Colorado CCW Training Warning

[bbadmin]

I got an email last week from a Deputy Sheriff in the Denver Metro Area. He is in charge of the CCW program at his particular Sheriff's Department. He asked that I pass on some information to whoever wanted to listen.

The Colorado Sheriff's Association (CSOC) has begun to routinely audit CCW permit applications for the validity of training credentials. They have found that there are numerous schools and or instructors out there that are not "valid." That is to say, they have not bee certified as an instructor by an approved training provider, and or, their instructor certification was expired at the time they taught the class.

If the instructor is not certified by a provider recognized by the state, or his instructor certification was expired or invalid for some reason, then the Sheriff will not approve your application for a CCW. Apparently there is now a move within CSOC to legislate a fix for this. This will probably mean that in the future to teach a CCW class you will need to be approved by the state, or certified by the state in some manner or fashion. Much like Arizona or Utah do now.

In the meantime, if you take a CCW class, please verify that your instructor is who he says he is, and that his teaching credentials are valid. If not then you may have wasted a lot of time and money.




.

[adam223]

Jefferson County has revised their process. I assume as a result of the same audit. New applicants have to provide a copy of your instructor's certificate and instructor's wallet card.

4.) A copy of the instructor's "original certification" certificate and a copy of the "instructor's card" (wallet-size), which shows their certification expiration date.

Jeffco Sheriff's CCW site:
http://www.jeffco.us/sheriff/sheriff_T62_R9.htm

[KarlPMann]

Hmmm, funny that they do that. I seem to recall that my instructor made sure to give me a copy of his just in case it was needed. Good foresight on that instructors part I guess. :wink: Karl.

[FuntKlakow]

Couldn't have said that better.
_______________
Surf the Net anonymously, bypass school/work Web filters! (http://www.mybigproxy.com/)

[Hyunchback]

It seems very funky to me that they want to have close examination of the credentials of firearms trainers but not other types of instructors.

When you go to get your driver's license for the first time do they ask to see your instructor's credentials? Nope. Not at all. In fact you only need to prove that you can operate a vehicle in a safe manner and there is a person there to administer this test.

I'm not a pilot but I wonder if when you apply for a pilot's license if you need to show the credentials of your flight school instructor.

It seems strange to me that one can operate a car without any check on who it was that taught you are required to make sure your instructor in firearms handling has his credentials up to date.

[mr_will]

prior military :mrgreen:

but im actually lookin at a couple of classes because i want them, thanks for the heads up

[Ernie Mazza]

I am gfoing through the same crappola here in Ks. I was told that before i can even apply for a CCW I need to get the training. The Ks law has provisions for retired LEO but I have been out for eight years so I am right at the limit. Trying to find an instructor who has the credentials is a pain since the law just passed and no one knows what is required yet.
Fed Law passed in 02 that said i can carry any place in the US but I did not feel i should since every one else was forbidden here I would not just because i was a retired LEO. Same thing now i will go to the class when ever they figure out who, what, and where. I should be sort of fun, sort of like when i was teaching basic life support and had to recert a bunch of ER Doctors and Nurses. But I will be on the other end now.

[MuzzleFlash]

...Fed Law passed in 02 that said i can carry any place in the US but I did not feel i should since every one else was forbidden here I would not just because i was a retired LEO....I would do it if your former department will support it on the paperwork end. If nothing else, having the federal permit could keep you out of trouble if travelling through any number of communist states such as Kali, Illinois, NJ, etc.

[SigsRule]

FYI, I was a FAA cerfied flight instructor for about 28 years. Any student going to the FAA for a check ride will definitely have their logbook scrutinized by the FAA to look for the credentials of the instructor. It never happened to me but I've heard of the FAA doing 'ramp checks' and checking the credentials of instructors.

[<MADDOG>]

For the few who don't know it, El Paso (maybe CO?) accepts the Hunter's Safety Course for the training requirement. I found that out when I took the class last year, and it may be a boring couple days (half the class was kids), but it's cheaper than alot of the CCW classes I see around.

I exceeded the CCW window for the vet requirement, and I was pleased to know I killed two birds with one stone.

[spqrzilla]

For the few who don't know it, El Paso (maybe CO?) accepts the Hunter's Safety Course for the training requirement. I found that out when I took the class last year, and it may be a boring couple days (half the class was kids), but it's cheaper than alot of the CCW classes I see around.

That's odd because I am pretty sure that it does not meet the statutory requirements, and the DOW does not want the hunter safety course to qualify. Did the instructor claim this?

I teach hunter ed as a volunteer for the DOW and this has been made clear several times by DOW.

[Great-Kazoo]

a hunter safety card is accepted providing it was issued within 2-3 yrars i believe.
when the law was based on discrection of the local sheriff. larimer cty accepted a HS card providing it was within X years while weld cty did not accept it.

[spqrzilla]

Sure enough El Paso sheriff's webpage does say that they will accept a hunter safety card. DOW did not want the hunter education course to qualify and specifically lobbied against its inclusion in the statute.

That will be a topic of discussion at the next DOW HE instructor's meeting I suppose.

[Great-Kazoo]

Sure enough El Paso sheriff's webpage does say that they will accept a hunter safety card. DOW did not want the hunter education course to qualify and specifically lobbied against its inclusion in the statute.

That will be a topic of discussion at the next DOW HE instructor's meeting I suppose.

it's been in there since statewide CCW took effect

[Trin Tragula]

My wife just applied for hers in Larimer County. They accepted her hunter safety card. Said that as as long as it was within 10 years it was OK.

[cowxguy]

Does anyone know of a Hunters safety class, and a concealed carry class in or near clear creek county?

[Irving]

I'm curious if participating in an IDPA match qualifies you to get the permit. According to the rules where it says, "Documented participation in an organized shooting event." it seems like it would. $15 for a match is a little cheaper than $150 for a course.

[Chaffee2]

Kind of on the same subject. Do any of you know if shooting is a requirement to get a CCW in Colorado? The reason I ask is because I was in a local gunshop and these 2 people came in wanting CCW pistols. The owner of the shop was quizzing them on what they wanted brand, type etc. One of the people dropped the bomb shell they had no idea what they wanted as neither one had ever fired a gun in their lives. WTH?

I didn't hear the instructors name so I'm not sure who taught the class or in what county he is from but apparently he talked to them for a couple of hours and gave them a cert.

[Irving]

No, shooting is not required in Colorado.

[tonantius]

I applied in February and received my CCW in May from Jefferson County. I presented an NRA training certificate. My instructors were NRA certified. The only question asked was if the cert was an original or a copy. I said "Copy, but I have the original right here if you need to see the watermarks." The clerk said that it was not necessary to see the original.

[Sticks]

No, shooting is not required in Colorado.

Spooky thought isn't it.

Never handle or fire a handgun (or any firearm) in your life, sit through the most basic 5 hour class available, and there you go.

Thank the gods we have not had any incidents.

[SA Friday]

Seriously, who here thinks spending a couple of hundred bucks for quality training is too expensive? Hunter's Safety Card? Come on... We are talking about carrying a loaded pistol, shooting and killing someone situations.

I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but I'm going to get this side of the issue out anyway. There should be NO CCW approved unless the individual has had sufficient training and passed a basic live fire standard. You have to take a written and driving test for a car for god's sake to show understanding and competence. Unfortunately, the law isn't written like that.

IMO, the standard should somewhere along the lines of the NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside the Home course. You can't pass the written and shooting tests, guess you better practice and study some more. My 14 year old step daughter can pass the course, then again she actually shoots competitions pretty regular. So, she get the practice and instruction needed.

The law doesn't mandate that level of training, but does that mean you should short stroke the training to save a few bucks? I hope you don't. You might be shooting around someone I care about.

[Batteriesnare]

Seriously, who here thinks spending a couple of hundred bucks for quality training is too expensive? Hunter's Safety Card? Come on... We are talking about carrying a loaded pistol, shooting and killing someone situations.

I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but I'm going to get this side of the issue out anyway. There should be NO CCW approved unless the individual has had sufficient training and passed a basic live fire standard. You have to take a written and driving test for a car for god's sake to show understanding and competence. Unfortunately, the law isn't written like that.

IMO, the standard should somewhere along the lines of the NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside the Home course. You can't pass the written and shooting tests, guess you better practice and study some more. My 14 year old step daughter can pass the course, then again she actually shoots competitions pretty regular. So, she get the practice and instruction needed.

The law doesn't mandate that level of training, but does that mean you should short stroke the training to save a few bucks? I hope you don't. You might be shooting around someone I care about.


Actually I agree with you 100&#37;. I wish that a marksmanship test was required, I know that it was definitely part of the class I took, or at least the perception was there. I would think that they would want you to shoot under stress as well, even if its only running 50 yards before having to make shots (I know, some people can't do this, so I suppose its not really a viable option.) but I do think that some form of marksmanship proficiency should be demonstrated. If your loved one was being held or threatened, wouldn't you want me to be able to shoot accurately?

[Bailey Guns]

It's not a matter of receiving quality training. It's a matter of what the law requires. It's also a matter of this whole "people should have to shoot to qualify" argument as a solution in search of a problem.

AK and VT require nothing...other than you be legally allowed to own/possess a firearm. I don't recall hearing a lot of problems coming out of those states with people carrying guns and having accidents where innocents are harmed.

The bottom line is this. As soon as the gov't has the ability to make you "qualify", how long will it be before they make the qualification standards so stringent that few people will be able to pass them? I'd be extremely careful about wishing for more gov't restrictions on your right to carry if I were you. Also, if training is so important to minimizing accidents, why is it that by some estimates police officers shoot the wrong person at a rate about 6.5 times higher in armed confrontaions than legally armed citizens? Should I remind you of the "I'm the only one professional enough" video?

As soon as someone can show me statistics that prove a minimum level of training - or no training at all - is not sufficient for issuance of a permit, I'll change my opinion. Are there isolated incidents of permit holders causing negligent harm? Of course. Are there enough to warrant mandatory qualification training? No way! Until then, I think it's gonna take a lot more than comparing the God-given right to self-defense with operating a car to get me to change my mind.

And before you use the "training is required to operate a car" argument, you might consider how well all that training works to keep people from harming themselves or others with their car. That's a pretty lame argument and doesn't stand up well under scrutiny.

[SA Friday]

It's completely a matter of training and practice. That's why even the lowliest Airman in the Air Force gets firarms training... Wow, even the military figured that one out.

Vehicle training comparison is completely valid. You want to see a country where no driving training or licensing is required? I have. They are ripe with incompetence leading to death.

I fully agree it's everyone's given right to defend themselves, and even own a gun within the boundries of the law. It's also everyone's right to breed, but hey, we all know not everyone should be doing that either.

Don't even get me started on LE firearms skills. I'm a retired Fed for the USAF. As a whole they suck, but they don"t suck as bad as those who don't get training and practice with CCW's. I've shot with both.

I used to think I was a pretty damn good shot with any gun. Then I woke up and got training by professionals and have practiced my ass off.

