Should a shooting proficiency test be required for a CWP?
This is a discussion on Should a shooting proficiency test be required for a CWP? within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Let me expand on my first post... I donít want Gubment controlled or mandated anything. I do think the instructors should have enough pride in ...
February 7th, 2007 12:04 PM
Let me expand on my first post... I donít want Gubment controlled or mandated anything. I do think the instructors should have enough pride in the product they turn loose to really test and make sure they are signing off on QUALITY CCWrs. Most of them do not, its just about making a few bucks, process in then out the door the go.
I used to do a lot of CCW training; I have all but completely stopped. I didn't want to testify in court that I trained some of the people that came to me, let alone even knew them.
At that time I rewrote my program, and now itís much tougher than the states requirements. I tell anybody that going in. I only take two students at a time, and I'm expensive. I will spend as much time as I need to, in order to make sure I have a good shooter when they leave me.
I do a written test that covers ethics, legal, theory and mechanics. The shooting test is the state required, and some moving, shooting from cover, draw and presentation.
I will fail anybody who cannot make the grade. I also tell them that before we begin, but I will work with them until the do pass.
I guess I get a little irritated with the NRA "instructors" that do no more than read from the provided material. That is not instruction. The people they pass through their program are no better than when they came in, other than a little lighter in the wallet.
OK, I'm done now, flame away.
February 7th, 2007 12:08 PM
But we do have Gubment controlled or mandated CCW. That makes it a privilege.
What would be wrong with you doing the same training, before a person can buy a gun? No CCW required and they're just as safe as they would be with a Gubment controlled AND mandated CCW.
February 7th, 2007 12:11 PM
In MI, unless you have a CPL, you need to take an idiot test about firearm safety every time you buy a handgun.
People have a moral obligation to be able to handle a firearm if they so choose to own or carry one. I don't think it should be something that should be mandated. The government shouldn't tell us what to do, we should be telling the government what to do. Somewhere along the line things got switched around and now we are doomed.
07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006
Probably the only home based FFL that doesn't do transfers.
February 7th, 2007 12:11 PM
Janq, I was referring to a "shooting test" not any other kind of test in MA.
MGLs do not require any shooting test in a number of the acceptable courses. e.g. The MCOPA basic pistol safety course includes live-fire as an option but is not a requirement. The MA Hunter Safety and NRA Home Safety courses are also acceptable and do not have a shooting component to the courses.
You need to check the CMRs to actually get this info, 515 CMR 3.00 specifically.
Here's the list of LTC approved courses:
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association Basic Handgun Safety Course LTC-001
NRA Basic Pistol Course LTC-002
NRA Personal Protection Course LTC-003
SIG Arms Academy Handgun Orientation Course LTC-004
Smith & Wesson Academy Massachusetts Carry Permit Course LTC-005
MCJTC Recruit Firearms Training Course LTC-006
*NRA Home Safety Course LTC-007
Worcester Police Department Firearms Responsibility and Safety Program LTC-008
Mass Sheriffs’Association’s Firearms Safety & Handling Course LTC-009
B.F.S.I. Handgun Safety Course LTC-010
Massachusetts State Police Recruit Firearms Training Program LTC-011
SIG Arms Concealed Carry Pistol Course LTC-012
February 7th, 2007 12:27 PM
Yep I'm familiar LenS with that list of approved courses, it's also listed at the botom of the MCOPA page I provided.
I'm not familir with the NRA 'Home Safety' course though as that is very new and debuted after my retaking of the courses in VA and MA. I'll be in the BHE course in a few weeks so I don't know toward that one either.
Good point though...if those two do not require as much or the instructor(s) do not choose to opt toward a live fire component then yes a MA resident could in theory get by without ever touching a trigger.
BTW, as a side item for MA residents old and new there is a new program thanks to new MA law (effective 1/07) requiring a BHE toward first time hunting license applicants. For the moment these classes are being offered _FREE_ on a first come first serve basis!
As per MA law if you have a BHE cert. in hand then that can be used in lieu of an LTC course which typically comes at a dollar cost, in my own case $125 (!).
So take the MA BHE course for free and then apply for an LTC A or B and you save yourself serious coin and might not have to even shoot to show proficiency either.
