Prepping to pass onerous qualification test in New Jersey

[Bald1]

This course is not onerous. It is almost identical to the one I (and many others) must shoot every year to maintain my LEOSA qualification.

None of the guns I shoot has a decocking lever but suspect that requirement applies only to guns equipped with such in the instant case.

Re: kneeling, it is made very clear that you must and the instructors will NOT assist you in getting down or standing up. That said, the gun is not drawn until you are “down” and is reholstered before getting “up” in an attempt to minimize the chances of negligent discharge.

I am 74, have shot this course for decades, and have never had a problem.

Be safe.

It is ABSOLUTELY onerous! For all the reasons everyone has stated. It is also discriminatory. These things are designed to make people not bother getting a permit. NY for example has made the process expensive and time consuming. The financial burden makes it impossible for the people who need it most. Those living in low income, high crime areas. Perhaps disability advocates should get involved. Handicapped and elderly individuals are an easy target. Grandma can’t conceal an 18” 20ga.

 

[ladder13]

We have a NJ member that is disabled, lrrifleman ?. I hope he chimes in.

 

[pharmer]

Well, if you need to do everything LE does why shouldnt you get LEOSA?

Too bad I can only like that once. Joe

 

[AZgman]

I am all for some sort of required proficiency test but this one seems way too strict. Who wants an untrained/unpracticed individual firing away in some sort of public emergency? I don't even like that sort of person next to me at the shooting range. The second amendment rights do not come without obligation to exercise them in a proficient manner.

 

[ispcapt]

You're missing the point. What I'm saying is that you have options when someone is 75 feet away. I'm not going to shoot someone who's yelling at me from 75 feet away with a knife in his hand. At that distance I have options. Is he a threat? Yes. Is my life in imminent danger from that distance? I don't want to find out what a DA and a jury think if I can avoid a shooting.

That's not what you said in your post. Apparently you forgot what you wrote "
Originally Posted by sjbrdn View Post
25 yard qualifications?
If you shoot someone from 25 yards there's a strong likelihood you're going to jail."
My answer still stands regardless of you changing your scenario. That's a totally bogus assertion.

I saw why the LEOs shot and thats why I posted the, “ most LEOs cant shoot. From knowing many for years( all regular shooters) they will quickly tell anyone most other LEos cant shoot very well. Sadly the days are long gone when most LEOs were “ gun guys”. Today most carry because they have to. Departments dont have the resources or incentives to Train, let alone the $$$ for lots of ammo for LEOs to shoot to become “ good”. Its all a sign of the times.

If you've done any training for non-LEO people then you know that the person who comes in to do their CCW training or any shooting is a very poor shooter. LEOs can't shoot? The average gun toter can't either. Average non LEO hitting a target at 25 yards? Good luck with that. The ones I've seen go thru the course can't hit the target at 5 yards. Then claim they don't need to hit at 15 ft because shootings are usually closer. Excuse for being a poor shot.

 

[GaryS]

MA requires retreat when possible, even in your own home. The original version of the bill included abandoning your family in the home with you to their fate while you ran away like Brave Sir Robin.

That was changed some years later.

The law still only provides for an "Affirmative Defense" at trial if you are indicted. Which history in this state shows is about a 90% certainty.

This is why people keep repeating it. Many states ( especially in the northeast) have an obligation to retreat when possible. Well, who’s to say what’s possible. You want the same people who made these laws deciding if you broke them. I don’t.

 

[GaryS]

And there in lies the problem with proficiency tests. A blue state can jack up the requirements to the point where it's almost impossible to pass for most people.

For that matter they can jack up the educational requirements to the point where a law degree is required to pass the written test.

Or they can make the required course so expensive that few can afford it.

I am all for some sort of required proficiency test but this one seems way too strict. Who wants an untrained/unpracticed individual firing away in some sort of public emergency? I don't even like that sort of person next to me at the shooting range. The second amendment rights do not come without obligation to exercise them in a proficient manner.

 

[WCCPHD]

Qualification to exercise a Constitutional Right.

Sounds like a literacy test to me.