[Bailey Guns]

4 years as a "Red Hat" in the AF. I know what military "training" is all about.

For the average person, it's still a solution in search of a problem.

[Bongo Boy]

Seriously, who here thinks spending a couple of hundred bucks for quality training is too expensive? Hunter's Safety Card? Come on... We are talking about carrying a loaded pistol, shooting and killing someone situations.

I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but I'm going to get this side of the issue out anyway. There should be NO CCW approved unless the individual has had sufficient training and passed a basic live fire standard. You have to take a written and driving test for a car for god's sake to show understanding and competence. Unfortunately, the law isn't written like that.

IMO, the standard should somewhere along the lines of the NRA Basics of Personal Protection Outside the Home course. You can't pass the written and shooting tests, guess you better practice and study some more. My 14 year old step daughter can pass the course, then again she actually shoots competitions pretty regular. So, she get the practice and instruction needed.

The law doesn't mandate that level of training, but does that mean you should short stroke the training to save a few bucks? I hope you don't. You might be shooting around someone I care about.I also agree...it's just dumb, and it shortchanges folks by giving them a dangerously false sense of security. Not to mention they're a danger to themselves and everyone around them. You don't learn how to avoid accidents, hit your target (and nothing else) by chatting about it in a classroom; however, I'd prefer the requirement be evidence of demonstrated safety and basic proficiency rather than proof of training, if the training is worthless. It's comical that there's far more rigor around getting a ham radio license.

Makes you wonder how many CCW people carry a weapon yet can't get the gun out of the holster (and recover to the holster) without an accidental discharge, or how many could clear a jam at all, let alone in a hurry. Not to mention the number of folks who have no idea what sort of targets they can actually hit vs just 'shoot at'. Such training, with no portion devoted to the weapon itself, is a disservice to the public.

It's a little goofy to conclude training doesn't do any good because there's so much 'evidence' that the highly trained screw up more than the untrained or that, in spite of training, folks still get hurt. I believe that if drivers in Colorado knew what a two-lane turn is, what a solid white line means, or that you can't merge onto the freeway by stopping...life would surely be better. Again, I'm not convinced it's the government's job to require training--but I'm okay with a requirement to pass a written and a practical, and I'll risk the chance of a government conspiracy designed to ensure no one passes the tests.

[Bailey Guns]

I also agree...it's just dumb, and it shortchanges folks by given them a dangerously false sense of security. Not to mention they're a danger to themselves and everyone around them. You don't learn how to avoid accidents, hit your target (and nothing else) by chatting about it in a classroom.

Makes you wonder how many CCW people carry a weapon yet can't get the gun out of the holster (and recover to the holster) without an accidental discharge, or how many could clear a jam at all, let alone in a hurry.

I'll ask again though I know any answer will be based on "feelings" rather than fact...much like the post above. What evidence do you have that permit holders, regardless of their level of training, are: (1) A danger to themselves and everyone around them, (2) can't get their gun out of the holster without an AD (I prefer the term "negligent discharge"), or (3) will ever have the need to clear a "jam"?

And, seriously, who are you to decide whether someone's sense of security is false?

Why don't you guys show some proof that backs up your fears of these dangerous people running around putting others at risk with their guns? I guarantee for every example of a minimally trained permit holder negligently causing harm to someone I can show you two examples of a "highly trained" person negligently causing harm to someone.

Why not try looking at the facts? Start by looking at stats from states that issue permits in an effort to find out how often permits are revoked for circumstances involving negligence. I can tell you because I've looked...it's pretty hard to find and the numbers don't support your misguided fears.

I certainly hope some of you guys are never placed in positions responsible for "allowing" me to exercise my 2A rights and my right to defend myself and my family.

It's kinda sad, really, to see this sort of sentiment on a "pro gun" forum.

[Jumpstart]

"The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit" Ted Nugent.

I'd have to say I agree with Uncle Ted.

[Jumpstart]

"The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit" Ted Nugent.

I'd have to say I agree with Uncle Ted.

But I would add, training and education are your friend, just as long as it's not a mandate from whoever happens to be in power at a given time. I'm old school on gun rights gents.

[Bailey Guns]

Agree 100%, Jumpstart.

I think additional training is a great idea for those who have the means to obtain it. But mandating some sort of state-required qualification course? Bad, bad idea. Who gets to decide how much training or proficiency is enough? Who's gonna pay for it? Who's gonna administer it? What about requalification? Or is passing one time good enough? If advanced training is that important, the argument can easily be made that in order to carry one must "qualify" quarterly...or more often. At what cost? "Sorry...you missed your quarterly quals. No permit for you. You'll need to reapply." I can't even imagine the potential bureaucratic nightmares.

This is a can or worms we don't need to open as there is no need. There is no evidence of any real problem to which this is a solution.

It's no different than outlawing "Saturday Night Specials". Not everyone has the means to buy a Sig or a Kimber. Who are we to say that a Jennings isn't good enough to protect someone if that's all they can afford?

This whole idea smacks of elitism.

[Batteriesnare]

I'll ask again though I know any answer will be based on "feelings" rather than fact...much like the post above. What evidence do you have that permit holders, regardless of their level of training, are: (1) A danger to themselves and everyone around them, (2) can't get their gun out of the holster without an AD (I prefer the term "negligent discharge"), or (3) will ever have the need to clear a "jam"?


Well, I will attempt to answer this with more than just "feelings." When I took my CCW class, which included several live fire exercises (I wouldn't consider one that did not) there was a student in the class who repeatedly had their finger on the trigger during draws/reholstering, and was continually scolded by the instructor. Thankfully there was not an "accidental" discharge, but I would submit that this individuals carelessness was a danger to the rest of us in the class. Further, this individual struggled to draw their weapon properly (as shown and drilled on in the class) and it was even dropped on the range. Likewise, during reholstering, the individual repeatedly would involve their nondominant hand, often with it in front of the business end in an attempt to return the weapon from whence it came. Now I'd like to point out that these errors happened in a CCW class WITH LIVE FIRE TRAINING! Fortunately, by the end of the class this individual was not making as many mistakes as when they started, but think of what may have transpired if the class was lecture only. I'm all for an armed society, but an armed society that does not have a solid knowledge base in their weapon can be more dangerous than good in some instances.

[Batteriesnare]

Agree 100%, Jumpstart.

I think additional training is a great idea for those who have the means to obtain it. But mandating some sort of state-required qualification course? Bad, bad idea. Who gets to decide how much training or proficiency is enough? Who's gonna pay for it? Who's gonna administer it? What about requalification? Or is passing one time good enough? If advanced training is that important, the argument can easily be made that in order to carry one must "qualify" quarterly...or more often. At what cost? "Sorry...you missed your quarterly quals. No permit for you. You'll need to reapply." I can't even imagine the potential bureaucratic nightmares.


While I agree that this would be an intense, potentially problematic process (especially at its beginning), I would submit that some form of proficiency may need to be demonstrated. Perhaps the requirement could be placed on the instructors before the certificate of completion is rendered, and if they do not comply, revoke their instructor certification.

For military and LEO, do they not have to qualify on a somewhat constant basis for firearm competency?

If someone is serious about being armed in public, wouldn't they (as well as the public around them) want the armed individual to have the skills to execute effectively should they need arise?

[Batteriesnare]

Also, just thought of something. What if when you went to renew your permit, thats when you had to re-qualify. Go to your certified trainer, shoot the required course, and turn it in with your renewal. I'm sure the argument will come up with one of my last points: LEO and Military have a greater propensity to use their weapons, and I concur, which is why a longer span in requalification would be acceptable.

[Bailey Guns]

OK...an isolated incident. And this person, as poorly as they handled the gun, didn't have an accident and didn't hurt anyone.

I've had a LOT of advanced firearms training and I've been a firearms instructor, either military, police or civilian for over 20 years. And I hate to admit it, but I've had a negligent discharge. In my house of all places. And it scared the hell outta me. But it was because I got complacent...not because of a lack of training. As a matter of fact, it happened DESPITE all the training I'd had.

Have you ever had a ND? If so, should you and I be disqualified from carrying a gun now? Am I one of those people who "pose a danger to everyone around" me because I had an accident?

Training is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't make any human being immune from making a mistake.

I can't think of any profession that requires more training, retraining, ongoing training and recurrent training than airline pilots (ok...maybe astronauts). Airline pilots sometimes get complacent and make mistakes and lots of people die because of it. You can't train all human error out of people.

[Batteriesnare]

OK...an isolated incident. And this person, as poorly as they handled the gun, didn't have an accident and didn't hurt anyone.

I've had a LOT of advanced firearms training and I've been a firearms instructor, either military, police or civilian for over 20 years. And I hate to admit it, but I've had a negligent discharge. In my house of all places. And it scared the hell outta me. But it was because I got complacent...not because of a lack of training. As a matter of fact, it happened DESPITE all the training I'd had.

Have you ever had a ND? If so, should you and I be disqualified from carrying a gun now? Am I one of those people who "pose a danger to everyone around" me because I had an accident?

Training is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't make any human being immune from making a mistake.

I can't think of any profession that requires more training, retraining, ongoing training and recurrent training than airline pilots (ok...maybe astronauts). Airline pilots sometimes get complacent and make mistakes and lots of people die because of it. You can't train all human error out of people.

I agree with you on a lot of what you've said, and please understand that at this point I agree that qualification for permits may be an answer looking for a problem, but I do see in the future it potentially becoming part of the CCW permit process. Although it may have been an isolated incident that I described, I hardly believe it was the only of its type, and since it has happened, it does open the door for discussion using real issues, as opposed to the "feelings" that were brought up earlier.

I will admit that I too have had a ND. For me it was in the woods, and it was because I didn't have proper training. I didn't understand the operation of the safety on the rifle I was carrying (please don't flame me, I know that the first safety is keeping your finger off the trigger, I was 7 at the time, 21 now). It scared the hell out of me as well, and got me a good talking to. I'm not saying that because you made a mistake you are disqualified, but I am saying that if you don't have sufficient training then you may make a mistake under pressure, such as would be presented in a life or death (lethal force) confrontation.

I also agree that training doesn't make a human mistake proof, but it does significantly decrease the likelyhood of a mistake. For example, why do you think insurance companies give a break on car insurance if you've had driver education? Because you've had instruction and real life (on road in this example) experience under the supervision of an instructor, and therefore are less likely to make a mistake that would require a claim. I know nothing is 100%, but the closer you can make it the better I would think it is.

[Bailey Guns]

This reminds me of the perpetual anti-gunner argument about issuing permits in the first place..."the streets will run red with the blood of innocents."

Really? I've heard that argument over and over, year after year. It's never come to pass despite the dire predictions of the anti-gun crowd. Despite the fact that the majority of states require only minimal training, if any at all, to get a permit. As a matter of fact, the number of accidental deaths caused by guns has been on a downward trend for many, many years.

Again...show me a compelling need for all this training and retraining. When I've seen proof there is a compelling need, based on verifiable facts, I'll change my opinion. But right now, it looks like our system is working just fine.

Until then, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Sticks]

Thank the gods we have not had any incidents.

