CCW Class

[outdoorsfan]

For Christmas this year, I asked SWMBO to take my Utah CCW class. As a nice surprise, I got not only the Utah class but the Florida class as well. This past Saturday I took both classes back to back, starting with Utah in the morning and Florida in the afternoon.

The Utah class was much longer, but required no shooting. There was a VERY basic overview of different weapon types, function, ammo and safety. Again, this was the most basic of information that you should be REQUIRED to know before you ever even touch any firearm. The bulk of the class was a review of Utah law concerning carry, use of force, penalties, etc. THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DEMONSTRATE ANY ABILITY TO SAFELY HANDLE (MUCH LESS SHOOT) A FIREARM. So, in theory (and I am sure practice for some) one could take this class never having even touched a firearm before and be granted the ability to carry a firearm for use in defense. This would, to me, be the same as being granted a driver's license with zero experience behind the wheel and NOT EVEN A DEMONSTRATION THAT YOU CAN SAFELY DRIVE!!!!! It made me wonder what is this class really for? I understand that it probably was not written as a training class but why would we place a greater requirement to demonstrate even a minimum skill level on a hairdresser than we do on someone who is legally able to carry a loaded weapon in public? Is this really serving the better interests of responsible gun owners?

After we filled out our forms, were fingerprinted and documented as completing the class, we moved on to the Florida class which does actually require that you fire a weapon. But, wait, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THIS EITHER!!! Apparently (from some class offerings I saw online) this could even be done with AN AIRSOFT GUN!!!!!! I believe the idea is that Florida wants to see that you've completed some level of basic training, like the NRA fundamentals class, but then they missed the boat and put no specific guidelines as to what the training must consist of. Mine was a grueling 20 rounds fired at a copy of an IPDA target at 7 yards. That was it. Two clips, 10 rnds. each. It didn't matter if you shot all 20 in the circle or never even touched the paper (although our teacher probably would have made you try again if you couldn't hit the paper at 7 yards). So, needless to say I "passed" both classes. I would also add that our instructor, who was actually very good, also repeatedly said that everyone in the class should seek out additional training.

I guess my point with all this is that these classes DO NOT IN ANY WAY PREPARE YOU TO SAFELY CARRY OR USE A FIREARM. If you choose to carry or own, you should seek out qualified instruction and also practice, practice , practice.

I also wonder if we, as responsible gun owners, should not push for more stringent training requirements and instruction. While I live in one of the most restrictive states as far as gun laws go, I actually think the Illinois' FOID system (Firearms Owners Identification Card) makes sense. It should also have a requirement that you attend a safety and handling class to secure the FOID in the first place. I, personally, would have no problem with this becoming a national requirement. You need a license to drive a car, perform an operation as a doctor or design a building's electrical system as an engineer. Why shouldn't we have some sort of basic certification that you understand the responsibilities of safely handling, using and storing a firearm?

Sorry if this is somewhat "ranty" and political.

 

[JK Knives]

Since I don`t travel out of state anymore, I feel these classes would not be worth my while. I`m starting to think they are just a way for places to make money by offering them. Everyone offers them, from Gander Mtn., to the rinky dink sportsmans club 4 miles from home, who offer it every month. That being said, if (and that`s a big if), Illinois ever passes a concealed carry law, I would be right in line for classes. I might add that many years ago I did a lot of training with a friend on one of the larger police departments in the area. We did training on what`s known as a Hogan`s Alley, using techiques used by the guys who actually go in harms way every day, using cover and live ammo for the training.

 

[outdoorsfan]

The states that issue to non-residents do collect fees (income) on the licenses. Utah is actually pretty inexpensive for non-res but Florida is a bit more ($100+). There is also the residual income from ongoing renewals.

I don't think you need to be a super commando or anything but there really needs to be some common sense applied to how we regulate something so important and potentially dangerous. Probably the biggest lesson that the instructor kept making was that you never ever want to use deadly force unless there is absolutely no other way you or your loved ones can escape death or very grave injury. He basically said that you should "pray that you never have to shoot someone".