 

[Bald1]

I am all for some sort of required proficiency test but this one seems way too strict. Who wants an untrained/unpracticed individual firing away in some sort of public emergency? I don't even like that sort of person next to me at the shooting range. The second amendment rights do not come without obligation to exercise them in a proficient manner.

How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go. Showing proficiency is an infringement on a constitutional right! If I have a bad stutter and can’t speak worth a damn, am I not allowed free speech?!?!?!?! Shall not be infringed means just that! Period! Let’s not confuse constitutional rights with a drivers license.

 

[444 Magnum]

That's not what you said in your post. Apparently you forgot what you wrote "
Originally Posted by sjbrdn View Post
25 yard qualifications?
If you shoot someone from 25 yards there's a strong likelihood you're going to jail."
My answer still stands regardless of you changing your scenario. That's a totally bogus assertion.

You're still missing the point. You're assumption (based on your response) when you read my post is that someone is shooting at the CCP holder from 25 yards and I'm saying "don't worry about it, he can't hit you from that far." I suggest you read it again.

My point is that "self-defense" shootings from that distance are subject to scrutiny from LE and the DA's office. There are many circumstances where shooting someone from that distance will land you in jail-either temporarily or for a more extended stay.

My second point, which is more relevant to the OP, is the fact that most self-defense shootings happen at relatively close distances. The bulk are ten yards or less. If you don't believe me, look up the stats from both the FBI and the NYPD.

So why should a citizen (non LEO) have to qualify from 25 yards?

 

[Rodan]

So why should a citizen (non LEO) have to qualify from 25 yards?

It's a (relatively) standardized test of marksmanship skill.

Most LE shootings occur well under 25 yards, but most LE quals include shots from 25 yards. It's evaluation, not preparation.

If we wanted an actual test of competence, such qualifications should include force on force decision making scenarios with simmunition guns as well as marksmanship and gunhandling tests. I guarantee less than 50% of the 'average' shooters out there could pass such tests. LE are required to do such things annually, and many of them are borderline with training.

That said:

There should be no 'test' of any kind to excercise a right. The responsibility is on the individual to do so responsibly.

 

[ladder13]

………

There should be no 'test' of any kind to excercise a right. The responsibility is on the individual to do so responsibly.

……………100%………..

 

[RetCapt]

This comment applies to the kneeling position.

During my LE career, I loved the kneeling position. In PPC matches, the kneeling position guaranteed me six in the X ring. I could easily get into a very low rock solid position, then just as easily rise from it to shoot the weak and strong hand barricades.

In retirement I was a volunteer fire fighter, then fire chief. On a wild land fire some years ago I blew out my right knee advancing on the fire over uneven terrain with a charged line. I recall the moment it happened. Between adrenaline flow and being warmed up, I did not so much feel pain as much as the awareness that this was going to have consequences. It did. The fight knee never fully recovered, so I need to be careful with it. I still work out and I am not carrying any extra weight, so by no means am I disabled, but getting into or out of a kneeling shooting position is not going to happen without a lot of work, a bit of pain (which is certainly bearable) and a bit of time. Age has not helped (I am 82). But the net result is that if I had to now shoot the kneeling position under time in order to qualify, I probably could not do it.

I think any non-LE qualification course should be predicated on skill without imposing an additional challenge of assuming physical positions no longer feasible or possible. By the same token, getting into/out of the prone and sitting positions on the PPC course for me would also be, at best, extremely challenging.

I have no problems walking or hiking, but the knee does not like uneven terrain.

When I was in LE and then fire/rescue/EMS, the two leading causes of medical disability retirements were knees and backs. I think one would find a similar incidence of disabilities in other physically demanding professions.

So I submit that the kneeling position should not be an element of a non-LE qualitification course. The objective is to demonstrate shooting skill, not physical agility.

I agree with many of the posters who have expressed the opinion that NJ (and some other equally enlightened jurisdictions) have intentionally made the CCW process so burdensome for the sole purpose of denying otherwise legally qualified citizens their 2A rights.

 

[CJH]

……………100%………..