Granted there have been a few, but percentage wise it barely registers a tick on the scale.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of excellent instructors out there, and I am sure a majority of the students are getting the training that they need. I just had the unfortunate luck to select an instructor that barely covered the minimum, and spent a great deal of the class time pushing his personal political agenda and bragging.

I knew how to handle a firearm (grew up with them) when I took the class, and still sought out venues where I could get some training and work on the required skills. I took it upon myself to do additional research on the laws and the responsibilities of CC.

In the 1770's there was a gun in every house and every person in that house knew how to use it. When the RKBA was drafted, the aspect of gun safety, liability, ect... was a non issue. 230 odd years later, it (gun safety, responsibility, training, liability) is an issue because a majority of the citizens did not grow up with a firearm.

Absolutely, keep the feds out of the game. Educate the public, and maybe tightening up the requirements a bit to include range time among other items may not be such a bad idea.

[PsyKo]

i agree 120% that anyone handling a firearm should have knowledge of firearms and their specific firearm, but in no way should it be government mandated. the .gov is the reason fewer and fewer citizens of this country learn proper handling every year, they have already failed to properly educate people through their lives by vilifying gun owners to the point that many citizens dont even realize that it is legal for a civilian to own a firearm let alone carry one.


i would be willing to wager that all of congress could not run a McDonalds, yet so many people in this country are willing to let them run their lives.

[SA Friday]

I've also had ND's, but the training I've had ensured that I had the muzzle in a safe direction. A violation of one of the safety rules will happen to everyone who shoots firearms sooner or later. There are shooters who have ND'ed and there are shooters who are going to have a ND. A violation of two of the safety rules at the same time is when terminal bad ju-ju happens.

[PsyKo]

I've also had ND's, but the training I've had ensured that I had the muzzle in a safe direction. A violation of one of the safety rules will happen to everyone who shoots firearms sooner or later. There are shooters who have ND'ed and there are shooters who are going to have a ND. A violation of two of the safety rules at the same time is when terminal bad ju-ju happens.

so CCW holders should have training forced upon them because humans are indeed human?

[SA Friday]

so CCW holders should have training forced upon them because humans are indeed human?

Training and practice eliminates ignorance, and lowers the risk of human error.

Creating a reasonable standard of training instills a minimum level of competence across the board of CCW holders.

I'm sorry, but how can qualification standards be OK for military and police and not OK for CCW holders? This just smacks in the face of common sense.

I challange every one of you who think there shouldn't be a minimum standard of training for a CCW to pick you your gear and come out to a pistol competition. There's one every weekend and they happen all over CO. Come and see where you really rack and stack in your shooting abilities. Like I said, I thought I was good with firearms and then I woke up.

The stress and shooting skills in competition directly correlate over to shooting in real life. Not necessarily all the guns (some do), but everything else does. I know: 4 years shooting USPSA, 21 years in the AF, 11 years of the military as a Fed agent, over 50 combat missions outside the wire in Iraq from two tours. Training and practice were so vital, we dedicated one day a week to nothing but training and practice while in country. It kept us alive.

Reality is indeed stranger than fiction. I find it ironic I'm having this (paletable) discussion with the primary opposing view coming from a red hat with 20 years as a shooting instructor. I once went out to the range to talk to our base CATM about something and they were doing M9 AFQC with the Med Group. I left immediately. It was down right scary. I felt so bad for those guys. They had to be wrecked at the end of the day.

[SA Friday]

The results of the ballistic testing in The Thompson-LaGarde Cadaver Tests of 1904:

Based upon the data they gathered, Thompson and LaGarde stated, "the Board was of the opinion that a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45". But they also said, "...soldiers armed with pistols or revolvers should be drilled unremittingly in the accuracy of fire" because most of the human body offered "no hope of stopping an adversary by shock or other immediate results when hit."

[MichiganMilitia]

"The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit" Ted Nugent.

I'd have to say I agree with Uncle Ted.

+1

I agree, training is an essential part of responsible firearm ownership, but at no point, EVER, should Big Brother be able to dictate the way I train.

[Bailey Guns]

Training and practice eliminates ignorance, and lowers the risk of human error.

Creating a reasonable standard of training instills a minimum level of competence across the board of CCW holders.

I'm sorry, but how can qualification standards be OK for military and police and not OK for CCW holders? This just smacks in the face of common sense.

I challange every one of you who think there shouldn't be a minimum standard of training for a CCW to pick you your gear and come out to a pistol competition. There's one every weekend and they happen all over CO. Come and see where you really rack and stack in your shooting abilities. Like I said, I thought I was good with firearms and then I woke up.

The stress and shooting skills in competition directly correlate over to shooting in real life. Not necessarily all the guns (some do), but everything else does. I know: 4 years shooting USPSA, 21 years in the AF, 11 years of the military as a Fed agent, over 50 combat missions outside the wire in Iraq from two tours. Training and practice were so vital, we dedicated one day a week to nothing but training and practice while in country. It kept us alive.

Reality is indeed stranger than fiction. I find it ironic I'm having this (paletable) discussion with the primary opposing view coming from a red hat with 20 years as a shooting instructor. I once went out to the range to talk to our base CATM about something and they were doing M9 AFQC with the Med Group. I left immediately. It was down right scary. I felt so bad for those guys. They had to be wrecked at the end of the day.

Look...train all you want to and can afford. I have no problem with that. In fact, I encourage it. BUT KEEP THE .GOV OUT OF MANDATING STANDARDS! And you've said nothing to convince me there is a problem with the average person with a permit who carries for self-defense. I feel far more threatened by many knuckleheads who have drivers licenses (especially while on my scooter). There just aren't any statistics to back up the claim that minimal training standards such as what CO has in effect create a danger to the public at large. Nor is there any evidence that would even remotely suggest that standards need to be more stringent. None. No where.

Furthermore, after having conducted CCW classes for over 9 years (since I left police work) I can tell you this from class surveys:
There is a percentage of people who attend the class and do not get a permit
Of those that get permits, very few carry on a regular basis
Most of the people who get permits either practice, or are already fairly competent with a handgunAlso, I don't see a valid comparison to LE or Military with the average person who carries for defense in terms of threats for which they need to train. Not everyone wants to be an "operator". Not everyone who carries goes out into the world armed with a primary, a BUG, two knives, OC and a light like some would have you believe is necessary. I'm not saying that's bad, I just don't think the average person who carries is going to go to such lengths nor should they. The average person isn't going out into a war zone or facing battlefield conditions. The vast majority will never even take their guns out of their holsters in a life-threatening encounter.

I also believe many people who advocate a qualification course for concealed carry have absolutely no idea what takes place during a potential lethal force encounter. There is no way the average qualification course required during any CCW class will adequately prepare, nor resemble, a lethal force encounter. I think if a person believes that going to a CCW class, attending the lecture and then firing 40 rounds (or whatever) on a range at a static target under conditions of good lighting, little time constraints and little to no stress makes someone better prepared to deal with a lethal force encounter they're simply naive. It might marginally help them, for a short time unless they continue to practice, with weapon manipulation skills. But those skills are perishable. It's simply nonsense to say that requals every 5 years would make these people appreciably safer and better gun handlers.

You shouldn't find it ironic that a former Red Hat feels this way when discussing civilian carry. You know as well as I do that the average AF person, especially the admin/medical types, gives a rats ass about guns or how to use them. Well, when I was in anyway (79-89 active, 92-96 AFR). Things have obviously changed since then with a couple of wars going on. But my service, as a military person and as a LE officer, was dedicated to upholding the Constitution. And I believe everyone has the God-given right to defend themselves, whether they're expert marksmen or not.

Would you deny a disabled person the opportunity to defend him/herself because they didn't have the ability to pass a particular qual course?

The anecdotal evidence I see (magazine articles, news reports, blog entries, etc...), day in and day out, leads me to believe that people by the hundreds of thousands every year, successfully defend themselves with only the meager means at hand...minimal, if any, training and a firearm.

Now, having said all that, I run a class that not only provides a substantial amount of lecture, but also hands on practice drawing, handling, reholstering, etc... I also have invested a lot of money into a laser simulator and require students in my class to demonstrate safe handling while shooting lots of dynamic targets. I don't require them to be expert marksmen. Also, our class requires students to shoot 3 judgmental training video exercises with debriefs about what they did right or wrong, etc... But, that's just my business and how I operate. I absolutely don't feel it should be mandated by the state.

Sorry about the long post. This is something I debate frequently on THR and other forums and the battle lines are fairly evenly split on this topic, I think.

[Bongo Boy]

I'll ask again though I know any answer will be based on "feelings" rather than fact...much like the post above. What evidence do you have that permit holders, regardless of their level of training, are: (1) A danger to themselves and everyone around them, (2) can't get their gun out of the holster without an AD (I prefer the term "negligent discharge"), or (3) will ever have the need to clear a "jam"?
None whatsoever, and I'll concede the argument. Now that my head is clear, I realize I actually don't care if anyone can demonstrate any basic ability with or safe handling of a firearm on the street, and I certainly don't feel the government has any responsibility to the public to make any effort to ensure they do. I do concede...I've seen no data to indicate that folks who've never handled or trained in the use of firearms are a danger to anyone when they use them. I've seen untrained people endanger themselves and others multiple times, of course, but have no data to support that, or to support the notion that training would have prevented the alleged endangerment. But in any case, the government certainly has no responsibility in this regard anyway, and of course its efforts to take responsibility would certainly fail because in general, the government is utterly incompetent in establishing legislation that solves any problems when it comes to firearms. Amazingly so, actually.

[jc121]

So are you suggesting I should not have a CCW because of what exactly?
Is it because I do not jump high or maybe do not run fast enough or is it I do not really desire to go out and play with a pistol in some pistol sports?

I know I can not hit the broad side of a barn with any weapon but personally I hope in america that I have a right to defend myself without your permission!

Bailey guns has had a great reputation for teaching classes before this forum even started and I really believe he teaches classes the way it should be taught.

jon coppenbarger 1762

[Batteriesnare]

I know I can not hit the broad side of a barn with any weapon but personally I hope in america that I have a right to defend myself without your permission!

Bailey guns has had a great reputation for teaching classes before this forum even started and I really believe he teaches classes the way it should be taught.

jon coppenbarger 1762

I do not argue with your right to defend yourself (I believe every one has that right), and you certainly do not need my permission to do so.

That being said, if you and I were in McDonalds, and some wackjob came in and grabbed me from behind and held me hostage, and you had your gun on you that day, I would hope you would be competent enough in your weapon skills to take that motherfucker down.

Thats all.

[Batteriesnare]

An addition to my previous post:

Far be it a day I do not have my gun on me!

[Bailey Guns]

That being said, if you and I were in McDonalds, and some wackjob came in and grabbed me from behind and held me hostage, and you had your gun on you that day, I would hope you would be competent enough in your weapon skills to take that motherfucker down.

Thats all.