For more info on this new program go to Mass Wildlife at; http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/dfwhuntr.htm
They are also offering courses toward black powder, bowhunting, trapping, waterfowl, and map, compass & survival. I've signed up for all of them.
Last edited by Janq; February 7th, 2007 at 12:36 PM.
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
"A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing
February 7th, 2007 12:47 PM
I don't want the government to mandate anything about the 2nd Amendment. When the government gets to decide, you end up with laws like Maryland. The government decides if you NEED a permit. While Maryland is a "may issue" state it has become a defacto "NO ISSUE" state.
In Virginia, you only have to show that you have had gun safety training. If you allow some of the very anti government buearocrats to dictate the standards, they could end up so complicated you will have only the jedi, ninja, mercenary types qualifying.
Remember the laws about using a gun: only as a last resort if other action is not available.
I have used the example before that a bad guy comes into a restaurant and starts shooting people, a good guy pulls a gun but gets shot first and his gun lands at the feet of a 90 year old woman with bad eyes. Let's also say that this woman is the only one who can get to the gun.
Do you want her to do nothing because she wasn't trained? I think everyone in the restaurant would want her to try to shoot the bad guy.
Remember, a permit allows you to CARRY a gun. You can't use it unless a lethal force situation occurs. You don't need shooting proficiency to carry a gun - only safety knowledge. If you need to shoot, you should have the right to defend yourself whether you meet some arbitrary proficiency standard or not.
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).
February 7th, 2007 01:52 PM
Its a complex issue , and honestly i cannot bring myself to come down firmly on one side or the other of it , other than to say that ccw permits as they stand now are nothing more than jim crow laws .
This is nothing short of the " literacy requirement to vote " that some southern states enacted .
However, I don't see anything unconstitutional about requiring a person to have safety and shooting instruction before they purchase a gun. They shouldn't have to repeat the instruction for every gun purchase.
Now that i have sturred the pot a bit , let me give you my thoughts lol .
Both gun ownership and CCW taken indivigualy or collectively are RIGHTS.
In todays america howeaver that does not matter since the 2nd is subject to " reasonable restrictions " and hey its not the only right that can be and is in fact restricted, both de facto and de jour .
Lets take Colorado for an example since i am familiar with the current statutory requirements for ccw here . As a first time applicant you must present to the local sheriff's office your non refundable application fee of $150.00 . fill out the application ( which may be from 2 to 10 pages since the exact information required is not stipulated by statute , but part of it is that you swear or affirm you have had firearms training ) and submit yourself to being photographed and fingerprinted ( normaly at the same place they photo incoming inmates , sometimes the height scale shows , and others it does not lol ) . Then you wait ... up to a month for the " administrative " background and issue process ( this would amount to the same thing as a $5.00 insticheck for a gun purchace ) . Renewals are the same hoops but they drop the tarrif to $50.00 .
Now guys and gals I have done many things in this old life including owning and operating a restaraunt , lets just take that since it was " employee intinsive " . The guys and gals i employed were for the most part hard working folks who never had so much as a speeding ticket . They howeaver did not make a lot of money , and fiew if any of them could have afforded a ccw. I dont mean that it would have been inconvienant , i mean thier kids would have eaten mac and cheese or beans for a month for the ccw alone , lets not even discuss the total price for pistol , ammo , training , ect...
I strongly do feel that if a state is going to take it uppon themselves to issue a ccw they should be able to demand that anyone who gets one demonstrate both safe gun handleing , and the ability to hit a target at the current fbi stated average distance for a gunfight . Howeaver i also think that if a state takes this on themselves all of the above ( excluding pistol and ammo which should be paid for by the applicant ) should be FREE. That is right folks , its a social entitlement , the state should pay for the instructors, range , targets, hell even the coffee served. Other than that it should be vermont style and everyone gets a ccw with thier id , use it or not lol .
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .
Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.
February 7th, 2007 07:51 PM
Good points Chris and others. I am new to CC (Nov 06) and a few of the people in my class did not make me fell safer knowing they can carry, thus the original post. But the whole 2A is not something I want to give up AT ALL. The whole givith/taketh makes me worry.
