Yes, I do. I also think it should be somewhat tough.
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; It seams to me that one of the main reasons one state does not recognize another states CWP is the lack of a shooting proficiency ...
It seams to me that one of the main reasons one state does not recognize another states CWP is the lack of a shooting proficiency test. Even though it was not required in Idaho, our CCW instructor required us to pass the Ohio shooting test. 15 out of 20 shots within a pie plate target at 21’ in 2 1/2 minutes. VERY EASY.
So my two questions are: Does your state require a shooting proficiency test, and if so, what are the requirements to pass? And second: Do you think it is a good idea to require a shooting test for CWP?
By no means am I suggesting a national test or registration. I just want my CWP to be recognized in as many states as possible and I think SOME sort of proficiency should be required for CWP, just don’t know to what level. Maybe I'm wrong about that and just want input. Thanks in advance.
Last edited by TechGuy; February 6th, 2007 at 04:42 PM.
Yes, I do. I also think it should be somewhat tough.
"Just blame Sixto"
Mine did, but not very hard to pass.
I'm with sixto on this issue.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Sir Winston Churchill
Mine didn't. A dd 214 or military discharge paper could be subtituted
Texas does require the test. However, my range instructor would not tell me how I scored. The feeling is that it is better to not keep track of how the student did. Seems they don't want a prosecutor coming back after a shoot and trying to convince the jury that you should have shot the gun out of the BG's hand. It was a pretty easy test that was either pass or fail. I am all for a proficiency test.
"Do not fear those who disagree with you; fear those that do and are too cowardly to admit it" - Napoleon
it is not required in PA, but when I lived in MI, you had to shoot for the class, I think it was less than 100 rounds, and at about 10'.
It was a joke, not just due to the level of ease, but that even people who couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat still passed.
I approve of required training, I just wish it would actaully resemble training.
Both MA and VA did and they were realtively difficult for a newbie as most of the participants in both courses were, but cake for an experienced shooter.
I feel their testing was difficult enough for street/CCW applications.
Although I could get behind annualized recertification if it were part of a nationalized CCW acceptance program.
I don't believe that is the issue though nor that it would be enough of a fix toward getting what we'd like without losing out individually state to state.
For example here in MA I can carry to a nightclub/bar/restaurant/anywhere that serves alcohol, a sporting event, church and anywhere else but schools, courtrooms, and police stations.
Meanwhile in VA I'm not allowed to carry concealed to any place that serves alcohol (must go open carry) nor to churches but I can carry on school grounds as long as I'm there to pickup my child which is not at all allowed in MA.
Regardless of my own actual shooting proficiency the above rules and regs amongst others will not square with each other state to state.
Guys this could turn into a can of worms. Not the thread the testing. Should we know what we are doing, yes most definitely!!!!!! But remember the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is not based on profiency but the constitution. Who gets to determine what is proficient the liberal Senators? They could lay out a test that the most of us could not pass. If we did pass it then as has been mentioned why did we not just wound the BG. I don't think we will ever get into trouble unless we underestimate the stupidity of many politicians. testing would give them one more thing to use against us. Just my opinion.
MN requires one. The instructor gets to make up what he/she wants in the test. This may sound strange coming from an instructor but I am not in favor of a required test of shooting proficiency.
The 2A does not say you must be a marksman at 50 yards or some such requirement to entitle you to self protection with a gun. I have seen some tests that IMHO have little or nothing to do with self-defense type shooting but many states think this proves competency. I disagree! I strongly suggest that anyone carrying a gun should practice or seek instruction if needed, but I am not in favor of the government dictating this or how it should be conducted. As a matter of fact I am in favor or the Vermont/Alaska type of carry system. Remember, what the government giveth, the government can taketh away, or make darn near impossible to pass.
I had a 70+ year old lady for a student once. Her gun of choice was a little .22 Beretta. Some people said she shouldn't carry that, it's not powerful enough. It was what she could handle and shoot fairly well. Why should she be restricted because of her age and physical frailty?
In MN you can get an emergency permit under certain circumstances. Circumstances such as death treats from an ex-boyfriend or spouse. If this victim has never fired a gun before should they be required to score 90% on a shooting test?
As I said, I STRONGLY advocate shooting lessons and lots of practice, but keep the state out of it.
Last edited by havegunjoe; February 6th, 2007 at 08:26 PM.
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.
Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor
Kansas requires a basic competency level - both one- and two-handed, any handgun. Some in my class qualified with target .22s.
Not hard, but I can imagine where some might not qualify.
In fact, I was at the low end - hadn't shot in quite a while and the day before I had installed four horse stalls of heavy floor mats - my arms were sore and a little shaky and muscle control wasn't so good.
Plus, the trainers are authorized to withhold certification if they feel in their professional judgment that the applicant is unsafe.
Kansas - The original Old West
Open Skies - Long Vistas
I'd like to say I think they should be required - but in all honesty I'd rather it not simply because I don't like limiting permits. BUT, the reality of the situation is that there are a lot of people out there who get permits but cannot shoot for crap.... so it's an internal struggle for me. I got my training done through Gunsite so my shooting requirements were a bit more steep (read the blog in my sig).
This is always an issue with more than one facet.
First and foremost obviously is our right to keep and bear arms - and that should be inviolate.
Now the CCW aspect ..... I do believe that some basic level of training is beneficial, both for the new CCW holder and, those around him. Owning a gun in the house and going to the range to shoot are one thing - actually carrying in public can I think be viewed as a greater responsibility.
For starters, the impressing of the safety rules is important and so too is just basic proficient gun handling and ability to use competently.
PA is one of the states with no training mandated - altho I do find a large number of folks who carry are firstly members of a shooting club. Quite a lot of folks choose to take the NRA basic course which is at least going to strengthen their grasp on safety but not do much for proficiency.
I guess I worry about the person who has never even owned a gun, who while exercizing his right - goes on a whim to pick up a gun, not even knowing what will suit best. Then perhaps stuffing said gun into his pants to make it his carry. Lack of familiarity and perhaps poor judgement too - could lead to accidents.
I hate anything that is mandatory - it erodes freedoms but - in the case of CCW I can see some legitimate purpose in helping make sure the permit holder is not a danger to others.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
Well stated, Chris. +10
Walk steathly - and carry a big Springfield.
I appreciate Where Chris is coming from and have the greatest respect for his well thought out opinions. However, (isn't there always one). We still talk like the 2A is only about ownership. Basically we are saying yes you have the right to OWN a firearm but we will tell you if you may carry it. The 2A addresses this as well in "TO BEAR".
All the training in the world will not make up for lack of judgement or stupidity and neither one of these things can be legislated. With these rights as well as the rights of the 1A comes a great responsibility. Regulation of these ammendments removes the very freedom they were designed to guarantee.
Do I fear an untrained individual with a gun? Yes!! However we have regulations governing everything from nursing homes to education and still haven't solved the "you can't protect a fool from himself problem". Our forefathers dealt with this problem as well, but their answer was not to impose regulations on all the citizens. It was to make them accept responsibility for their own actions.
Will you be the one to take someone elses freedom away in the name of profiency, if so someone can do it to you.