Well, I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you seriously think that's something the average person with a permit is obligated to do...to place themselves at great moral and legal (both criminal and civil) jeopardy to save you in that particular situation?
Would you seriously want someone whom you didn't know a thing about to take that shot? Whether cop or civilian?
Do you think the average cop would take that shot?
Are you just expecting the bad guy to hold still and give someone that kind of shot?
Don't you think you're really reaching for a LOGICAL justification to your side of the argument with that scenario?Here's my response to your hypothetical scenario. You and I, in addition to the bad guy and a bunch of employees, are in McD's. I'm carrying. Not only am I pretty competent with a gun, I'm pretty well versed in the legal ramifications of using a gun to protect myself and others.

The situation goes down and bad guy grabs you as a hostage. Unless my life, or the life of someone I really care for, is in imminent danger, I got news for ya. Sucks being you. Because I'm not gonna take the shot. Unless the bad directly threatens me, I'm not gonna take the shot. Now, if he caps you and starts shooting up the place, I'll most likely return fire unless I have a sure-fire escape route.

But...as Joe Citizen, it's not worth my life, my freedom and/or losing everything I've ever worked for, to protect you in that situation. Period.

So, if you get taken hostage in that situation, you're gonna have to wait for the police to get there. Guess you shoulda had your gun.

[Eow]

I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but I'm going to get this side of the issue out anyway. There should be NO CCW approved unless the individual has had sufficient training and passed a basic live fire standard. You have to take a written and driving test for a car for god's sake to show understanding and competence. Unfortunately, the law isn't written like that.

It is really sad for me to see stuff like this posted on this forum. If the second amendment is treated with respect anywhere, it should be here. SA Friday, should we also require people to pay for a government permit proving they have taken sensitivity training classes before they are allowed to exercise their first amendment right to free speech?

How can you possibly support the idea of a basic right (not a privilege like driving a car, an individual constitutional right) like this being subject to the government administering and issuing a permit? Don't you believe in the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for? As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither".

[Irving]

The government needs to be kept out of it. If insurance companies required that all instructors hold a live fire class in order to get their general liability and E&O insurance, then ALL instructors would teach live fire, no one would have a choice, that'd be set as the norm, the government could stay out of it, and everyone would be happy.

I'm a bad shot and know it. I've gone to a few shooting competitions, and would do more, but I've run out of money.

[SA Friday]

It is really sad for me to see stuff like this posted on this forum. If the second amendment is treated with respect anywhere, it should be here. SA Friday, should we also require people to pay for a government permit proving they have taken sensitivity training classes before they are allowed to exercise their first amendment right to free speech?

How can you possibly support the idea of a basic right (not a privilege like driving a car, an individual constitutional right) like this being subject to the government administering and issuing a permit? Don't you believe in the freedoms our forefathers fought and died for? As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither".
When you ND your mouth, you don't blow a hole in something.

As for putting a basic limitation on a constitutional right, it happens all the time. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and claim that's covered by the first ammendment after someone is trampled to death. I'm not proposing or discussing a limitation on a constitutional right. I'm advocating competence.

If you feel so strongly about your constitutional right being violated by a basic test, then you should also feel that one should be able to just carry a loaded pistol when ever they wanted and shouldn't require a CCW. I'm cool with that. Try out some civil disobedience with that one and let me know how it turns out.

As for insinuating I'm in any way disrespecting the 2nd ammendment based on my opinion, you're way off base. Check yourself. Disagree with me, debate with me. Don't in one breath tell me how I'm disrespecting the 2nd ammendment, but how awful it is that I can voice my opinion here on this forum in accordance with the 1st ammendment.

[Mtn.man]

voice all you want but the more you let big regulate your life the less you have a right.

[Eow]

As for insinuating I'm in any way disrespecting the 2nd ammendment based on my opinion, you're way off base. Check yourself. Disagree with me, debate with me. Don't in one breath tell me how I'm disrespecting the 2nd ammendment, but how awful it is that I can voice my opinion here on this forum in accordance with the 1st ammendment.

Yes, I believe you are disrespecting the 2nd amendment; I challenge anyone to read your posts and come to a different conclusion. I also support your first amendment right to say what you want, however wrong I believe you are. I'm just disappointed to see someone on a gun forum begging for more government regulation of guns.

[Dalendenver]

I know this is a couple of months too late but let me put in my opinion. I was at Sportsmans Warehouse one day when two (gorgeous) girls were looking for ammunition for the CCW class they were taking that weekend. They were looking in the reloading section and were going to buy a box of 9mm bullets for loading when they got some help. Obviously they didn't know anything about a gun. Fortunately they had signed up with someone that required live fire.

Should the gov require live fire? I don't trust the gov to require anything. Once they get a small requirement in place it is only time until it becomes a larger requirement, it always escalates. Too many politicians justify their job by passing unneeded legislation.

Everyone of you should read the book "More Guns; Less Crime", the most complete study ever done of gun laws and actual events.

I am all for more training but less government. My wife and I are going to take the class soon, we chose a group that does about 5 hours of class followed by 5 hours of range time.

YMMV

Dale

[Adawg38]

Jefferson County has revised their process. I assume as a result of the same audit. New applicants have to provide a copy of your instructor's certificate and instructor's wallet card.

4.) A copy of the instructor's "original certification" certificate and a copy of the "instructor's card" (wallet-size), which shows their certification expiration date.

Jeffco Sheriff's CCW site:
http://www.jeffco.us/sheriff/sheriff_T62_R9.htm

I don't know if this has been talked about more but I am going in this Tues to submit my App and info for my CCW in Jefferson County. I have reviewed many times Jeffcos website and do not see anything different from last year. I definately do not see now that you need an Instructors wallet card. I just ask because I want to make sure I am prepared.

[theGinsue]

I would give them a call and ask to be connected to the office that does the CCW permits - then ask them EXACTLY what you need to bring with you!

Here is their contact info:
Jefferson County Sheriff's Office
200 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
303-277-0211

[MarkCO]

I provided an ink signed certificate with my NRA cert number on it, the CRS reference and the students full name. No-one has ever asked for a copy of my wallet card. Of course JeffCO has a file on me, but one would think if that was a requirement one of the 2000 or so students of mine who have JeffCO permits, (or the 3000 in other counties) would have been asked. While I do not necessarily agree with the way the law is written, the quickly growing number of irresponsible people does make me nervous. I required a 90 round shoot test after shooting about 200 at the range. Instructors who care about their students will include shooting while those who just care about making some $ as easy as possible won't. Personally, with what has been posted, I would make sure I had the copy of the cert before I went into the Sheriff. If the instructor won't give it to you, he probably is not certified.

[Bailey Guns]

While I do not necessarily agree with the way the law is written, the quickly growing number of irresponsible people does make me nervous. I required a 90 round shoot test after shooting about 200 at the range.

Well, quite frankly, the last thing I want is armed, nervous people running around loose in society. Nervous people shouldn't have guns...or they should be required to pass an "I'm not nervous any more" test before getting a gun.


Instructors who care about their students will include shooting while those who just care about making some $ as easy as possible won't.

And instructors who think like that obviously have an elitist belief that:
state law is fundamentally flawed (even though there's no evidence the requirements as they now stand are inadequate)
some people have no God-given right to an adequate means of self-defense (due to physical or financial limitations that might prohibit them from acquiring/completing this type of training)
bigger government is good
big brother oversight is good
most people can't be trusted
only "we" are smart enough or talented enough to carry guns or train people how to carry gunsI don't have a problem with people getting voluntary training. I also believe it absolutely should not be any more difficult than it already is to get a permit. Despite how "nervous" you are with commoners with minimal training having guns , I seriously doubt you can provide evidence that it's a problem that needs correcting.

Wyoming is on the verge of becoming the third state to say a permit is not needed by a law-abiding person to carry a gun for defense. It's not rocket surgery.

[KFinn]

I agree with some of you on your points. My summary:

1. Less government is always better
2. More personal responsibility
3. Guns in every household should be common like it was 100 to 200 yrs ago.
4. The 2nd amendment should be my CCW permit like AK and VT.
5. Those that carry open/conceal/illegally should take pride and responsibility and want to practice and take training even if its not from a formal certified source. THey should want to be as good as they can be with their weapon, be it; fist, knive, car, gun, bomb, etc. I don't really care.

Flame me if you want, thats my opinion and don't foresee it waivering through discussion/debate.

[Adawg38]

I agree with some of you on your points. My summary:

1. Less government is always better
2. More personal responsibility
3. Guns in every household should be common like it was 100 to 200 yrs ago.
4. The 2nd amendment should be my CCW permit like AK and VT.
5. Those that carry open/conceal/illegally should take pride and responsibility and want to practice and take training even if its not from a formal certified source. THey should want to be as good as they can be with their weapon, be it; fist, knive, car, gun, bomb, etc. I don't really care.

Flame me if you want, thats my opinion and don't foresee it waivering through discussion/debate.

Couldn't of said it better myself!

[losttrail]

I agree with some of you on your points. My summary:

1. Less government is always better
2. More personal responsibility
3. Guns in every household should be common like it was 100 to 200 yrs ago.
4. The 2nd amendment should be my CCW permit like AK and VT.
5. Those that carry open/conceal/illegally should take pride and responsibility and want to practice and take training even if its not from a formal certified source. THey should want to be as good as they can be with their weapon, be it; fist, knive, car, gun, bomb, etc. I don't really care.

Flame me if you want, thats my opinion and don't foresee it waivering through discussion/debate.

Amen Brother!

[ChunkyMonkey]

I agree with some of you on your points. My summary:

1. Less government is always better
2. More personal responsibility
3. Guns in every household should be common like it was 100 to 200 yrs ago.
4. The 2nd amendment should be my CCW permit like AK and VT.
5. Those that carry open/conceal/illegally should take pride and responsibility and want to practice and take training even if its not from a formal certified source. THey should want to be as good as they can be with their weapon, be it; fist, knive, car, gun, bomb, etc. I don't really care.

Flame me if you want, thats my opinion and don't foresee it waivering through discussion/debate.

KFINN 2012!!!

[MarkCO]

Mr "Guns", might I suggest a reading course for you as well! I said that I do not agree with the law the way it is written. I DO beleive in the 2nd amendment, as written and therefore ANY government required training to exercise that right is fundamentally wrong. You have let your emotion cloud your logic.

What I said is based purely on training, which I beleive should all be voluntary (read above statement). I'll stick with what I wrote even though you grossly misunderstood the basic written english language.

[Bailey Guns]

You have two posts in this thread:


I provided an ink signed certificate with my NRA cert number on it, the CRS reference and the students full name. No-one has ever asked for a copy of my wallet card. Of course JeffCO has a file on me, but one would think if that was a requirement one of the 2000 or so students of mine who have JeffCO permits, (or the 3000 in other counties) would have been asked. While I do not necessarily agree with the way the law is written, the quickly growing number of irresponsible people does make me nervous. I required a 90 round shoot test after shooting about 200 at the range. Instructors who care about their students will include shooting while those who just care about making some $ as easy as possible won't. Personally, with what has been posted, I would make sure I had the copy of the cert before I went into the Sheriff. If the instructor won't give it to you, he probably is not certified.

and:


Mr "Guns", might I suggest a reading course for you as well! I said that I do not agree with the law the way it is written. I DO beleive in the 2nd amendment, as written and therefore ANY government required training to exercise that right is fundamentally wrong. You have let your emotion cloud your logic.