I agree with this. SHOULD someone who carries a firearm be competent with their weapon? Sure. I don’t see anywhere that says they conditionally MUST in the constitution. That burden is on the individual’s choices. We are responsible for every round that leaves the chamber. A reasonable person would take that seriously. But a right doesn’t come with conditions and there’s a difference between a right and a privilege.

 

[BSA1]

I am all for some sort of required proficiency test but this one seems way too strict. Who wants an untrained/unpracticed individual firing away in some sort of public emergency? I don't even like that sort of person next to me at the shooting range. The second amendment rights do not come without obligation to exercise them in a proficient manner.

How much proficiency does a woman need to shoot a man that is on top of her attempting to rape her?

 

[Greyman50]

Well, here in Florida many people that go to the range to shoot are ok, not great but ok.
Bottom line is the huge change in US society, gone are the days where just about everyone grew up with and using guns. No training by Dad, grandad , uncles or older brothers. Military service is about gone so none to little there. Grandson in Navy said he would have To Pay To Qualify with M-4 and whatever 9 mm. He could teach the class since he’s my grandson. lol

 

[smoothshooter]

My thinking is that a person should have the precision and muscle memory to drive the bullets home
Every shot fired lands somewhere , an untrained or unpracticed person could put rounds anywhere under stress
I’m certainly no expert , I just feel being familiar with your tools will make any job easier

Ideally, yes.
As a matter of practicality, no.
The most vulnerable among us generally have neither the physical ability or money to shoot and train a lot. My 87 year old arthritic mother can shoot a pistol well enough to stop an intruder in her house; but there is no way she could or needs to pass any rigorous quick draw requirement, or marksmanship test beyond about 12 to 15 feet.
She could pass the cookie sheet sized target across the room or in her face test, but no more.
And that’s good enough. ( For her )

 

[smoothshooter]

I don't know why people keep repeating that line. Totally not true. They think because they couldn't hit an elephant at 25 yards then it must be too far for a righteous shoot.
I've investigated many many shootings. Never ever has that been an issue.
So what you're saying with that line is that if someone is shooting at you from 25 yards they're not a threat to you. Totally bogus thinking. And simply not true.
Can't hit at 25 yards? Then that says a lot about the shooter.
I was teaching one class and as in nearly every class there's that one guy who thinks he knows more than everyone else and likes to blow a lot of smoke. He made the comment that at 100 yards he'd stand there all day and let someone shoot at him with a 2" revolver. 2" guns were only accurate for a few feet.
When we went to the range I set up a B-27 target. We went to 100 yards. Using my S&W 49 I fired 5 rounds and we all went to check the target. All 5 rounds hit COM. The guy started laughing and said I was a lucky shot and couldn't do it again. So back to 100 yards, 5 shots, all COM. By then rest of the class was laughing at the know it all. He left the class.
It really wasn't difficult. Rest the head on the front sight and the rounds drop in COM.

An assailant firing at you from 25 yards with a handgun might very well be a bonafide threat at that distance, but the court may not see it that way.
No need for an ordinary citizen to have to qualify beyond 5 to 7 yards.
Personally, I practice shooting silhouettes all the way out to 100 yards, and am pretty good at it in a training environment, but only a very small percentage ( think single-digits ) of handgun carriers are capable of that skill level no matter how much they practice.

 

[Bald1]

What about the guy or gal that just wants to target shoot in the back yard with a .22 Or maybe he wants to squirrel hunt. Hell maybe he just likes to collect old revolvers because he’s a history buff. In NY he needs the pistol permit just to own a handgun. Same cost, same qualifications, same training etc. Just to shoot a squirrel……… it’s the equivalent of me having to go to school and drive as well as Richard Petty just so I can buy a new Hemi Challenger.

 

[smoothshooter]

Ideally, yes.
As a matter of practicality, no.
The most vulnerable among us generally have neither the physical ability or money to shoot and train a lot. My 87 year old arthritic mother can shoot a pistol well enough to stop an intruder in her house; but there is no way she could or needs to pass any rigorous quick draw requirements, or any marksmanship test beyond about 12 to 15 feet.
She could pass the cookie sheet sized target across the room or in her face test, but no more.
And that’s good enough. ( For her )