yeah, at my Texas CHL class we had one guy show up with a Ruger P95 and a zip-loc bag filled with various reloads this guy had managed to scrounge up, they actually jammed his P95 several times during the shooting test and as anyone with a Ruger P95 knows they usually feed rocks.

We also had an elderly man in a wheelchair with some sort of compact 1911, he lacked the hand strength to rack the slide on the gun, and also managed to shoot his neighbor's target several times. Turns out he had never fired the pistol before either and had a number of malfunctions, which caused the instructor to admonish the class to never carry a weapon without first function-testing it.
 
An age old problem: How do you legislate wisdom and common sense? What follows will be a debate on the rights of people to arm themselves under the second amendment versus the need perceived by some to assure that they do so safely. There is a cultural issue in play, in that knowledge of firearm safety was far more common in the day that the second amendment was written than it is now. But regulating ownership, possession, and use of firearms puts a foot on the slippery slope of regulating a fundamental right. Opponents of the second amendment have demonstrated a willingness to use any small concession as an opening in which to drive a wedge with a goal of eliminating private ownership of firearms. This issue is less simple than some on either side would make it out to be, but that militancy by antis has had the effect of a necessary hardening of the positions of those who defend 2A rights. What you saw was a manifestation of the legitimacy of that debate. If only it could be conducted honestly without hidden agendas on the part of firearm opponents.
 
Last edited:
You will never cease to be amazed at the lack or research and practice people do before jumping into something... regardless of how dangerous it can be.
 
I am going to take my ccw class soon berreez. As I am in the St. Louis area I was wondering where you took yours and How were the instructors? I'll probably take mine at the range/school I am a member of. Thankfully, I have yet to run into any problems with the employee's or other members.
 
They have the same right to a weapon and a permit as anyone else. I've met such folks, you can mention the evenings each week you are at the range, offer to give some pointers, and then actually spend some time with one or two of them, that would be proactive approach to what you perceive as a problem.

You do not want to see a training requirement for your CCW, that will be a matter of law, and the politicians write laws. The anti-gun folks would just love to require $900 courses over six months of time, and competency certificates, weeks to get signatures, denials of permits, and of course big fees for all. Policies like that would probably kill more innocents than any number of wild misses or malfunctions.

I'll take my chances with the citizenry, thanks.
 
berreez, you raise a valid concern about safety.

TailGator addresses a few of the most critical areas which come in to conflict concerning the government's role is issuing a concealed weapon's permit.

Consider, you may distinguish between the role of government in issuing the permit to carry from imposing criminal penalties or civil penalties for a person who misuses a firearm.

Some states have no training requirement.

Some people feel that the role of government in issuing a permit to carry a concealed weapon is satisfied when the state determines the the person applying for the permit is an adult citizen of the state who has not been convicted of a prohibited act (felony or possibly other acts) or been adjudicated a mental defective. The issuance of a concealed weapon's permit is not a certificate of competence in the use of deadly force.

States can deal with misuse of a firearm with the existing laws on the books.

Is the role of the government to make you safe or keep you safe? I submit that it is not. That is your responsibility.
 
I teach Basic Handgun, which provides the necessary training for a CHP here in Colorado. It's amazing what people do. I've seen folks actually unpack their brand-new gun in the class. I've had gals buy guns that they couldn't handle b/c a well-meaning male told them to get a .40 instead of a 9mm or whatever. I've had the loud-mouth know-it-all who couldn't operate his gun. You name it.

Ideally, they should have a certain level of capability beforehand, but at least they are going through the steps to get initial training.
 
I had no ccw class, I had common sense though.

Fired five hundred rds through my gun before I carried, still wasn't comfortable enough to carry chambered after the first year.
 