Originally Posted by my2cents
Most all of the people on this site, from what I read, are all for more training, safety, learning more about their weapon, bettering themselves, how and when to use, etc. and would refrain from using unless it is a last resort to save life and limb. I like and appreciate that about this site. We are not a bunch of gun totiní wackoís the libs try to make anyone who wants to own a gun out to be. (donít try to diagram that sentenceÖ.) Guess it was a good post that brought out passionate opinions. I enjoy seeing other points of view, many I did not think about.
February 7th, 2007 08:13 PM
Proficiency test? No. Even folks who can't shoot that strait are entitled.
I would confirm that each individual can load, shoot, unload, operate safties and aim their weapon if they have one.
If I were going to impose training/a test it would be about use of a firearm... deadly force situations, home shooting, brandishing, vehicle laws, forbidden places, firearm saftey and inervenieng in a 3 party situation, concealment etc.
February 7th, 2007 08:39 PM
NO! In Washington no training required. It is a right recognized by the second ammendment to keep and BEAR arms. If the Government wants us to be trained then make it a law that all persons 18+ be required to complete basic military training.
February 7th, 2007 09:32 PM
I think you should be given the option to take a proficiency test...for example, my permit (CHP, VA) is accepted by many states "as is"--no test required or mandated. However, if I want my CHP recognized by KS--I should be given the option to test. It would be the same permit, good 24/7, but with a stamp or other identifier that says "qual" to indicate a shooting test was conducted and I passed.
My 2 drachmas
February 7th, 2007 10:18 PM
Nothing would be wrong with that, as long as it was a self regulated thing, not a gub'ment mandate.
Originally Posted by Tangle
I am suggesting that WE take on this issue ourselves so that the gub'ment sees no need in butt in. I know not everybody would do this, not even everyone on this board agrees with this. There is also a perception of what is good pistolcraft and what is not. My idea is one thing, yours may be an other. Who is to say whos right and whos wrong unless some governing authority steps in? I guess thats why my standards are far higher than what they really need to be.
I dont want to be the one who rubber stamps some goof that goes out and makes headlines, and ruins it for all of us.
February 7th, 2007 10:38 PM
There's more to it than meets the eye
Originally Posted by TechGuy
(Deleted some of the post)
Texas requires the proficiency test. Our instructor said it was more about someone being able to follow instructions, and an opportunity for the instructor to see how the person (safely) handles the gun, than it was about marksmanship.
The test contains 3 portions; 20 rounds at 3 yards; 20 rounds at 7 yards (if my memory is correct); and 10 rounds at 15 yards. All are fired into a torso sized target--- you have to be blind and dumb to miss at 3 yards; a bit daft to miss at 7 yards; and it makes no diffence to pass or fail if you don't even hit the target at 15 yards.
I think there is a good purpose in having the test. It does give the instructor a chance to weed out people who lack the sense to follow instructions. It gives the instructor a chance to determine if the gun is handled appropriately on the range.
Although it is darn hard to fail the test, it happens every time--I'm told. There is always someone who just won't listen or does something pretty dumb.
And if you fail, it is no biggy-- you can come back next time or go to another instructor and try again.
February 7th, 2007 11:04 PM
February 7th, 2007 11:15 PM
Hmmm, sounds good, but I think its been tried before.
Originally Posted by lowflyer
Besides, if we eliminate the stupid, I would be out of a job.
By TennesseeTen in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 22nd, 2010, 10:51 PM
By andersmg in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
Last Post: October 21st, 2008, 10:12 AM
By ppkheat in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 08:30 PM
By sniper58 in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: January 25th, 2008, 05:42 PM
By Hobbes in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 6th, 2006, 11:30 AM
Search tags for this page
arkansas concealed carry shooting test
minnesota conceal and carry proficiency test
minnesota conceal and carry shooting test
minnesota concealed carry proficiency test
minnesota shooting proficiency test
mn carry proficiency test
mn conceal and carry proficiency test
mn concealed carry proficiency test
proficient in cwp
shooting proficiency test
test cwp ohio
why restaurant proficiency practice is required
Click on a term to search for related topics.