Require more training for CCW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I also wanted to make another redundant point. Rather than requiring "training," it seems more logical to require a certain level of performance. In this case it would have to be a score on a written exam and a score on some shooting drill. Then if you can pass the test without any additional "training" then good for you. If not, the argument is that you need that training anyway. Just an alternative idea, that I don't actually support.

---

Define certain level of performance ? Performance based on another shooters 10 years of competition shooting? Performance based on some Sensible Gun Owner ? Performance based on someone who sat in at a 3hr "lecture" during a gun show ?

Imagine if you weren't required to get any training, obtain and pay for a License to do something you SHOULD already be allowed to do, the type of training you could afford to take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

Define certain level of performance ? Performance based on another shooters 10 years of competition shooting? Performance based on some Sensible Gun Owner ? Performance based on someone who sat in at a 3hr "lecture" during a gun show ?

---

Exactly.

Nevada has a shooting accuracy requirement for their CCW (which is one of the reasons we don't have reciprocity), but it's a total farce, something like 70% hits on a B29 silhouette at 3, 5, and 7 yards, with no time limit. That means 9 complete misses, off the paper, at conversational distances, with no time pressure. I'll go on record as saying training is good, I encourage anyone that is interested in getting their CCW permit to get as much training as they can afford, but requiring training to some bureaucrat's idea of a reasonable level of performance is not an idea I can get behind. In fact, the whole concept of a permit so I can cover my gun with a shirt really grates on my sensibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Nevada has a shooting accuracy requirement for their CCW (which is one of the reasons we don't have reciprocity), but it's a total farce, something like 70% hits on a B29 silhouette at 3, 5, and 7 yards, with no time limit. That means 9 complete misses, off the paper, at conversational distances, with no time pressure. I'll go on record as saying training is good, I encourage anyone that is interested in getting their CCW permit to get as much training as they can afford, but requiring training to some bureaucrat's idea of a reasonable level of performance is not an idea I can get behind. In fact, the whole concept of a permit so I can cover my gun with a shirt really grates on my sensibilities.

---

+1

It is a jacket tax.

Requals and performance standards for LEOs are primarily CYA for liability. Any shooting by a private citizen will not be covered by your insurance and that private citizen will be held liable, count on it. Unless the police, prosecutor, and Grand Jury find your use of the firearm justified, expect your use of a firearm will cost magnitudes more than the cost of any firearms training, the gun and all the ammunition you have ever purchased.

But how much value do you place on the lives of your loved ones?

IMO, in a rational world where responsibility was valued, any government would respect the choice of citizens to take up this duty voluntarily and make that burden as light as possible rather than restrict and encumber. At a minimum, any government should be neutral and not prejudge the liability of free citizens for acts that may never happen.

But I dream.

Be safe.

General comment on this thread: It appears that many folks are of the opinion that everyone should be required to have as much training as they have, but any more is optional.

See how that doesn't work?

O2

THIS++++

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

what if I just bring a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with me instead? then they can not track, not do a 4473, not infringe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

+1



But I dream.

Be safe.

---

Do us a favor and don't stand on any balcony's in Memphis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O2HeN2

General comment on this thread: It appears that many folks are of the opinion that everyone should be required to have as much training as they have, but any more is optional.

See how that doesn't work?

O2

---

No. Most people are saying voluntary training, as much as you can get (assuming it's from a competent source), is great and even encouraged. Mandatory training or government mandated training curriculum and standards are not. Big difference.

My wife and I attended a CCW class that required shooting to prove you could actually shoot. I am not exactly sure how they scored it (like 6 years ago) but she scored a 360 out of 400 and the instructor said she just out shot 75% of the Larimer county sheriff deputies in their required qualifying scores. My wife is a good shot close in with her little J and does pretty well with a Glock 19 too. Only she can't get a permit to carry or even possess a firearm because she has a prescription for MMJ. If I was registered as her caregiver I couldn't either.

Still, I wouldn't want to be the jack off that tries to take her on, they would be DOA.