What I said is based purely on training, which I beleive should all be voluntary (read above statement). I'll stick with what I wrote even though you grossly misunderstood the basic written english language.

Why don't you point out to me where in this thread, prior to your second post (where you were apparently doing the backstroke as you typed), you wrote all training should be voluntary? I'll wait. If that's what you meant, that's not what you wrote. Don't blame your poor communications skills on me.

You did say you didn't "necessarily agree with the way the law is written". That could mean you think the training requirements are too lenient or too strict. Or it could also mean you agree with the law. The reader is supposed to be able to read your mind to figure out which it is?

And then your ridiculous comment about trainers not caring about their students if their curriculum doesn't include shooting is, in my opinion, indefensible. Are some people in it for the money alone? Probably. But to make such a blanket statement as you did, especially when the law doesn't require shooting and no one can prove that the requirements, as they are, are insufficient is simply asinine.

We teach a 10 hour Concealed Handgun Permit Class. We don't require shooting. We do, however, require our students to shoot 3 judgmental training scenarios on our simulator. It's basically a reactive shoot/no shoot trainer that forces them to consider all sorts of things prior to using lethal force:
Is lethal force appropriate?
What are the hazards other than the threat (innocents in the way, unknown backstops, etc...)?
Do I have alternatives?
Is there more than one threat?
I've shot the threat...is the threat terminated?
What do I do now that I've shot someone?Students have anywhere from .5 second to several seconds to make a decision, sometimes under very difficult circumstances (ie: low light, confusion, distractions, etc...) just like they might face in the real world. We have over $40,000 invested in our system. We teach our classes the way we do because we DO care about the level of training our students receive.

Another thing I'd like you to back up is your statement about the "quickly growing number of irresponsible people". What irresponsible people? I'm going to assume you're talking about those applying for/obtaining carry permits. Can you show me a specific number of people were irresponsible but that number has grown "quickly" to a higher number of people? Can you provide evidence that permit holders who have obtained their permits under the current issuing scheme are less responsible than other permit holders?

Or is that statement just something you pulled outta your ass? (That's my guess but I could be wrong)

I certainly don't claim to be the ultimate authority on guns, shooting, tactics and concealed carry. There are plenty of folks out there who have forgotten more than I'll ever know on those topics.

However, I do have some experience in the field...much of it real world. And I've been teaching concealed carry classes for over 10 years with about 3,500 students taking my course. That's more than some, not as much as others. But in my opinion it's a fairly substantial number.

I've had one student (that I know of) get into some minor trouble that he was able to clear up after some court appearances and some legal fees.

But you go ahead and stand by what you wrote and blame the other guy for not understanding. It's a lot easier that way. And I'll stand behind my reading comprehension skills despite the fact you think they're lacking.

[MarkCO]

No response necessary, it's all right there in light blue and black.

[Bailey Guns]

Yes, it is.

[RussDXT]

When my wife has the time to take her CCW course I will strongly encourage that it be from Bailey Guns. You insight is stellar.

[Squeeze]

I have read a lot of good information here in this thread. The one thing that really upsets me, is people looking for a "cheap" way to get their training. Seriously? That disgusts me. I am a certified NRA instructor and have taught several NRA classes. I know the Colorado State Law does not require a student to shoot or qualify in order to receive their certificate...however I have something to say about that:

1. I don't rent firearms - too much liability and I may not have what works for you or what you intend to carry.

2. I don't teach you a course without SEEING you competently handle a firearm safely and adequately shoot the firearm and hit your target.

If you don't like paying $125 for an NRA Basic Pistol Course (which is good for 10 years) and get quality training for your money, then don't call me. I have received %100 positive feedback from ALL my students and only advertise through word of mouth because I feel a reputation should speak for itself. Also, on a side note - Every dollar I make, goes back into my own training & equipment. I have 12 years military experience and I am constantly looking to attend new schools and have attended several training organizations. Don't be a liability to society...be an asset and GET TRAINING![Weight]

[DeusExMachina]

12th post and already advertising?

[rcbc1954]

I Teach Hunter Ed Classes With A Master Instructor Who Is Also A Ccw Instructor, He Is Certified By The "NRA" As A Ccw Instructor, So If Your Instructor Is "NRA" Certified, I Don't Think You Will Have A Problem

[Great-Kazoo]

i charge X per class. some shooters, both new and experienced do not feel it is an issue. Others want their class right now and do not feel they should have to pay anything as they were 5th inft, SOF, flew with chaing kai shek etc. stormed the Bastille. you get my point. if they choose to attend one of my classes so much the better, I do let them know for $60.00 a sat-sunday class is held along the front range and sure they have room for another student,
YMMV.

[SouthPaw]

My dad and I both took Jims class (on separate weekends) and we both truly felt like we got our monies worth. I would recommend anyone considering taking the class for CCW to give Jim a call. Well worth it.

[Wulf202]

I'm sure I'll have people pile on me, but its the TRUTH.

+1 Seriously well said

[9milliman]

Hello My fellow shooting enthusiasts. I am proud to say I have recently purchased a Beretta 9 millimeter and a nice 38 Spcl. for the woman. I do beleive in open carry. I have been carrying since I got it. I have had no trouble from either FTC Police or Loveland Police as well. In fact after a business meeting ( I did get flack for carrying in a professional environment, I will get back to this later) the group I was with went to a very busy restaurant in Loveland. As I entered the building Loveland's finest had finished parking in the front. They had full view of my piece. Once I entered the establishment and after much time had progressed, I passed the Policeman on my way to the restroom, with my gun in plain sight, I engaged the policeman as I said how are you. He politely smiled back and replied doing well sir, How are you?. As we passed AT The same time in a tight squeeze mind you, I replied great sir, have a safe night. I heard nothing of it and it was very polite, no ID check, no questions about why I have a gun.

I had just finished the movie in FTC at Carmike Cinemas on Timberline. Through the whole movie I had my open carry 9 millimeter on me. After the movie was over I realized a sign that I had not seen previously. At the bottom of the plaque I saw "Firearms Prohibited". Now there was no engagement on this issue or Police Contact.

I am filing my CCW paperwork this week. I still feel I will carry openly. I am investing in few more classes regarding firearms and self defense, Legalities as well as shooting a perpetrator, I feel knowledge is power. I NEVER would want to kill another human. HOWEVER it is an obligation of carry to do the right thing, whether it be rush the gunman or put him down....PERMANENTLY.
I welcome different viewpoints. I am a citizen that THINKS.

Please leave comments......

[Sticks]

Hello My fellow shooting enthusiasts. I am proud to say I have recently purchased a Beretta 9 millimeter and a nice 38 Spcl. for the woman. I do beleive in open carry. I have been carrying since I got it. I have had no trouble from either FTC Police or Loveland Police as well. In fact after a business meeting ( I did get flack for carrying in a professional environment, I will get back to this later) the group I was with went to a very busy restaurant in Loveland. As I entered the building Loveland's finest had finished parking in the front. They had full view of my piece. Once I entered the establishment and after much time had progressed, I passed the Policeman on my way to the restroom, with my gun in plain sight, I engaged the policeman as I said how are you. He politely smiled back and replied doing well sir, How are you?. As we passed AT The same time in a tight squeeze mind you, I replied great sir, have a safe night. I heard nothing of it and it was very polite, no ID check, no questions about why I have a gun.

I had just finished the movie in FTC at Carmike Cinemas on Timberline. Through the whole movie I had my open carry 9 millimeter on me. After the movie was over I realized a sign that I had not seen previously. At the bottom of the plaque I saw "Firearms Prohibited". Now there was no engagement on this issue or Police Contact.

I am filing my CCW paperwork this week. I still feel I will carry openly. I am investing in few more classes regarding firearms and self defense, Legalities as well as shooting a perpetrator, I feel knowledge is power. I NEVER would want to kill another human. HOWEVER it is an obligation of carry to do the right thing, whether it be rush the gunman or put him down....PERMANENTLY.
I welcome different viewpoints. I am a citizen that THINKS.

Please leave comments......

Did you pick the .38 for your SO or did she?

Glad to hear the Ft Collins/Loveland area seems to be OC friendly. Don't try it in the Denver area. Legal, but a guaranteed MWAG LEO response (and if you are in the City/County of Denver proper, you will be charged).

Bold and underlined...Loose that mindset now. One carries a firearm for DEFENSIVE reasons, and you shoot to STOP the threat, nothing more. There are fatal side effects to stopping the threat that occasionally happens, but that is not the intention. Stop the threat only.

Register with another forum that focuses on defensive carry/concealed carry. More activity on the subject, more info to glean.

At this time, no gun postings do not carry the weight of law in Colorado (as far as state statutes go - have not encountered a local ordinance that does). If you are caught, and asked to leave, you must or be charged with trespassing.

[Panther AR]

Sticks, I agree 200% with what you said: "One carries a firearm for DEFENSIVE reasons, and you shoot to STOP the threat, nothing more. There are fatal side effects to stopping the threat that occasionally happens, but that is not the intention. Stop the threat only." Very, very well said.

It is very common for people to think that once you are carrying you somehow become responsible for taking care of all the evils in the world. I had this feeling as I contemplated carrying....until I went through a wonderful CCW training program at Silver Bullet in Wheat Ridge. :) The instructor was amazing.

[Squeeze]

Foxtrot,

You are absolutely 100% correct. When I went to my NRA Instructor's Course, I saw the "profile" you are referring to and it made me sick. Something that will REALLY make you vomit - Iowa recently passed a conceal-carry law that mirrors Colorado's in most ways. When this happened, those types of instructors you are referring to FLOCKED to Iowa and started pushing out 4-hour classes of students by the hundreds at $50 a pop. I was also informed they were booking classes months in advance and filling them without problem.

A good friend of mine who lives in the southeast Iowa region went to one of those classes and was confused after it was all said & done. I did him a favor when I went out to visit & gave him a one-day class. Afterwards he stated how pissed he was about spending $50 on a garbage class from the previous instructor. The classes that don't require live fire is just beyond me and I don't know why they won't change that in the training requirement for CCW. These lazy, know-it-all instructors that only care about making $$$ and not producing quality over quantity just blows my mind. Your students are a reflection of you. If you teach garbage, you produce garbage.

[mousegun87]

I moved from Missouri 3 months ago. Since I plan to obtain my CHL from Colorado (just picked it up last week), I took a refresher course in Missouri taught by an NRA certified instructor who is also a deputy with the local Sheriff Department. In Missouri, the state law requires CCW training to be at least 8 hours long. It is also required for the training to include live fire practice and qualification. The practice part must be done using both pistol and revolver. But the participant can choose to qualify using either one depending on which kind of handgun he/she plans to carry. Overall, we fired almost 100 rounds of ammo from each gun (pistol and revolver) using various shooting scenarios.

