NRA class too basic?

[Hill_Country]

Is there a problem with CCW holders endangering the public? What's the problem all this training is supposed to prevent?

Let's see - training costs money - fewer people will be able to carry a weapon. Is that a problem? Yes, it is.

 

[Moonman]

GLK,

You Graduate from my clubs NRA Basic Pistol course YOU"LL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING, or WE WILL NOT SIGN THE CERTIFICATE.

Our course is a little different as we offer it as a SERVICE and we have MANY VOLUNTEER NRA INSTRUCTORS. 1 TO 1 RATIO USUALLY.

We teach over 5 classes of 3 to 3 1/2 hours each, and one extra night is a separate 3 to 3 1/2 class based on State CCW Law and interpretations.


The class time is split between classroom and LIVE FIRE, we shoot every class with the exception of LAW NIGHT, all LISTENING that night.

It is taught by one of our instructors who happens to be an attorney that works in the Prosecutors Division.

He explains the RISKS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND POTENTIAL LEGAL EXPENSES that you could face if you DO CARRY, both Criminal and Civil risks.


Students use club 22LR RUGER MARK III firearms, and on one evening we do CENTERFIRES, they shoot 38 Specials, 9MM, and 45 AUTO,

all club guns again. Sometimes an instructor will offer a student an opportunity to shoot their personal .40 S&W or a SNUBBY or a LASER.

They learn the firearms parts, load and unload them, all with dummy rounds, in the classroom before handling anything on the firing line.


On EXAM NIGHT student may try a handgun or carry gun of their own, after we examine it for safety.

We have ALL SORTS of Holsters, Purses, Day Planners to show them.

We kind of put people in a semi-circle to demonstrate cleaning and maintenance of firearms, semi-auto along with revolvers.

We actually prefer STUDENTS WITH NO SHOOTING EXPERIENCE, or bad habits to UNLEARN.


True, we are the exceptional course, and we intend to keep it that way, and YES we have DISMISSED STUDENTS.

At the end of the course we HIGHLY RECOMMEND that students seek out more advanced firearms training, especially if they intend to carry.

We show them classes from In-State to BIG NATIONAL courses like Gunsite or Thunder Ranch.


We also offer them a sheet of Firearms related websites to seek out other info on their own.

Oh!, I forgot, WE HAND OUT HOME WORK for students to do, besides reading the NRA HANDBOOK during the course.

I enjoy being involved with all the classes and students.

MOONMAN

 

[GLK]

True, we are the exceptional course, and we intend to keep it that way, and YES we have DISMISSED STUDENTS.

Yeah - I would say your course is the exception to the rule... sounds awesome!

 

[Moonman]

GLK,

Thank You,

We take this Very Seriously and Put Effort into it.

We have LEO'S that have sent their WIVES to take the course.

Class size is limited to 12 mostly, and there will be that

many CERTIFIED NRA instructors there also.

Good Shooting!

MOONMAN

 

[Janet L.]

Safety

I talked my housemate into going to a conceiled carry class simply because it is the most readily accessible basic firearms training available.

My housemate was afraid, almost terrified of guns. She about freaked when I asked her to just hold one,

She passed the written with a perfect score (she's a good student.) and amazingly the range as well, since that includded her very first time discharging a gun of any sort. Of course, Kansas' range requirement isn't much - five rounds at three and five yards and fifteen at seven yards and anywhere on the target counts. Just to weigh things even further in her favor, she shot my Buckmark.

Does she intend to carry? Not at all. She doesn't even intend to get a permit! But the big job is done: She isn't nearly as afraid of my guns as she was before. I might even talk her into going to the range enough to actually become a competent shooter. . .

 

[Moonman]

Janet L.

We find that FEMALES do very well in class, even out shooting the males and outscoring them in the exam too.

THEY LISTEN and Pay Attention in Class.

We've had Females come to our course with their only objective being to OVERCOME THEIR FIREARMS FEAR.

We do our best, and are almost completely successful with helping them conquer that fear.

Good Shooting

MOONMAN

 

[329PD]

I've now taken this boring-*** class 3 times. I've never seen anyone "fail" the class. However - I (if I were the instructor) would've failed about 50% of the class each time.


This is the basis of my whole thread - who gives a **** what someone feels about their own personal qualifications?

I am not comfortable handing out CPL's to people who "feel" they can handle a firearm. I've seen too many people getting certificates to apply that shouldn't even be on the range with me during these classes.