Funny story

My best buddy's little sister and I were pretty tight growing up. I don't see her very often anymore since I moved away from home, but last summer I had come home from college and was standing in the street talking to a neighbor and fellow firearm enthusiast when she comes walking up behind us. To my astonishment, she told me the her and her boyfriend had decided to get CCW permits. The following is a rough reenactment of the conversation that followed:

Me: Oh, wow. Does he shoot?
Her: He has before, but not a lot. His dad is going to pass a gun down to him and we're going to scrounge up the pennies to get me one at the same time.
Me: Do you know what you're getting?
Her: We picked something out the other day, but I can't remember what it was called.
Me: Maybe a [named several popular, inexpensive ccw guns to try to prompt her to remember]?
Her: I just can't remember...
Me: Was it a semi auto or a revolver?
Her: ...I'm not sure...
Me: Well...ugh...do you maybe remember what caliber it was?
Her: THAT'S IT! It was a "caliber"!
Me: ...

:confused:
 
I've left loaded guns with my wife when leaving the house. No way she could load the gun on her own but she only needed to know where it was, how to release the safety, how to point it at the bad guy, and how to pull the trigger. I'd leave it up to her to know when her life is in danger since that is not rocket science either.

Everyone has a right to defend their lives. That's not dependant on anybody elses sense of superiority.
 
Thanks for the comments, but some of you are taking what I said a little too far. I never said anything about be superior to anyone. My concern was what might happen to innocents if/and when these inexperienced CCW holders have to pull their weapon. I for one wouldn’t be surprised that the ones in my class didn’t end up shooting themselves and having the BG take their weapon.
I’m all for the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect yourself, but I feel you should have at least fired a weapon before the day you became “qualified” to carry it.
Hey, I’m an old retired 82nd Airborne 1SG who had years of training with fire arms and when I was fired upon during the Gulf War I still was afraid. BUT I feel the training is what saved my rear-end. Untrained civilians scare me…………:(
 
This comes up every 2-3 months,,,

And that's not to say the topic is a bad thing,,,
But every time it does come up you have the same two sides arguing it out.

One side says there should be mandated training before issuing a permit,,,
The other side says no training should be government mandated.

Personally I thing kilimanjaro said it all:

You do not want to see a training requirement for your CCW, that will be a matter of law, and the politicians write laws. The anti-gun folks would just love to require $900 courses over six months of time, and competency certificates, weeks to get signatures, denials of permits, and of course big fees for all.
Click to expand...

But here's how I think it would be implemented:
Legislators will establish an Agency and give them regulatory powers.
Then that agency can make rules that have the force of law all by themselves.

In case you are wondering,,,
That's what our lovely BATFE is right now.

So, on one level we will all (or most of us) agree that some level of training rather than just a legal orientation would be a good thing,,,
But most of us (at least I hope so) would be against government mandated training to obtain a permit.

There was a young lady in my class who had never shot a handgun in her life,,,
It scared the heck out of me that this person would be able to carry a gun,,,
Believe me that the agency would think the same thing,,,
And require so much training she couldn't afford it.

That's backdoor gun control at it's finest,,,
Creating an environment where only the affluent can exercise their rights.

Just my not-so-humble opinion
Your mileage may vary.

Aarond
 
So far we haven't seen a big difference in performance of concealed carry types between training and no training states.

However, the level of 'training' in CCW classes is rather minimal.
 
The Colorado legislature is in the process of attempting a "Constitutional Carry" law. I am going through an NRA Instructor Training class this weekend, and our instructors are dead set against this law. They site fears of people being arrested in mass for things like brandishing, menacing, and that type of thing because they do not know the laws. I suppose their concern may be somewhat justified, although indication from other states with Constutional Carry have not shown that to be a big problem. I suspect that our instructors, as good of guys as they are, may be somewhat motivated in their beliefs by the idea that people will not have to pay them $150 for a class before they can carry. My thoughts are that in the long run, those that are serious will seek training on their own accord, and those that are not will stop packing within a few weeks. And if the state does not roll out a campaign to inform the public of the basics of the new law, the training industry should. What better way to get some good publicity, and encourage people to come to them for training to better themselves. :)
 
