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; There should also be a test prior to be able to vote in this country, but, I think that was tried before as well. Hell, ...
There should also be a test prior to be able to vote in this country, but, I think that was tried before as well. Hell, if we eliminate the human factor, there would be no crime, alas, no people either. Kind of a conundrum.
I know, I know, you are smarter than me..just ask you..
Janq, AFAIK, the Basic Hunter Safety course has no shooting component in it. I've walked in on a few on-going sessions at Braintree R&P (my primary club) while they were giving the course in the clubhouse.
The "author" of the MCOPA course is a good friend of mine and essentially what I posted was what he stated wrt that course.
My Wife and I took the NRA Home Firearms Responsibility course back in the late 1970s or early 1980s. We could shoot some if we wanted, but it was not required and no scores were taken. The test was strictly on the classroom material.
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Heres what I see coming next; Insurance is going to be required for CCW or even gun ownership. Most states require this to drive a car, why not carry a gun? Some local areas require a bond or a rider on your policy to own a dog. Then, the insurance company can dictate what training you need to have, or what types of guns they will cover.
"Just blame Sixto"
I reserve the right to make fun, point and laugh etc.
Yep, the insurance thing would be bad.
TN requires an 8 hour 'safety' class which includes a shooting qualification test. IIRC, you have to get 70% of your shots (45 rounds IIRC) on the 'black' of a B-27.
But the class clearly isn't a shooting training class, but to demonstrate one can handle and shoot a gun safely, although there was some nominal shooting instruction included. The class covers safety, legal considerations, etc. That seems sufficient to me.
There are two types of gun owners, those that buy guns strictly for home defense and those that buy guns for personal defense. Both need to be literate about guns. With the present set up only the people who actually carry guns are required to take a training class.
If the training were required for all first time gun purchases, everyone would have at least some training on gun safety and those that buy for home defense only would actually have to shoot their gun.
Ohio’s requirements are pretty much the same as TN, the problem I see with it is that people do view it as "lessons", not as a qualification.
In my mind, people need to already be proficient with a pistol far before they take a CCW class. I have had so many tell me what a good shooter they are, grandpa taught them out in the backyard, only to find out that they are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them. Its subjective, that’s why I'm in favor of some sort of standard.
The standard should come from the instructors, not some bean counter in the capitol.
"Just blame Sixto"
I reserve the right to make fun, point and laugh etc.
Oh yeah, the grandpa, uncle, dad trained shooters. I've seen some too. In fact, my dad taught me, but thankfully I've learned better now.
Hey guys, if we as progun, pro 2A on this forum can't agree about testing, what a mess to bring the anti's into it. We use terms like testing, some sort of standard, nominal proficiency, familiarity with the pistol of choice; all of this is so subjective it is scary. Let's recognize it is an inherent right to own and bear arms and leave it at that. We can't protect fools from themselves legislation won't change that.
Last edited by Gunnutty; February 8th, 2007 at 03:31 PM. Reason: spelling
2A Simply states "right to keep and bear arms". Zero about anything else discussed here or elsewhere. It is a "Right".
Yes, I do believe in initial and continual training for myself and those that I train, as long as the training is VOLUNTARY. I have completed thousands of hours of training for myself as an Instructor and for my students, worldwide.
As "Gunnutty" from Arkansas, says above ... "can of worms" and his other comments. I am in full agreement with.
I am also against, this much discussed and current Bill in Congress, National Carry. It is a State issue. Standardization by this National Carry Bill will create more requirements than many States have now. It will not reduce the requirements in the other States. Once, at the National Level it will never return to State Level. States that want their requirements changed, need to do so on their own in their own State, it is your State. Yes, I know the NRA is supporting if not pushing this Bill, but I do not agree with the NRA. Yes, I am a member of the NRA for over 30 years along with GOA, and RKBA, and even the SAS (Second Amendment Sisters) under my wife's family membership.
Idaho ? born and raised in Idaho or moved there ?
As bad as I hate to say it; in todays political climate you either have to go hard right or hard left because some where in the middle where common sense lays no one is home.
I personally have no problem with mandatory training and a tough qualification course to be passed. I witness a lot of people that get guns and want to carry them and have absolutely no clue as to what they are doing, laws are ambigious at best in some places and are not fully under stood. If someone is going to carry a gun on the streets where me and my family walk and do buisness I would feel a lot better about them being trained and know how to use it effectively and safely.
A lot of civilians take classes and training on their own dime and time and thats a plus for them. I personally have everyone that takes my CCW Class to shoot the Georgia Double Action Semi-Auto course for score at the end of the class. I require a 70% or better (fixing to bump it to a 80%) or I do not give a certificate. This is the same standard LE have to accomplish and helps me and the CCW Person in case of a real lfe shooting and some question about their training comes into play.
However on the other side of the coin, if it is mandated it is usually politics that is going to dictate what and how it is taught. Politics and will eventually use statistics to ban CCW. If either side gets a good footing they will use it to go further and further toward their own agenda.
For example the required course for Armed Security Guards in Georgia. It is ran by a group of good old boys in Macon and it is literally a joke.
Nobody's talkin' about violating your 2A rights - that's already been completely done. If you don't think so then write a bad check for over $500, you become a felon and can't own a gun. Or get caught without a carry permit and see how much good it does in court to cry 2A.
What we seem to be talking about is: anybody can buy a gun, but before they buy their first gun, they have to demonstrate they can deploy it safely - that's all. That in no way violates the 2A.
Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; NRA Endowment Life; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.