How do we know for that you qualify for a CPL?

If you feel that the instructor did not do his job properly, why would you use the certificate from that class to apply for your CPL?

So why is it OK for you to feel like you qualify?

I would advise you to avoid Indiana, we have had untrained eighteen year olds carrying safely for decades.

 

[Squarebutt]

As Randy noted, here in MA you need a state certificate to apply for a license. Our club runs a course much like what Moonman describes, with about a dozen NRA instructors and over 30 certified Range Safety Officers, who monitor the live fire portion one-on-one with each student. We offer one course a month, limited to 20 students, and we're now filling up for May's course. Lately we've seen a number of teachers expressing interest. . .

 

[WR Moore]

You'll note the "BASIC" in the titles of many NRA introductory courses. They're intended, as some have noted, to introduce people who've never before handled firearms to the safe handling of firearms. ( I really liked the "hold the gun like a [really icky] dead animal phrase.)

I emphasize in class, that completion of the class will NOT turn them into experts, SWAT operators or anything of the sort. The intent is to provide a foundation of safe handling for the lifelong learning process they will undergo with firearms. And yes, the habits of some of those who've 'been shooting all their lives' can be quite interesting.

You should be applauding the newbies for seeking competent instruction, rather than latching onto a gunshop commando, mall ninja or internet videos as their source of expertise.

 

[Cavere]

People will certainly disagree with me on this. But I think some sort of basic knowledge whether it be a class or proficiency test before they can take a gun home with them. I'm not saying every time but before first purchase. Here in utah for my first purchase I walked into the LGS. Twenty Minutes later I walked out with my M&P 9c. I'm not saying it should be difficult to purchase a firearm or get a CCW/cpl permit. But it's a little too easy here.

I believe that a class pre-ownership would cut down on the number of gun accidents that occur and weaken the anti gun movement.

Hell I wasn't allowed to leave the optometrist without showing I could out in and take out contacts without a problem.

 

[Hill_Country]

I think you should have to take a class on respect for others rights before being allowed to post on the internet. <G>

Seriously, what problem are you trying to solve? If there is no clear danger/threat to society that needs to be moderated, a training requirement infringes on other people's rights. Is your real name Bloomberg?

Oh, yeah, welcome to the forum. You're not off to a good start.

 

[Cavere]

You're right - many/most people probably shouldn't even look at a gun. Some of the people at my local range scare the heck out of me. However, while I figure I have the right to offer assistance to them, I don't have the right to impose my opinions on them.

Hill we've all seen these people. In my mind they're abusing their rights. With any right we have a responsibility to use that right intelligently and that only strengthen the constitution. At least making sure someone can correctly load and unload without leaving one in the chamber unintentionally wouldn't hurt.

Granted most of the people that enjoy shooting enough to be on forums aren't these people. I think if we could chose that over an AR ban we'd gladly take it.

Oh and I wish my name was Bloomberg. I wouldn't mind having his money.

 

[Hill_Country]

I certainly understand where you are coming from, but the bottom line is other people have as much right to a weapon as I have and I know of no problem that required training would solve - other than making me more comfortable when I'm around them.

And once you start mandating training there's no end to it. How much training. How old should they be. How many rounds should they carry. There's no end to it.

It irks me that while Texas' has a relatively moderate training requirement, there's no evidence I'm aware of that indicates Texas is any safer than states with no training requirement.

So let's not invent problems where there are none.

 

[H Richard]

I don't think any state should issue a CCW without a shooting qualification as a part of the class, or issue requirements. This gives the instructor the ability to see if the person has the understanding of safe gun handling and ability to fire the gun in a safe manner without endangering bystanders. I'm an instructor also, as well as a IPSC RO, and competitive shooter. It is sometimes scary being an RO when several shooters are at their first match. It could be even worse in a live "situation".

 

[Hill_Country]

I respect your opinion, but you're missing the point.

Is there a demonstrated problem in a "non-training required state" which requires that the government abridge the right to keep and bear arms by requiring mandatory training?

What makes you more qualified than Mayor Bloomberg to determine if someone's constitutional rights should be withheld?

I'm all for safe gun handling, motherhood and all the rest. But I'm even more for protection of the constitution.

 

[Moonman]

I'm ABSOLUTELY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Ownership.