berreez

Thanks for the comments, but some of you are taking what I said a little too far. I never said anything about be superior to anyone. My concern was what might happen to innocents if/and when these inexperienced CCW holders have to pull their weapon. I for one wouldn’t be surprised that the ones in my class didn’t end up shooting themselves and having the BG take their weapon.
I’m all for the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect yourself, but I feel you should have at least fired a weapon before the day you became “qualified” to carry it.
Hey, I’m an old retired 82nd Airborne 1SG who had years of training with fire arms and when I was fired upon during the Gulf War I still was afraid. BUT I feel the training is what saved my rear-end. Untrained civilians scare me…………
Click to expand...

You have to distinguish between the government's duty to protect citizens from regulating citizen's actions where no conflict of rights is present.

Clearly after someone has shot someone else there is a conflict of rights; and then the criminal justice system gets involved. However, prior to someone taking an action which creates a conflict, should the government act with prior restraint? Merely because someone is not "qualified" should the government prohibit that person from carrying a firearm? Should the government only act after someone has acted to violate someone else's rights?

Personal responsibility dictates that one who chooses to carry a concealed weapon get training in the applicable law, defensive tactics, safety, and learn quite a bit about how firearms function and how cartridges and bullets function before they actually begin carrying. It also requires sufficient practice to become competent with the firearm chosen.

Laws already exist which address those acts which violate someone's right to life, liberty and property.

So distinguish between what, when and how the government should do things from what the individual should/must do for themselves as a responsible adult.
 
Last edited:
This happend right here in Missouri on 03-09-11 and makes my point . I feel for his family.

Missouri man accidentally shoots self at gun class
The Associated Press
Posted on March 9, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Updated Wednesday, Mar 9 at 3:51 PM

MOUNTAIN GROVE, Mo. (AP) -- A part-time police dispatcher in southwest Missouri died after accidentally shooting himself while taking a class to obtain a concealed carry gun permit.

Authorities say 63-year-old Glenn Seymour of Mountain Grove died after shooting himself in the chest Saturday at a class in rural Douglas County

Sheriff Chris Degase says witnesses reported that Seymour was injured while trying to take the safety off a Browning semi-automatic 9 mm weapon.

Degase calls the death a tragic accident.
 
berreez,

That incident doesn't make your point for you. Here's a link to a recreation of what the shooter did in that class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7AMMF7WaB8

The video was made by a well known CCW instructor in MO, after he consulted with the officers who investigated the incident.

What it amounts to is that a state-licensed CCW instructor was trying to teach a very advanced skill to beginning students in a brief, 8-hour class. The skill was not and is not required for obtaining a carry permit in MO (nor in any other state I'm aware of). It's an unlikely skillset for a regular citizen to need; with only 8 hours in the class, regardless of what the state did or did not require, I'd think the instructor would do better to concentrate on skills with a much higher likelihood of being needed. And that skillset should never be taught with live firearms, unloaded or no -- it's a dummy-gun situation for sure.

This wasn't a case of an ignorant new shooter demonstrating how stupid new people can be with firearms if they haven't had a class. (Thus, doesn't make your case for you.) Rather, it's a case of a firearms instructor telling his students to do something they absolutely should not have been doing without adequate safeguards that were not present, and one of his students paying the ultimate price for it.

pax
 
"They have the same right to a weapon and a permit as anyone else. I've met such folks, you can mention the evenings each week you are at the range, offer to give some pointers, and then actually spend some time with one or two of them, that would be proactive approach to what you perceive as a problem.

You do not want to see a training requirement for your CCW, that will be a matter of law, and the politicians write laws. The anti-gun folks would just love to require $900 courses over six months of time, and competency certificates, weeks to get signatures, denials of permits, and of course big fees for all. Policies like that would probably kill more innocents than any number of wild misses or malfunctions.

I'll take my chances with the citizenry, thanks. "

QFT, from someone who has worked with the Gov't for over 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top