 

[JK Knives]

I was talking about what the places that offer the classes are making off them. Up untill about 3 years ago I went to the range once every week, usually putting a minimum of 100 rounds through my .45, and at least that much through one of my 9mm`s.

 

[outdoorsfan]

Oh yes, the sites hosting the classes are making some serious dough. There were about 20 people in my class at $100-$150 per person. Not to mention ammo, rental and other fees.

 

[cbwoods67]

I agree that there needs to be some sort of process to go through to make sure one is ready and able to safely carry a firearm.
If one does pretty frequent traveling, it would be extremely convenient to take one of these classes. I had no idea that there are classes like this, will have to keep my ears open.

 

[ElConquistador]

So we need more government regulation and less personal responsibility? outdoorsfan recognizes that he needs more firearms training than is required but wants somebody to tell him that he has to get it? Being a hairdresser is not a god given right, having the ability to protect yourself is.

It's funny, yet sad, that you all have had your freedoms taken away until you actually desire more regulation. You go out of state to get a CCW, a right taken away by your own state (I assume), and complain because of too little regulation in the other state.

The simple solution would be for Utah to issue permits to Utahans. I never have understood why we issue out of state permits in the first place.

 

[mqqn]

<snip...> I never have understood why we issue out of state permits in the first place.

Let me try to clear that up for you. $$$$$$$. ;^)

Sean - I believe that people that are requesting a CCW should already be proficient with a firearm, but I guess there is no requirement for this.

John - if you wait until they pass the new law, you might be in line for quite a while waiting for an opening - just guessing on that.

The NRA has a very good firearms safety program - I recommend the class.

best

mqqn

 

[cbwoods67]

So we need more government regulation and less personal responsibility?...

I think what he is saying is that there should be a firearm competency exam of some sort. I can sit in front of a college professor and listen all day long, but that is no substitution for real world experience.

Some folks grow up around firearms (hunting, target shooting, etc.), and become comfortable with them, yet are not allowed to carry. Other folks grow up never even touching a gun, but have the option to sign a couple papers and be able to purchase and carry a firearm, without any proof of proficiency with their weapon.

I definitely understand and agree with what Sean is saying.

There is no way to know if that person has any experience with their gun, and can handle it safely.

 

[outdoorsfan]

So we need more government regulation and less personal responsibility? outdoorsfan recognizes that he needs more firearms training than is required but wants somebody to tell him that he has to get it? Being a hairdresser is not a god given right, having the ability to protect yourself is.

It's funny, yet sad, that you all have had your freedoms taken away until you actually desire more regulation. You go out of state to get a CCW, a right taken away by your own state (I assume), and complain because of too little regulation in the other state.

The simple solution would be for Utah to issue permits to Utahans. I never have understood why we issue out of state permits in the first place.

I understand the general resistance to any further regulation or limitations placed on our 2nd Amendment rights as well as the ideas behind making the regulation of firearms a decision made on the state level. That being said, I am not for less personal responsibility and more regulation as much as some assurance that those who choose to utilize a firearm for self defense have a basic understanding of how to do that safely. I recognized that these classes do not provide that level of training (and perhaps, should not be expected to) but would everyone? If one doesn't, then yes, I would want them to be forced to take at least a basic course that covered safety, handling and marksmanship. I don't think it is necessary that every CCW holder achieves an advanced skill level but there should be some minimal requirements that include live fire with a minimum scoring level to be awarded the permit.

I am glad that Utah does issue to non-residents and did not mean to discredit the program. It was more of an observation about the process in general.

 

[KYenglish]

thanks for the thoughts, Sean, my opinion on everything about guns is not set, it was, then i moved to America, I'm still trying to learn about what it is to have guns as a right in a society.

Where I come from I'm a rarity in that I have handled quite a few guns and shot them before i came to America, most people who can say that in England are in the forces - which you might have guessed is where I was panning on gong for a long while. Farmers have shotguns though now I think of it

 

[Chris Pierce]

I think it's pretty silly to say that we should require a class for someone to be able to use their Civil Rights.
Should we have classes on proper use of pens before we can write what we think? Should we have to take a class before we have the right to a fair trial? Redress of grievances?


My point is that we have a God given and Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. The exact same way that we have a right to a fair trial, free speech, etc etc. It is no different. If we continue down this road, taking away our own civil rights, where does it end?

 

[mqqn]

I think it's pretty silly to say that we should require a class for someone to be able to use their Civil Rights.
Should we have classes on proper use of pens before we can write what we think? Should we have to take a class before we have the right to a fair trial? Redress of grievances?


My point is that we have a God given and Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. The exact same way that we have a right to a fair trial, free speech, etc etc. It is no different. If we continue down this road, taking away our own civil rights, where does it end?

If holding a pen incorrectly could kill you or a bystander, then it might be prudent to make sure you know how to use the pen.

I agree, this is a constitutional right, but it also is prudent to make sure people know how to handle guns.

For instance, when you take a new person to the range, do you just load up your piece, put on your ear protection, eye protection and then hand the gun to the newb and run behind your truck? (I am being facetious, but hopefully you get my point).

There needs to be some rudimentary gun safety training before anyone is allowed to exercise their right to carry and bear arms. It just makes common sense.

best

mqqn

 

[outdoorsfan]

I think it's pretty silly to say that we should require a class for someone to be able to use their Civil Rights.
Should we have classes on proper use of pens before we can write what we think? Should we have to take a class before we have the right to a fair trial? Redress of grievances?


My point is that we have a God given and Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. The exact same way that we have a right to a fair trial, free speech, etc etc. It is no different. If we continue down this road, taking away our own civil rights, where does it end?

And your point is well taken. It is our right but, perhaps, it's also our responsibility to exercise that right in a safe and sane manner. My personal ideal is that I can do pretty much whatever I want until it somehow prevents or infringes on you doing the same.

In regards to pens, their irresponsible use has led to the deaths of millions throughout history. Mightier than the sword and gun put together!

 

[Chris Pierce]

If holding a pen incorrectly could kill you or a bystander, then it might be prudent to make sure you know how to use the pen.

I agree, this is a constitutional right, but it also is prudent to make sure people know how to handle guns.

For instance, when you take a new person to the range, do you just load up your piece, put on your ear protection, eye protection and then hand the gun to the newb and run behind your truck? (I am being facetious, but hopefully you get my point).

There needs to be some rudimentary gun safety training before anyone is allowed to exercise their right to carry and bear arms. It just makes common sense.

best

mqqn

Yes we should have all kinds of classes and educational programs, fire arms training. But to tell some one that unless they do this thing, they don't have their civil rights is just plain wrong. People should be trusted to get their own training. I'll say it again, forcing people to do something before they can exercise their rights is immoral and illegal. Common sense would dictate that if we are to have rights, then we have rights. You can't pick and choose who gets what rights. If you think that a certain amount of education should be had before these rights are to be exercised then maybe firearms safety should be a requirement in public and private schools? We teach kids to read and write before they're adults, why not teach them to handle a gun safety too? I think it would do a lot to show people that the guns aren't the problem, and go a long way towards arming more people. Which would make us all safer.


Do you really think that speech cannot hurt people? Look at Nazi propaganda in the 1930's.

BTW, Trucks don't stop bullets just so you know

If you feel very strongly that folks should have to be educated before using their rights, you should write your congressmen and senators and suggest that attempt to Amendment the Bill of Rights. Because that is the only Legal way that it could happen.

