[3putt]

I have been a member of this forum for a couple of months now and have learned a great deal from a lot of folks who have been kind enough to do research and post things on this board that has made me more aware of different slants on issues of great importance.
The problem, now that I have been exposed to this forum is that many of the things I have learned here was not discussed at the class I attended that qualified me to receive a CWP. I took the course in Fort Myers, it lasted a total of 90 minutes which included filling out some paperwork and everybody shooting 1(yes, I said 1) round into a paper target from a distance of 15 feet. Some of the people missed the entire target. I now know, thanks to all of you, that with carrying a CW, comes great responsibilites and great penalties of one screws up. I suspect that with the huge amount of what I believe to be unqualified people carrying weapons here in Florida, there will be an increase of citizens going to jail for doing stupid things such as brandishing a weapon in public, or shooting someone outside of the parameters set by the statutes.
Where I'm going with this is that IMO, the state is using this as a revenue stream when it should be mandating a series of classes with lectures and shooting drills conducted by qualified police. If the police department is willing to send officers to the local schools for the purpose to reminding students to be good citizens, they should want to provide officers to help train folks that are soon to be carrying weapons. In closing, I believe the state of Fl. is setting people up for some very serious penalties due to the shortcommings of a very important course.

 

[archer51]

I actually blame your instructor more than I blame the state. The state sets a minimum criteria for the course. The instructor needs to insure that the students meet that criteria and are (at least while at the class) safe weapon handlers.

It sounds like you took your course from an instructor whose only concern was how quickly he could conduct the class and get his money. I'll bet he didn't even mention follow on training in the class.

 

[Guns and more]

If taking a class makes you an expert, 16yr. old kids would be great drivers.

Passing gets you a license, now the real learning begins.

 

[hogdaddy]

I love fl. Myself ;-) PS You will come to like the Gunshine State !!
h/d

 

[Cartman]

I am torn on this one. While I agree that many of the courses out there leave a lot to be desired, I am hesitant to give The State, local or federal, any more excuses to expand its control of our daily lives. Gun ownership (including carrying) isn't like a driver's license or other privilege, it is the right of a free person. An expanded class requirement from the government means another mass hire of government employees and an expanded bureaucracy (I promise they would not be able to do it with available resources...promise). The mediocrities who do not seek knowledge and expertise will continue to be mediocre after the classes. There is an instinct in our society to solve any issue by increasing the government's control/responsibility for it, and at the risk of being melodramatic, I think the Republic will eventually cease to exist if we do not reverse this trend (I personally feel it's too late, but we have to try) I think our best bet is to increase awareness of your concern, a very valid one, through organizations like the NRA. It is politically dicey, as such organizations will tend to want to focus on the positive aspects of CCW holders versus our shortcomings. But if enough of us sound the call, we can create a culture of high standards that can influence people. It will never be perfect, but we can make it better without the government.

 

[Dakota97]

. Where I'm going with this is that IMO, the state is using this as a revenue stream when it should be mandating a series of classes with lectures and shooting drills conducted by qualified police. .

I agree with you that the courses one takes should actually provide quality training and I think each CWP holder should want proper training. Unfortunately I can't agree with "mandating" that training.
The 2nd Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed if they pass a course provided by a government agency and taught by qualified police."

Each person should take the responsibility for their own training. Suppose the powers to be "mandated" that in order to have a CWP you must fire 100 rounds and put 100% of your shots into the black at 100 yards with a handgun to qualify for a permit? The anti gunners could very well set the criteria so that few could exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[3putt]

I am torn on this one. While I agree that many of the courses out there leave a lot to be desired, I am hesitant to give The State, local or federal, any more excuses to expand its control of our daily lives. Gun ownership (including carrying) isn't like a driver's license or other privilege, it is the right of a free person. An expanded class requirement from the government means another mass hire of government employees and an expanded bureaucracy (I promise they would not be able to do it with available resources...promise). The mediocrities who do not seek knowledge and expertise will continue to be mediocre after the classes. There is an instinct in our society to solve any issue by increasing the government's control/responsibility for it, and at the risk of being melodramatic, I think the Republic will eventually cease to exist if we do not reverse this trend (I personally feel it's too late, but we have to try) I think our best bet is to increase awareness of your concern, a very valid one, through organizations like the NRA. It is politically dicey, as such organizations will tend to want to focus on the positive aspects of CCW holders versus our shortcomings. But if enough of us sound the call, we can create a culture of high standards that can influence people. It will never be perfect, but we can make it better without the government.

Great answer and I appreciate the reply. It certainly provides some food for thought, although I am conserned that there are a number of folks out there with guns that, IMO, should be better trained. As you stated, I shall focus on the positive aspects of being a CCW holder and continue to practice and understand the responsibilities of carrying a weapon. Many thanks to the members of this board that contribute so much.

 

[3putt]

I agree with you that the courses one takes should actually provide quality training and I think each CWP holder should want proper training. Unfortunately I can't agree with "mandating" that training.
The 2nd Amendment does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed if they pass a course provided by a government agency and taught by qualified police."

Each person should take the responsibility for their own training. Suppose the powers to be "mandated" that in order to have a CWP you must fire 100 rounds and put 100% of your shots into the black at 100 yards with a handgun to qualify for a permit? The anti gunners could very well set the criteria so that few could exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

I was typing as you were posting. I agree with every word. thanks.