The course also covers a lot of legal nuances of concealed carry. Having an instructor who is also a law enforcement officer also gave us a lot of insights into general LEO's perceptions on how they deal with citizens with concealed carry permit.

I also had taken an NRA basic pistol course. IMHO, the NRA basic pistol course is inadequate as a concealed carry training. I am also an NRA certified instructor (rifle) so I know what the goals set by NRA in designing these courses. These basic courses are designed to train people how to handle, maintain, store, and shoot the gun safely. But the NRA never intended these courses to prepare people to carry and possibly use firearms for defensive purposes. The NRA basic course covers parts of the curriculum needed for CHL training. But it is not adequate as a CHL training by itself. Now, some instructors could modify and expand the basic pistol course to cover CHL knowledge. This will also make the course much longer. If taught properly and thoughtfully, an NRA basic course should take between 8-12 hours. So an expanded one is likely to take longer.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm a big advocate of training. Always have been.

But I'm a bigger advocate of limited government involvement.

This thread has been alive since 2006 and NOBODY has been able to justify a higher training standard than what the State of Colorado requires for a concealed handgun permit.

They don't "feel" the standards are adequate or they don't "like" the fact that it's so easy for people to get a permit. NOBODY has been able to provide any sort of hard evidence for why certain standards should be met.

Residents in 4 states now need neither a permit or training. Where's all the mayhem and death and destruction from inadequately trained gun toters in WY, AK, VT and AZ?

Some day, those of you who advocate stricter training standards are going to get just that. I just hope you can meet that standard.

[Sticks]

Agreed, there is no proof of a need for stricter training/requirements, and there is no blood in the streets either.

Having said that, there is barely 1&#37; (290k was the last number I saw) of the population in shall issue and constitutional states actually carrying.

Statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely that 99.5% (yes I made that up) of us will ever have to use our weapon. Compound that by those that go to places were gun buster signs (criminal enhancement) are put up, and choose to comply, they wont have their weapon anyway, where they are slightly more likely to encounter a need.

And even then we still are blessed by the bias media and Brady Bunch to have the pleasure of reading in the news of some nitwit that has a CC and did something epically stupid and mad us all look bad (which would have been eliminated by stricter requirements - although you can't fix stupid).

NDs in public, lost weapon, unjustified use or display, ect. It's still less than 1% of those that carry are convicted of a crime of some sort. Lower percentage than LEOs, judges and lawyers, and polar opposite of politicians.

I suppose if there were closer to 10% - 15% of the population carrying, then we might, might see more of that need for training or requirements.

[Tweety Bird]

Thanks, Bailey. I think you said it nicely. People sometimes forget that they should be careful what they wish for.

[fmj50]

Highlands Ranch Firearms, they offer a home study course for 50.00 that is supposed to be legit.
Anyone know anything about them ?

[Sticks]

Colorado Revised Statute 18-12-203-VI

VI - A training certificate from a handgun training class obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application. The applicant shall submit the original training certificate or a photocopy thereof that includes the original signature of the class instructor. In obtaining a training certificate from a handgun training class, the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete.

As taken from the Jefferson County website -
Where can I get a firearms training certificate?
A firearms training certificate can be obtained through any NRA, gun club, shooting range or weapons training facility that has a "certified instructor." You can verify the instructor is certified by their credentials. If the instructor is NRA certified, they will have an instructor's certificate as well as a wallet-sized card which shows an expiration date. If expired, the instructor is no longer allowed to be teaching classes. Once you have decided on a facility to receive your training through, you will need to obtain the following required item from the certified instructor to be submitted with your application:

A training certificate that includes: (your name, course name, date of course, and the instructor's original signature);A "certified instructor" is an instructor for a firearms safety course who is certified as a firearms instructor by a county, municipal, state, or federal law enforcement agency; the Colorado POST board; a federal military agency; or a national nonprofit organization that certifies firearms instructors, operates national firearms competitions, and provides training, including courses in personal protection, in small arms safety, use and marksmanship.
A "handgun training class" means:

A law enforcement training firearms safety course;
A firearms safety course offered by a law enforcement agency, an institution of higher education, or a public or private institution or organization or firearms training school, that is open to the general public and is taught by a certified instructor; or
A firearms safety course or class that is offered and taught by a certified instructor.If you have doubts, contact your local Sheriff and find out if they will accept it as training.

[fmj50]

Thank You, I'll look into it deeper !

[Frank Howell]

As a Certified Firearms Instructor, (USAF and NRA), I'd like to comment on a couple of posts I've seen on this last page. First, I fully agree that any training for a CHP in this state "SHOULD" require hands on, bullets down range, live fire training. HOWEVER, right now, the state does not require this, and as such, if someone refuses to shoot, by law, they don't have to. Yes, they are stupid IMHO to refuse such training, but without a state requirement, they have a right to deny it.

I just signed on to teach for a group out of FL, that doesn't require live fire. At first it churrned my gut, but after speaking with the company owner, I could see his point in not requiring it. He said that initially they did require range time, but after about a half dozen students had called to ask why he was putting a higher restriction than the state required, he dropped it as a requirement, but still offers the live fire at no additional costs. From both a legal and business stand point, I can agree with this, yet still as an instructor I'm still not happy with it. Both the Air Force and NRA require live fire to complete their training, and I still have not fully come to grips with signing a document that will allow someone to obtain a CHP, when I don't know that they can hit the broad side of a barn. Time will tell, I guess.

The second point I'd like to address is that some believe that any requirement for training is an impingment on their 2nd amendment rights. While I can understand where you are coming from, I could not disagree with you more. In the days where sons and daughters learned from their parents, how to shoot at an early age, and everyone knew how to shoot and handle firearms safely, the requirement for training would have been rediculous. However, in this day&age, the vast majority of people have never handled a real firearm before. For the past several decades, most of "Civilized Folk" have relied on police for personal protection. We have lost that access to Home Training.

I spend a great deal of time in WY, and yes, they do allow permitless concealed carry. The reason for this was to protect farmer and ranchers who open carry on their land, and then throw on a coat when the weather turns, and they head into town. This was the basis for the law in WY, however they still have a permit that has a slightly tougher requirement than CO.

The fact of the matter is that knowledge is power. The more you know about concealed carry and the laws of the states you carry in, the less likely you are to screw up. Take a look at George Zimmerman in FL. While this case is not yet put to rest, it's pretty clear that he was treading deadly close to a fine line of Florida Statues governing use of force. Unless you want to be the next George Zimmerman, you need to know the laws of the state you carry in, and the pitfalls they contain.

For instance, did you know that under the Colorado Revised Statutes, you can perform a Citizen's Arrest? Did you also know that you MUST Witness the crime in question? Whats more, did you know that if you are holding a suspect at gunpoint, waiting for the cops to arrive, IF you have the individual move from one place to another, that you have just commited First Degree Kidnapping? Thats a real fine line between doing what you think is right to becomming a criminal yourself.

So for those who believe that training requirements are a pinch on their rights, stop and think about it for a moment. Maybe its not because the state wants to keep you from carrying, maybe they just don't want to see good people get on the wrong side of the law. IMHO, Colorado should do like Utah and actually require people to take a course in the relavent laws before issuing a permit.

[Bailey Guns]

Well, Frank, I just hope you're never in charge of deciding who gets to carry and who doesn't. Once again, more of the same "armed people scare me" crap and no compelling reason to have more restrictive training requirements. Yawn.

Can we let this thread die? Please.

[cstone]

Maybe we should be glad the government allows us to have any rights. [facepalm]

IMO, anyone who believes that the only training they need is the training they get to carry concealed, has been badly trained. I don't need government regulations to tell me that taking a driver's ed course is not really preparing me to be a good driver. Whether it is a driver's license, pilot's license or concealed carry permit, getting your license, is only a license to learn.

In other words, the day you stop training and learning is the day someone dumps dirt on your box.

Be safe.

[Bailey Guns]

Do you want the government mandating that training?

[Bailey Guns]

It seems a lot of you miss the point that no one is arguing that continual, on-going, recurring training is a good thing. As long as it's an individual choice and not training standards that are devised, required and administered by the government.

[DeusExMachina]

I've discovered that this is a common liberal mindset. "Rights for me, but not for you." I get that a lot with left wingers I take shooting. Before we shoot, "guns are bad, but I'm curious". After shooting, "guns are awesome but I don't trust anyone else with them".

[SA Friday]

Can we let this thread die? Please.
This thread has made me contemplate more than any other thread on the site. It's obviously a black and white issue for you Bailey, but for many others, it's simply not. Instead of finding this thread difficult to digest, perhaps you should see it for what it really is, a focused platform for you to have input into one of the most highly debated issues of the CCW process. Both sides discussing this issue have merit, especially considering policy writers don't give a crap about statistics on the matter. If they did, there would be a lot more clear and logical decisions concerning gun laws in this country and state. In light of the amount of press and hubbub over incidents like the idiot that NDed at CU Fitzsimmons, the statistics really impact little to nothing in the law making process. The average citizen and politician simply don't care about what the numbers reflect and I would even go so far as to say they don't even pay attention to anything but what's flashed before their eyes by the TV and internet.

Perception counts and we don't have a friendly media. We also don't have much support in the scientific arena concerning conducting studies into this very issue. Short of Gary Kleck at the FSU Sociology department, the sociologist and criminologists have limited resources to study what the impact on shootings and incidents relating to CCWs would be based on the state's training requirements. The FBI Uniform Crime Report and the National Crime Victimization Survey are the two most utilized to do statistical analysis on firearms studies, and neither capture the data needed to analyze this topic. I have seen a few studies that hit on the fringes of this issue, but have yet to see an actual study that dwells into the issue being discussed. So, although there may very well be no statistical impact from a required minimum level of training, I have yet to see anything either supporting or refuting the claim. One can point to the general numbers of people with CCW's compared to how often we hear in the news of something like the CU ND, but this isn't comparing the amount of CCW induced firearm crimes/NDs from the various state training requirements. So, raw numbers from a single state is a basic numbers comparison within the same testing group. If you have seen an actual study involving this issue, I would love to see it and ask you please post info here to it.

Ultimately, your position is any requirements are too many, but the dangers of unintended consequences from this are just as dangerous (albeit different) as those from disregarding any potential information supporting a minimum training requirement would lessen the impact to gun rights in this country also. The biggest irony of this debate is most who support no training requirements also support showing IDs for voting.

This is a good thread.

[Irving]

I like to think of issues like this in the same way that I consider discussions of smoking, alcohol, and legalized drugs. In short, alcohol is very legal in this country, but there are VERY strong social pressures to use responsibly. I would go as far as saying that the negative social stigma of abusing drugs and alcohol have a much greater effect on their use than the actual laws written to prevent their misuse.

Similarly, I can imagine a world where live firearms training is not required by a state or federal law, but it is socially encouraged on such a strong level by those in the community, that more people seek training than don't. The argument to this would be to point out that not all gun owners run in the same crowd, as evidenced by the very strong social pressures to clean up and shoot in a safe manner at public shooting ranges, yet many of those places are trashed and considered unsafe by many shooters.

