Should a shooting proficiency test be required for a CWP?

TechGuy · February 6th, 2007, 04:22 PM

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.

SIXTO · February 6th, 2007, 04:33 PM

Yes, I do. I also think it should be somewhat tough.

ron8903 · February 6th, 2007, 04:40 PM

Mine did, but not very hard to pass.

I'm with sixto on this issue.

Tom G · February 6th, 2007, 04:56 PM

Mine didn't. A dd 214 or military discharge paper could be subtituted

USPnTX · February 6th, 2007, 04:58 PM

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.

JD · February 6th, 2007, 05:27 PM

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.

Janq · February 6th, 2007, 06:00 PM

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.

- Janq

Gunnutty · February 6th, 2007, 06:11 PM

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.

havegunjoe · February 6th, 2007, 06:25 PM

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.

kansas_plainsman · February 6th, 2007, 06:44 PM

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.

February 6th, 2007, 04:22 PM	#1
TechGuy Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Post Falls Idaho Posts: 142	Should a shooting proficiency test be required for a CWP? 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..

February 6th, 2007, 04:33 PM	#2
SIXTO VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Ohio Posts: 12,258	Yes, I do. I also think it should be somewhat tough. __________________ _________________ \|^^^^^^^^^^^^^\| \|___ \| SIXTO EXPRESS---\| \|\|'\|";,__. \|_..._...___________\| \|\|_\|_\|...,] "(@)'(@)""""\|(@)(@)*****(@)

February 6th, 2007, 04:40 PM	#3
ron8903 VIP Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 2,262	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

February 6th, 2007, 04:58 PM	#5
USPnTX Distinguished Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 1,380	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

February 6th, 2007, 05:27 PM	#6
JD Senior Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 11,656	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. __________________ Some Things Need to be Addressed... Iowa Carry.ORG: Promoting Weapons Carry Reform in Iowa Forum Customs & Courtesies

February 6th, 2007, 04:56 PM	#4
Tom G VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,059	Mine didn't. A dd 214 or military discharge paper could be subtituted

February 6th, 2007, 06:00 PM	#7
Janq VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 4,536	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. - Janq __________________ "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post

February 6th, 2007, 06:11 PM	#8
Gunnutty Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,177	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.

February 6th, 2007, 06:25 PM	#9
havegunjoe VIP Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,027	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. __________________ 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 Last edited by havegunjoe; February 6th, 2007 at 08:26 PM..

February 6th, 2007, 06:44 PM	#10
kansas_plainsman Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Central Kansas Posts: 80	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. __________________ Clint Kansas - The original Old West Open Skies - Long Vistas

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode