Online CCH courses

[RayBar]

In my state, Virginia, you can go online and take a one or two hour course that will qualify you to apply for your CCH permit. I'm sure Virginia is not the only state that allows this. I'm wondering what others think of this, and if they recognize the danger of providing someone with the ability to get a permit without ever seeing them or talking to them, while determining as certainly as you can, that they possess a reasonable attitude about carrying a firearm, that they appear able to accept the responsibility that is part of the right we have. Allowing people to get their training online, in my opinion, is dangerous, irresponsible, and should not be allowed. You don't know if they can handle firearms safely, there are no shooting skills to observe, you don't really know who's taking the exam or if there is someone with them giving them the answers or telling them what to write, the list could go on forever, you get my point? They can be a complete moron and still pass the background check, and now we are all grouped together with these fools. When they screw up, and they will, it hurts all of us. Should anything be done to stop online training for CCH permits?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[claude clay]

you teach the class and sigh off on the certificate that they took the class

the chief of police or equivlent meets with the applicant and makes the decision.

on can arguee both ways if online suits a CCW.
i'll take the 'bad idea' chair though.

[ccw9mm]

IMO, legal carrying is far, far more than simply passing the checks and getting the CHL as quickly as possible. Rather, it's about learning the pros/cons, ramifications, the defense and lethal-force laws, and having Q&A with knowledgeable people.

But here's the thing. The 2A says nothing about licensing or permitting. I disagree with having a significant forced barrier to entry, for firearms ownership or even carrying. Getting one's butt in a wringer ought to be all the incentive one needs to know that pursuit of sufficient understanding of the law, handling safety is in one's own best interest.

Should anything be done to stop online training for CHL? I don't think so, no. The states will each own their own ramifications to their own policies and standards.

[Spidey2011]

In MT all you have to do is have taken hunter safety, fill out a 2 page form, and pay $50. Not that many issues that I hear of involving permit holders. My opinion, don't make them take a course at all. Then they might be compelled to find training on their own, rather than participating in a "state approved" bare bones course that teaches them the functional equivalent of diddly squat and thinking they're well-trained.

[RayBar]

IMO, legal carrying is far, far more than simply passing the checks and getting the CHL as quickly as possible. Rather, it's about learning the pros/cons, ramifications, the defense and lethal-force laws, and having Q&A with knowledgeable people.

But here's the thing. The 2A says nothing about licensing or permitting. I disagree with having a significant forced barrier to entry, for firearms ownership or even carrying. Getting one's butt in a wringer ought to be all the incentive one needs to know that pursuit of sufficient understanding of the law, handling safety is in one's own best interest.

Should anything be done to stop online training for CHL? I don't think so, no. The states will each own their own ramifications to their own policies and standards.

I can't argue with your logic,your dead on assuming everyone thinks logically, and we know they don't. The states do set the standards,and will be held accountable,as will we all because the general public and the anti gunners don't seperate us .To them,we are all the same. I know that some very competant people could do just fine with online training,but its the others,(think of who they could be) political correctness prohibits me from getting to detailed. Counting on people to do what they should do,not so much. And if getting into trouble was a deterant, the crime stats would be alot lower. are you ok with the ones who don't shoot as part of their initial training, no follow up training,no ethical resposibilities,no understanding of the law etc. Their ignorance can hurt innocent people as well as themselves. Not disagreeing,just trying to see what everyone thinks about it.

[DC]

In VA you can do with less than a 1 to 2 hour course. Simply take a quick (10 min.) online gun safety test to qualify apply for a CC permit.($30)


Virginia Online Concealed Carry Firearms Course | Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit
(special $24.95 price)

[RayBar]

In MT all you have to do is have taken hunter safety, fill out a 2 page form, and pay $50. Not that many issues that I hear of involving permit holders. My opinion, don't make them take a course at all. Then they might be compelled to find training on their own, rather than participating in a "state approved" bare bones course that teaches them the functional equivalent of diddly squat and thinking they're well-trained.

Same in VA. Hunters safety course,50. dollars,go to go. Which I agree, dosen't prepare them at all. Most of them will buy their gun, put it in a drawer,and not train at all. They delude themselves thinking they are safer. What would compell them to train if there were no requirments at all. Responsible instructors will tell first time students that the course their taking to apply for a permit is just the beginning, and that they must train and educate themselves,and that this training and educational process is a lifelong obligation. Will they listen,maybe,probably not many will follow through on it.

[RayBar]

In VA you can do with less than a 1 to 2 hour course. Simply take a quick (10 min.) online gun safety test to qualify apply for a CC permit.($30)


Virginia Online Concealed Carry Firearms Course | Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit
(special $24.95 price)

These are the ones I'm refering to. No moral or ethical responsibility. They flood our ranks with incompetence. Who has anything to gain from turning all these untrained incompetent people lose in public?. Heres a clue,its not the pro gun people.

[RayBar]

you teach the class and sigh off on the certificate that they took the class

the chief of police or equivlent meets with the applicant and makes the decision.

on can arguee both ways if online suits a CCW.
i'll take the 'bad idea' chair though.

All true,but it won't help us. They provide the rope,and by us not policing ourselves by trying to identify flaws in the status quo,we could be hanging ourselves.

[archer51]

Classes whether it be in a classroom or only are nothing more than filling in the blocks. Some states require actual firing of the gun, some don't. Some states require a minimum target score for the shooting. This doesn't make there licensee safer, or more competent.

It is the individuals responsibility to learn his weapon, learn the pertinent laws and train with their gun. Those things can't and shouldn't be regulated.

[Mike1956]

Some states require no training at all for concealed carry permits, yet others refuse to grant licenses to any private citizen, regardless of training or expertise. Even the most comprehensive requirements lend only a cursory, basic level of firearms and legal expertise.

[Spidey2011]

Same in VA. Hunters safety course,50. dollars,go to go. Which I agree, dosen't prepare them at all. Most of them will buy their gun, put it in a drawer,and not train at all. They delude themselves thinking they are safer. What would compell them to train if there were no requirments at all. Responsible instructors will tell first time students that the course their taking to apply for a permit is just the beginning, and that they must train and educate themselves,and that this training and educational process is a lifelong obligation. Will they listen,maybe,probably not many will follow through on it.

I would think that people unfamiliar with guns might want to learn a little more about them. Then they might do some research that could "in theory" prompt them to find real training. The instructor's don't tell them squat. They "teach" them basic safety and give them a "teacher assisted test." If it happens to be an NRA course, then you're even worse off. They ONLY teach revolvers, and many of the videos shown and methods taught are seriously outdated. There's a lot better material out there now, and no reason not to incorporate it into a class.

I'm also not a fan of the live fire portion. When I took my class (purely for S&G's since I had already had my permit for quite some time) they let you shoot 25 rounds of .22 and 25 rounds of .38 out of revolvers. While that is fine for emphasizing safety, it does nothing for proficiency. We shot at 15 feet and most people there had groups that spanned the entire torso, and were told this was acceptable! It was all done in a non-rushed environment and everyone there was taking their sweet time. IMO, there was no reason for anything larger than a fist sized grouping.

The instructors were great people, and I know most of them personally, but the class material is seriously lacking. Even the law portion left a sour taste in my mouth. I was just overall dissatisfied with the level of training found in these "concealed carry courses." I feel that people would be much better off if left to find their own training, rather than be forced to take one of these courses and have the illusion of training.

[RayBar]

Classes whether it be in a classroom or only are nothing more than filling in the blocks. Some states require actual firing of the gun, some don't. Some states require a minimum target score for the shooting. This doesn't make there licensee safer, or more competent.

It is the individuals responsibility to learn his weapon, learn the pertinent laws and train with their gun. Those things can't and shouldn't be regulated.

Are you saying that at least some hands on training for firearms safety,safe gun handleing,and shooting don't make the person any safer than no training. I agree that its the individuals responsibility to do these things,but how many will. And its these people who give all of us a black eye.

[RayBar]

I would think that people unfamiliar with guns might want to learn a little more about them. Then they might do some research that could "in theory" prompt them to find real training. The instructor's don't tell them squat. They "teach" them basic safety and give them a "teacher assisted test." If it happens to be an NRA course, then you're even worse off. They ONLY teach revolvers, and many of the videos shown and methods taught are seriously outdated. There's a lot better material out there now, and no reason not to incorporate it into a class.

I'm also not a fan of the live fire portion. When I took my class (purely for S&G's since I had already had my permit for quite some time) they let you shoot 25 rounds of .22 and 25 rounds of .38 out of revolvers. While that is fine for emphasizing safety, it does nothing for proficiency. We shot at 15 feet and most people there had groups that spanned the entire torso, and were told this was acceptable! It was all done in a non-rushed environment and everyone there was taking their sweet time. IMO, there was no reason for anything larger than a fist sized grouping.

The instructors were great people, and I know most of them personally, but the class material is seriously lacking. Even the law portion left a sour taste in my mouth. I was just overall dissatisfied with the level of training found in these "concealed carry courses." I feel that people would be much better off if left to find their own training, rather than be forced to take one of these courses and have the illusion of training.

I am not familiar with an NRA course that teaches only revolver unless its a first steps firearms specific course and thats what the student wants. The ones I do know about teach semis (all action Types) and revolver. The NRA course material is a base that the instructor should add to and bring up to date. Most do,has been my experience. It is also based on a building block method with several other more Advanced course offered to teach more advanced gun handleing and shooting. Even these courses are a begining for the serious self defense oriented person. I would rather see a person with a good foundation rather than no experience at all,carrying a concealed wepon. The person who recognizes the need for foundational training is the person who will seek out more advanced training. The online trained people are the ones (for the most part) who aren't motivated enough to locate ,drive to, and take a course where they will at least get some hands on experience. No motivation,no further training.

[Chesafreak]

I took the Virginia class online because I couldn't find my DD-214 that documents the required training. I have plenty of firearms training from childhood on up through the military. I DON'T like the idea of someone with little or no training being able to take the online course.