[centrarchidae]

Once upon a time I thought we needed a strict training requirement, including a qualification like the POST course of fire (which frankly isn't all that strict. I could finish a cigarette during the time allotted.). I thought we needed it to head off neighborhoods looking like war zones from all of the stray rounds.

I've outgrown that, when I saw the half-assed pencil-whipped crap that Gunsmoke and others have foisted on the public, and the (lack of) carnage and crime and disorder that followed. The problem just never actually showed up.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, Friday, you're right. It is a B&W issue for me. And I'll admit, especially in today's political climate, I tend to take my rights seriously. Especially my right to defend my family and myself.

Do people who use guns sometimes make mistakes? Of course they do. But you can't train "human" out of the equation. That's why the most highly trained in any field - not just related to carrying guns - oftentimes make mistakes that hurt or kill those who didn't deserve to be hurt or killed. And your point about politicians not caring about statistics is certainly open for debate. I frequently hear anti-gun politicians spouting statistics (usually false or flat out lies) that support their anti-gun law du jour. Furthermore, I think your assertion would tend to support the "less strict" side of the training argument - bureaucrats don't know what is needed so why would you want them mandating training requirements?

Anecdotal evidence of minimally trained or those having no formal training in the defensive use of guns, especially handguns, suggests this "class" (in reference to their level of training) of people uses handguns effectively many times per day to protect themselves. Overwhelmingly, their efforts are successful and no one is harmed...unless it's the bad guy. Sure, most are probably not truly CCW-related. But it's really not that much different.

Until I see evidence to the contrary I'll continue to advocate that everyone who chooses to carry a handgun should seek out as much professional, competent instruction as their means will allow on a voluntary basis. I will continue to argue against further government intrusion and more restrictive government-mandated standards for concealed carry. I will continue to assert that state standards as they are now are sufficient and don't need to be changed...unless we go to a "constitutional carry" system.

[PugnacAutMortem]

Yeah, Friday, you're right. It is a B&W issue for me. And I'll admit, especially in today's political climate, I tend to take my rights seriously. Especially my right to defend my family and myself.

Do people who use guns sometimes make mistakes? Of course they do. But you can't train "human" out of the equation. That's why the most highly trained in any field - not just related to carrying guns - oftentimes make mistakes that hurt or kill those who didn't deserve to be hurt or killed. And your point about politicians not caring about statistics is certainly open for debate. I frequently hear anti-gun politicians spouting statistics (usually false or flat out lies) that support their anti-gun law du jour. Furthermore, I think your assertion would tend to support the "less strict" side of the training argument - bureaucrats don't know what is needed so why would you want them mandating training requirements?

Anecdotal evidence of minimally trained or those having no formal training in the defensive use of guns, especially handguns, suggests this "class" (in reference to their level of training) of people uses handguns effectively many times per day to protect themselves. Overwhelmingly, their efforts are successful and no one is harmed...unless it's the bad guy. Sure, most are probably not truly CCW-related. But it's really not that much different.

Until I see evidence to the contrary I'll continue to advocate that everyone who chooses to carry a handgun should seek out as much professional, competent instruction as their means will allow on a voluntary basis. I will continue to argue against further government intrusion and more restrictive government-mandated standards for concealed carry. I will continue to assert that state standards as they are now are sufficient and don't need to be changed...unless we go to a "constitutional carry" system.

Bailey, you kick some serious ass. That is the most succinct explanation of how I feel about concealed carry in Colorado I've ever read.

[Frank Howell]

Bailey you do make some great points. First, carrying, and personal defence is a RIGHT. No two ways about it. And government should not be allowed to stand in the way of that right, like IL does. Please don't take me for a gun hating liberal who believes that politicians of all people should be implementing training standards.

Irving made a great point that it would be great if social pressure/encouragement would drive people who carry to obtain more training, however the reality of the thing is that there is a serious social stigma about guns. "Polite people don't discuss such things." While I have no real data to back this up, my feeling is that the majority of the people who own guns have no formal firearms instruction beyond what the salesman told them when they bought the gun, which is minimal at best. I base this solely on personal observation.

I do not believe that the lack of training will suddenly create bullet riddled neighborhoods. It hasn't yet, and there is no reason to think it will. Granted, most RESPONCIBLE gun owners will seek out formal instruction. The problem is that not all gun owners are responcible. I used to have a co-worker who was bright as computer geeks go. He had a wife, big house down in CO Springs, and raised 2 daughters. By all rights, a responcible man. We worked side by side for over 10 years, and he was well aware of my background in weapons instruction, yet he'd bought a Glock in .40 S&W, and had it for 8 years before he ever thought to ask me to go shoot with him. He'd actually owned that gun for 8 years, and never even loaded the thing.

The hard fact of the matter is, that the majority of the people out there are all about exercising their rights, but they don't have the drive to exercise those rights responcibly.

One last point, then I'll hop down from my soap box. The big thing I think that the CO law should require, is training in the Colorado statutes governing Use of Force, and firearms. This is what Utah requires, and it makes since. When you carry a gun for personal defense, you are walking a very fine line in the eye's of the law. You have to know the law in order to stay on the right side of that fine line.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't take you for a gun-hating liberal, Frank. I'm hoping you'll forgive me but this topic is one that can really get my blood boiling.

I was, until recently (allowed the cert to expire as there just isn't much demand), certified by BCI to teach the UT course. Yes, it's a state mandated curriculum. But it really doesn't cover anything more than the basics...in my opinion, the absolute minimum that any instructor in CO should be teaching anyway without a state-mandated curriculum. But UT recommends this information be passed along in a 4-hour class and UT doesn't require live fire. Some of the safety information in the UT curriculum is pretty dated, too. I don't see it as much different than what CO requires.

I can tell you we (my business partner and I) conduct a CCW class that is easily 9 or 10 hours long and we focus primarily on mindset and legal issues...some of the things you appear to advocate. I DO NOT believe live fire should be a requirement for a basic CCW class for many reasons.

We use a firearms simulator...it's a shoot/no-shoot judgmental training simulator similar to those used by the military and law enforcement. I find it far more valuable than the live fire most people will receive in a basic CCW class. We induce a lot of stress and we give students, most of whom have never been in a lethal force encounter, the opportunity to see first-hand how quickly normal, every-day situations can evolve into a life-threatening scenario. It's a real eye-opener for most people and our class is oftentimes the first opportunity they've had to really think about developing a proper "combat mindset".

I also have concerns with state-mandated training, especially when it comes to required live-fire, for people with disabilities or other limited mobility. People with these issues have the same rights, and needs, concerning self-defense as the rest of us. I can also foresee state-mandated training requirements leaving a lot of these folks behind. People with limited means...that have only a Bryco budget...are another area of concern. Does someone not have the right to self-defense if they can't afford to receive the required, state-mandated training and requalifications? I've seen lots of folks that could barely afford an $80 pistol and a box of ammo who were genuinely concerned about their safety and the safety of their families. As a matter of fact, Rev Leon Kelly of Denver recently attended one of our classes and that was his main concern...the ability of honest, law-abiding folks who live in "bad areas" of town to legally and effectively protect themselves from the violence around them.

And if the state requires "qualification" and "requalification" on a recurring basis, what will this do to the cost of training? What size of state-level bureaucracy will be required to administer this training? Frankly, I think we have too much bureaucracy and government already...with the resulting cluster-fucks. I don't want to see it extended into firearms training for citizens.

No, I think we're overburdened with government requirements in every aspect of our lives. I don't think we need to ask for more.

[TheBelly]

I have to chime in on this:

the army requires annual re-certification on firearms proficiency. That goes for whatever your primary weapon might be, be it rifle/carbine or light machine gun. Same thing for those that are authorized a pistol. Most feel that that is not enough training/re-training. Dependent upon your job in the military, more range time is available. Think about a couple things, though, before that gets used as a model for others. The army is required to go places and possibly take lives in the course of doing their job. The army also accepts a training standard of 23 hits out of 40 possible (standard rifle qual). That minimum standard of accuracy can only be acceptable in war. There is a certain amount of collateral damage that is accepted as part of that job.

In the civilian world, the law WILL hold a shooter accountable for every round fired. And, if a citizen is put into the situation that needs deadly force as the only avenue, I hope that the person defending themself/family/friends/etc. has a firm grasp. I think too many folks are comfortable with adventure learning. Besides, if you're firing 40 rounds in your self defense shoot, you have bigger problems to worry about.

If we take the same concept and apply it differently: lots of cabs have a sign on th back that has the break down of cab costs vs. DUI costs. (Im not going to get into the 'they just want your business' bit). If that mind set is applied to other areas, like defensive shooting, then I think the level of firearms proficiency would rise to the level that would make someone comfortable enough that they could actually defend themself, should the need arise. The average citizen might be swayed into voluntarily getting a higher level of proficiency by understanding that their freedom can end with the barrel of that gun. The internal thought I'm getting at here is getting the resonsibly armed citizen to realize their own abilities (or lack of) and to have the internally motivated belief that "I do not have a good enough proficiency to hit what I'm aiming at". Some folks here have shot with me at the ipsc/uspsa shoots, and I generally only ask two questions: did I shoot what needed shooting, and did I hit any no-shoot targets? I get really bent out of shape when I fail either of those.

this is only meant to post my thoughts on the physical skill of shooting. It is not meant to tackle the topic of shoot/no-shoot. It is also not meant to tackle the topic of internal mindset a person needs to pull the trigger.

[O2HeN2]

I’m and NRA instructor and I’m one of a cadre of instructors that teach CCW here in the ‘springs. I think training is a great idea and heartily recommend it and as much of it as you can get.

That said, we’re talking about a RIGHT here. If you truly believe that the 2nd amendment acknowledges a right and is not granting a privilege there is only one position you can legitimately take, and that’s there should be absolutely NO requirement or restrictions AT ALL to buy, carry or feed a firearm.

When people ask what restrictions I feel should be on firearms I have a simple reply: The same restrictions that are on buying a newspaper (note that that even implies no tax).

No matter how you justify it: “We want to appear ‘reasonable’”, “We don’t want just anyone to be able to buy one”, etc. you’ve treating the 2nd as a privilege and no longer a right. You’re delaying or pricing the 2nd into oblivion. That’s no different than the mealy-mouthed politicians that say that they support the 2nd amendment, but they just want to ban Saturday night specials. Oh, and assault rifles. Oh, and street sweepers… And on and on and on. But they are true believers.

True believers in absolutely nothing, just like many on this board it appears.

O2

[Controlled-pair]

I am just setting up a training business (along with every other shooter out there). Part of my business plan is to provide proof of cred's to every student. As always..."Let the buyer beware".

[Frank Howell]

Great point about the poor Bailey. I'll be honest, I had never given that population much thought there. There may actually be a real need for training in that population. It really warrants some thought. I know in my personal courses, I offer a 10% discount to anyone who has served or to first responders, but I have not really concidered the plight of those who really need the education but it falls beyond their means.