 

[Chris Pierce]

I also wonder if we, as responsible gun owners, should not push for more stringent training requirements and instruction. While I live in one of the most restrictive states as far as gun laws go, I actually think the Illinois' FOID system (Firearms Owners Identification Card) makes sense. It should also have a requirement that you attend a safety and handling class to secure the FOID in the first place. I, personally, would have no problem with this becoming a national requirement. You need a license to drive a car, perform an operation as a doctor or design a building's electrical system as an engineer. Why shouldn't we have some sort of basic certification that you understand the responsibilities of safely handling, using and storing a firearm?

Sorry if this is somewhat "ranty" and political.

Apology accepted

No I don't believe that we should allow something like the FOID to go federal. Owning and carrying firearms is a right that we all have. As responsible gun owners we should be definitely be supporting firearms education, but we can't force it on people.
You give 3 examples. I will argue against 2 of them them.
1. "You need a license to drive a car." Yes, and driving a car is not a God given right or a Constitutional protected one. Also, look at how many people are driving unregistered cars with out legal driving licenses. I knew many back when I worked in the shipyards.
2. "You need a license to preform an operation as a doctor." Yes, and besides not being a Constitutionally protected right, it's also a good idea because you are selling your services to another person. I think it makes sense for businesses to be certified and inspected. It's also important for society to have an emergency response system in place, and we need to have people who are trained and qualified in place. I agree with qualifying doctors.
3. "You need a license to design a buildings electrical system." No, actually you need a license to SELL your design. If it's your house you should be responsible enough to fix it or build it. If you're not then you can at least be responsible enough to find someone who is. If you are selling the design, then yes it makes sense to me for the engineer to be certified and licensed.

All of these licenses and certifications only provided avenues for us to lose our personal responsibility.

I do have an honest question for you. What do you think that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution means? I know some folks who think of it as a suggestion, and some folks who think that we should be able to own nuclear weapons or scud missiles. I don't want to make any assumptions about what you believe.

 

[T. Erdelyi]

...There is no way to know if that person has any experience with their gun, and can handle it safely.

There's a point right there, if you can't tell if someone has no knowledge of a firearm, it's operation and safe handling by how they approach the gun than maybe you shouldn't carry either,( by you I don't mean "you" cbwoods it was meant in general. I can tell by how someone approaches a weapon and the manner in which they act around a gun if they have any knowledge at all, I would never let anyone who even joked about a gun near mine.

I've been lucky enough to have grown up around guns and even been on a township run competition shooting team back in the 70s so guns and the people who shoot them have always been part of my life so maybe I take for granted the fact that not everybody knows how to treat and safely act around firearms.

 

[outdoorsfan]

Gun education in schools. That's a great idea!

 

[JK Knives]

Gun education in schools. That's a great idea!

As strange as it might sound, back when I was in high school (1967-1971) we actually had a gun club. We would take our shotguns or .22 rifles to school, leave them in the teachers closet, then after school we would shoot on the school property! This was not some rural school, we had 1300 students. Try that nowadays.

 

[mqqn]

Yes we should have all kinds of classes and educational programs, fire arms training. But to tell some one that unless they do this thing, they don't have their civil rights is just plain wrong. People should be trusted to get their own training. I'll say it again, forcing people to do something before they can exercise their rights is immoral and illegal. Common sense would dictate that if we are to have rights, then we have rights. You can't pick and choose who gets what rights. If you think that a certain amount of education should be had before these rights are to be exercised then maybe firearms safety should be a requirement in public and private schools? We teach kids to read and write before they're adults, why not teach them to handle a gun safety too? I think it would do a lot to show people that the guns aren't the problem, and go a long way towards arming more people. Which would make us all safer.


Do you really think that speech cannot hurt people? Look at Nazi propaganda in the 1930's.

BTW, Trucks don't stop bullets just so you know

If you feel very strongly that folks should have to be educated before using their rights, you should write your congressmen and senators and suggest that attempt to Amendment the Bill of Rights. Because that is the only Legal way that it could happen.

I think you are blowing this thing way out of context. I think people need to know how to handle a gun. You apparently do not.

I can live with my stance.

best

mqqn