Colorado CCW Training Warning

[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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[DeusExMachina]

12th post and already advertising?