OK, I will conceed that requirements for training should not be in the realm of the politicians. AT ALL.

That leaves it to those of us who are instructors in this field to be the responcible parties and be sure that we are teaching our students what the really need to know, instead of giving just the minimum that the law requires. People who are carrying concealed really need to know the laws governing use of force and all of the laws that they may come close to violating in their goal of personal protection, i.e. First Degree Kidnapping, Menacing, and wreakless endangerment just to name a few. This is one area that I have real heartburn with the NRA. According to them, the state laws are not to be instructed at all until an individual has passed their Basic Pistol, then their Advanced Pistol, and then their Personal Protection in the Home, and finally their Personal Protection Outside of the Home, and then, it must be taught by either a Lawyer, or LEO. You want to talk about a Barrier to your individual RIGHT?!? That screams barrier to me.

[Great-Kazoo]

Great point about the poor Bailey. I'll be honest, I had never given that population much thought there. There may actually be a real need for training in that population. It really warrants some thought. I know in my personal courses, I offer a 10% discount to anyone who has served or to first responders, but I have not really concidered the plight of those who really need the education but it falls beyond their means.

OK, I will conceed that requirements for training should not be in the realm of the politicians. AT ALL.

That leaves it to those of us who are instructors in this field to be the responcible parties and be sure that we are teaching our students what the really need to know, instead of giving just the minimum that the law requires. People who are carrying concealed really need to know the laws governing use of force and all of the laws that they may come close to violating in their goal of personal protection, i.e. First Degree Kidnapping, Menacing, and wreakless endangerment just to name a few. This is one area that I have real heartburn with the NRA. According to them, the state laws are not to be instructed at all until an individual has passed their Basic Pistol, then their Advanced Pistol, and then their Personal Protection in the Home, and finally their Personal Protection Outside of the Home, and then, it must be taught by either a Lawyer, or LEO. You want to talk about a Barrier to your individual RIGHT?!? That screams barrier to me.


The NRA doesn't insist/ require a person complete ALL handgun courses. ANY of the courses you listed is acceptable for CO CCW. An Attorney or LE is required to be the one during PP in or outside the home to discuss the legal side.
Exactly who is "That population"? seems condescending / elitist to me. Sounds like how we are described when one anti is talking to another you know "That Population". Not saying you are, just not seeing anyone as "that".
Myself, Se Habla Espanol, slowly but surely. The less than english fluent are an untapped source of students. Just because someone does not speak english, doesn't mean they have no desire to defend them self or their loved ones.

[argonstrom]

Great point about the poor Bailey. I'll be honest, I had never given that population much thought there. There may actually be a real need for training in that population. It really warrants some thought. I know in my personal courses, I offer a 10% discount to anyone who has served or to first responders, but I have not really concidered the plight of those who really need the education but it falls beyond their means.

OK, I will conceed that requirements for training should not be in the realm of the politicians. AT ALL.

That leaves it to those of us who are instructors in this field to be the responcible parties and be sure that we are teaching our students what the really need to know, instead of giving just the minimum that the law requires. People who are carrying concealed really need to know the laws governing use of force and all of the laws that they may come close to violating in their goal of personal protection, i.e. First Degree Kidnapping, Menacing, and wreakless endangerment just to name a few. This is one area that I have real heartburn with the NRA. According to them, the state laws are not to be instructed at all until an individual has passed their Basic Pistol, then their Advanced Pistol, and then their Personal Protection in the Home, and finally their Personal Protection Outside of the Home, and then, it must be taught by either a Lawyer, or LEO. You want to talk about a Barrier to your individual RIGHT?!? That screams barrier to me.

Just a quick question to get an idea on your perspective - about how old are you?

[Great-Kazoo]

Just a quick question to get an idea on your perspective - about how old are you?

Perhaps not old enough to have attended any grammar classes:)

[pizzulog]

Hello members,

Here is my question, I am a retired 100% Disabled US. Army Chief Warrant Officer, moved here in 2010 from Fort Bragg NC where I received my CCW. I know CO has retroprocity with NC, my CCW has not expired yet. What do I need to do to convert over to CO? is it better to do it know before it expires, can I still carry now that I am a CO resident or am I in violation.

Thanks

Guy

[Wulf202]

Violation. Go to your sheriffs office trade out your current Ccw for the colorado one it'll arrive in 89 days. Or get proof of training within the last 10 years and don't surrender your current one

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah...your NC permit is not good here once you become a resident. You should have proof of training from the Army that will satisfy CO requirements. Don't get caught carrying with a NC permit.

[Frank Howell]

The NRA doesn't insist/ require a person complete ALL handgun courses. ANY of the courses you listed is acceptable for CO CCW. An Attorney or LE is required to be the one during PP in or outside the home to discuss the legal side.
Exactly who is "That population"? seems condescending / elitist to me. Sounds like how we are described when one anti is talking to another you know "That Population". Not saying you are, just not seeing anyone as "that".
Myself, Se Habla Espanol, slowly but surely. The less than english fluent are an untapped source of students. Just because someone does not speak english, doesn't mean they have no desire to defend them self or their loved ones.

Jim,

"That Population" refered to an earlier post by Bailey in which he described mandated training as a barrier to a person's right to self defense especially for the poor who have very limited funds for this. To insist that they not only fess up the money for the permit and background check but also have to pay for training, was adding more barriers in their way. That gave me something to think about. As a firearms instructor who has spent a lot of time and money obtaining the teaching credintials that I have, I am well within my rights to ask for payment for my services. However, these services, when mandated by the law, can become a barrier to many of the people who need it the most. Elderly people, living on a fixed and limited income. Single parents who are trying to make ends meet in an economy that shows no mercy. I've actually been giving some serious thought to volunteering my time and expertise to teaching some of these people who need, but can't afford the training. I'm sorry if this makes me elitist in some way. That was not my intent. As for the Spanish speaking community, I'll have to leave that in your able hands. I have not said nor implied in any way shape or form that Spanish speaking Americans should not have training. As a matter of fact, the subject has never come up until now.

As for my comments about the NRA training, it was put to me from an NRA Training Counselor that these handgun classes had prerequises, and had to be taken in order. I was just speaking to what I had been told. Yes, I agree with you that any of the classes mentioned would meet the criteria for training required for a CHP, my point was that the only one that referances the State Laws governing use of force, is the last one. I believe that anyone who is preparing to carry a concealed weapon, NEEDS to know the Laws governing that weapons use. The State of CO puts that responcibility solely on the individual, and doesn't even tell them.

And, for the record, I'm 53, retired from the Colorado Air National Guard with 27 years of service, 12 of which were on Active Duty, and all but 4 of those 27 years, I spent teaching people how to defend themselves and others through the use of small arms.

[Bailey Guns]

For all of you begging for more gov't oversight for CCW permits/training standards, you're about to get your wish. Congratulations.

[mcculver5]

FYI there was a guy by the last name of Mangus that was posing as a BATFE agent and allegedly giving out fake (forged) CHPs to folks in SE Colorado. If you took a class from this dude and got a card, go see your local SO.

[cstone]

FYI there was a guy by the last name of Mangus that was posing as a BATFE agent and allegedly giving out fake (forged) CHPs to folks in SE Colorado. If you took a class from this dude and got a card, go see your local SO.

Impersonating a federal agent is a federal crime. Do you know if it was investigated? Was he arrested, charged, prosecuted?

Thank you for passing along the information.

[mcculver5]

Impersonating a federal agent is a federal crime. Do you know if it was investigated? Was he arrested, charged, prosecuted?

Thank you for passing along the information.


My understanding is that he has been charged in State District Court.

The feds? In SE CO? No man, haven't seen any of those dudes in years. Years.

[spqrzilla]

If I was to give some friends in Colorado Springs some recommendations for training class to meet CHP requirements, who would people recommend?

I just need some very straightforward safety training for these friends, and the basics of lethal force, etc. Nothing high speed low drag or mall ninja or any instructor giving them bull manure war stories.

[O2HeN2]

http://paradisefirearms.com/paradise/training/training.html
http://davistraining.biz/

Either one.

O2

[spleify]

If I was to give some friends in Colorado Springs some recommendations for training class to meet CHP requirements, who would people recommend?

I just need some very straightforward safety training for these friends, and the basics of lethal force, etc. Nothing high speed low drag or mall ninja or any instructor giving them bull manure war stories.

Feel free to have them get in touch with us also.

[RagnarokVI]

All new instructors are advised to do the general runaround and meet with their local sheriffs to have their Certified Instructor status kept on file. It is also helpful in gaining business and keeping that professional relationship active. They are generally very welcoming and it helps speed the process when students head in.

If taking a CCW class and you are unsure (Or the instructor is vague on credentials) ask him before hand which sheriff's office he is on file with and they can confirm if he is registered in your local county.

[275RLTW]

All new instructors are advised to do the general runaround and meet with their local sheriffs to have their Certified Instructor status kept on file. It is also helpful in gaining business and keeping that professional relationship active. They are generally very welcoming and it helps speed the process when students head in.

If taking a CCW class and you are unsure (Or the instructor is vague on credentials) ask him before hand which sheriff's office he is on file with and they can confirm if he is registered in your local county.
Why would an instructor want to "register" with the county? That has no effect on the validity of an instructor's credentials. There is no "Certified Instructor file." You either the meet the requirements outlined in C.R.S. and have the proper documentation when asked or you don't.

[Bailey Guns]

All new instructors are advised to do the general runaround and meet with their local sheriffs to have their Certified Instructor status kept on file. It is also helpful in gaining business and keeping that professional relationship active. They are generally very welcoming and it helps speed the process when students head in.

If taking a CCW class and you are unsure (Or the instructor is vague on credentials) ask him before hand which sheriff's office he is on file with and they can confirm if he is registered in your local county.

I'd like to know where you're registered. I want to call the county and check out your certification.

And how, exactly, will this speed up the process for students?

[drew890]

I am curious as to whom is "advising" instructors to do this.

[Great-Kazoo]

I'd like to know where you're registered. I want to call the county and check out your certification.

And how, exactly, will this speed up the process for students?

No shittake mushroom.. The wait time is the wait time, as for "being on file" verification with the NRA is easy to do on their end.

[Bailey Guns]

Crickets...

[Ronin13]

Crickets...
Because it's bullshit. The n00b here hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about... He's pulling a Jim Carrey (talking out of his ass).

[LeftHandBlack]

My instructor put his NRA instructor # next to his signature on my certificate. I renewed at Arapahoe a few months ago and they had signs posted "certificates from online classes not recognized as proof of training". If anyone is considering going that route(scary thought) dont waste your money.

[Alpha2]

I see nobody has replied for a while, so let me add that there is still no state "registry" or questioning by the state. Yes, you should make sure your instructor is actually a certified instructor. That means certified by a national organization, (think NRA, or probably now USCCA, since they now do certifications). Sheriff Justin Smith hasn't questioned any of my credentials or students to date.
That being said, I haven't had a single student ask for my credentials, although my NRA instructor number is on my certificates, and they can always check with the NRA for the info.