My Personal OPINION is that if you choose to participate with CONCEALED CARRY,

you should have to DEMONSTRATE your KNOWLEDGE of THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS,

that can and WILL AFFECT YOU.

You should have at least a minimum PROFICIENCY of some sort,

DEPENDING UPON YOUR STATE LEGISLATURES REQUIREMENTS.

This CCW is Serious Responsibility Stuff Folks! JMHO!

Remember, even WYATT EARP Didn't ALLOW IN TOWN CARRY!

 

[Zactical]

As An Instructor, and I'm using Florida as an example here, it is our job to enforce the law they put in place for the person to get their license. If the Student safely handles and discharges the Firearm they technically "pass" the class. I have seen Instructors "fail" students for their FL license and I've almost failed two women in my time as an instructor, both were given heavy warnings that if they didn't display better control of the firearm they would be forced to stop shooting and therefore "fail"

It is unfortunate that there are so many poor instructors out there who just look for a quick buck and care nothing about instructing or helping their student become a skilled and knowledgeable gun user.

A National push for Gun education is something I am for. Especially the need for safe storage!

 

[Hill_Country]

And what if your OPINION was that there should be no concealed carry in your state - would that infringe on my constitutional rights?

You can't have it both ways. Do we go by the constitution or your opinion? There's a pretty high bar for limiting constitutional rights and no one here has demonstrated a need for mandatory training.

Sorry - I agree that the world would be a better place if some level of competence was required, but that's what the anti-gun people say, too (and no one can meet the standard they set).

 

[Moonman]

Hill_Country,

Owning and Carrying are different.

The Second Amendment has no mention of Carrying, or Hunting.

The LAW in this state Ohio is very specific on KNOWLEDGE YOU MUST POSSESS.

One item, is REACHING AND TOUCHING A FIREARM during a traffic stop from the time the

LEO exits his cruiser until the stop is over and he's back seated in his cruiser. FELONY, DONE DEAL.

ALL YOUR FIREARMS AND RIGHTS ARE GONE FOREVER, PERIOD.

The same deal exists for an ERRANT ROUND OF YOURS, it could easily be a FELONY FOR YOU.

 

[Hill_Country]

Moonman - let's put this in the context of the original post - the OP was saying that in his state (Michigan) the training for a CHL was pretty minimal and he thought more training would be appropriate.

Now, please don't misunderstand me, I work hard to maintain some minimal level of proficiency and I think training is a VERY good thing. And I am sure that nearly all of us on this board have been scared to death by some of the things we've seen at public ranges and left shaking our heads.

So while I'm in favor of training, I'm adamantly opposed to state mandated training/testing/permitting/anything that restricts the ability of any lawfully permitted citizen to purchase and carry a weapon without a clear need for the restriction/regulation.

To use your example, Texas - like Florida - requires training which concentrates on the law concerning concealed carry - as opposed to tactical training. Yes, this is a good thing if it keeps us out of trouble, but why do we have all the laws in the first place? Are we any safer than people in Alaska which has no such training requirement or even a requirement for a permit? Indiana (where I grew up) has permits, but no training of any kind. I'm not aware of Hoosiers accidentially shooting each other or having a problem complying with the CC laws.

Show me why we need the restriction (training) and I'll go along with it.

Here's the problem with mandated training - and this is an extreme example. Say there is a purchase requirement that one has to demonstrate excellent shooting skills at say 25 yards. Now take some old guy (I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there) in a wheelchair, vision isn't to good, pretty much home bound and the requirement for training may make it impossible for him to qualify even though he's hardly going to be leaving his home. And, what about the cost of the training. Mention a tax on ammunition and everyone is up in arms (pun intended), but isn't mandatory training a form of a tax? Should guns just be for the well to do? Someone has to pay for the training.

When we got concealed carry in Texas about 20 years ago, we were thrilled and would jump through any hoop to get legal. But somewhere along the line it dawned on me that they were only giving back (and charging for) what was my constitutional right anyway. Show me a need for training - are people being shot accidentally or something? - and I'm all for it. But just because some anti-gunner's opinion is that I should have 2 hours - or 200 hours - of training is not going to convince me. Let's not fall in to the trap of "mere mortals are not qualified to carry a weapon without extensive training" because if they can make us jump through one hoop, they can make us jump through an infinite number of hoops until there are no guns. And make no mistake about it, there are those in this country who want exactly that. Let's draw a line in the sand - no regulation of firearms without a clear and convincing need for the regulation.