 

[Magnum Mikie]

I suspect that with the huge amount of what I believe to be unqualified people carrying weapons here in Florida, there will be an increase of citizens going to jail for doing stupid things such as brandishing a weapon in public, or shooting someone outside of the parameters set by the statutes.

90 minutes seems like way to little time to absorb all the info that's vital to self-defense via handgun. Most classes here in Minnesota are 6-8 hours in length including the shooting qualification.

Btw, if I were you I'd be more concerned about the bad guys carrying with zero training than permit holders with at least some training.

 

[OldVet]

It's not the state; you had an instructor who was more interested in making a quick buck than teaching the laws of CC. The state is not using this as a source of cash, hardly. But your instructor sure is. Obviously you owe it to others seeking a CWFL to not reccommend this guy. The last thing any CCer needs is a state-run class. Ah, the red tape!

As for some folks missing the target, do you really think everyone with a gun is Roy Rogers, able to shoot the gun out of a BG's hand with a single bullet? Proficiency is every CCer's reaponsibility.

Like you said: CC carries a great responsibility. Glad to see you figured that out. Some don't.
And FL is a "shall issue" state. If you're not a felon, can legally own a firearm, take a CC class (or are ex-mil, etc.), submit the paperwork and fees, you are entitled to have a CWFL.

 

[matdicdad]

When I took my class it was 8 hours long. We also shot 60 rounds...off hand, 10 ft, 7 yds, etc. While the course was more than adequate some of the people in my class had never fired a weapon before. With practice I'm sure they'll be fine.

 

[Ghost Host]

3putt,

Don’t be disappointed in Florida. Not all CCW course instructors are created equal. You didn’t say if your course was put on at a gun show, by a firearms dealer, an NRA course, a private instructor; large or small class – it could all be a factor.

I was lucky. My course was given by a private instructor who also teaches armed security guard courses and other combat fire arms courses. There was to be myself and a friend and another couple. The couple didn’t show. We spent two hours in the class room covering what we would carry, going through Chapter 790, covering fees, how to fill out the form, getting finger printed (where and how in our area) electronic submission, how long, etc. We also went over what a CWFL authorized us to carry and where you could not carry. We also went over improper display and trespass. We then went out on the range and after we covered range use and safety, our weapons were inspected and test fired by the instructor. We then spent the next hour plus and I fired between 80 to 100 rounds of 9mm and 25 cal. at a 25’ target. During the entire period any questions we asked were answered (granted we were not smart enough to know what to ask) and at the end of the course we were told that if we had any further questions to call him. Our instructor was very professional and I know he is well thought of by my FFL dealer.

Since then I view four CCW forums (mostly just read) and have picked up a lot of information on do’s and don’ts. One of the forums I belong to has several LEO’s, at least three lawyers and several instructors that are quite active on the board. They don’t pull any punches – but they want to help you. If it’s BS they don’t have the time of day for you. You may not like the way they say it, but you will have a hard time disagreeing with what they tell you.

As to some of the concerns you voiced. I agree that there are CWFL holders out there with varying degrees of competence. Some have gotten their license and still have not carried concealed for the first time since. Some will think they know it all and not have a clue as to the responsibilities involved. Hopefully these will never be in a situation which causes them to draw their weapon. I do not believe that any of the fees paid for my instruction went to the state, so I am not sure that revenue flow enters into the equation. As to PD or SO instruction I don’t see it happening. Up here in North Central the LEO’s in the schools are assigned primarily as “School Resource Officers” and that is a full time job and entails a lot more than “showing the flag”.

Then there’s the liability question; “It wasn’t covered (whether it was or not) in my class and now I have a problem and I want to sue” or how about an accident occurring during the live fire exercise. Big time lawsuit against city, county, etc... I just don’t see any department signing up for that risk.

Look at the bright side, you have your CWFL and you are smart enough to have wanted to obtain more information and proactive enough to have joined this forum.

Be safe,

 

[EBC]

Here In CT my class was 9 hours ( 1 hour was used as breaks and set up time at the range). We spent 3 hours on the range 2 hours of that where just going thought the safe rules and handling of the weapons. over the last two weeks My wife has been going through her class. (I have been helping the instructor out with teaching ((to all but my wife) Tomorrow is the range day when we will spend 4 hours in the freezing cold). To me this is just the start of her training. I believe that we need to seek more and better training when ever and where ever we can.

 

[gunshrink]

Class

I am an instructor in Minnesota - I teach with two other guys, all of us being NRA certified in several areas, some military experience and USPSA. Our class is eight hours, covers 50+ live fire rounds in five different drills along with a great deal of legal and safety issues during the day. While there are some that fudge on this amount, I feel that it is an accident waiting to happen. I tell my students that this is just the beginning, encourage at least monthly practice (again a bare minimum) and getting involved in a club etc. In New Mexico in fact the state went in and busted some folks that were doing a class just like the one you described. I would be the last the say something nice about the government, but I agree with other posters, this individual who taught you is an insult to the title of instructor. This is too important and potentially life threatening to cut any corners.

 

[gdm320]

I actually blame your instructor more than I blame the state. The state sets a minimum criteria for the course. The instructor needs to insure that the students meet that criteria and are (at least while at the class) safe weapon handlers.

It sounds like you took your course from an instructor whose only concern was how quickly he could conduct the class and get his money. I'll bet he didn't even mention follow on training in the class.

Here, here!

My CWP class was led by an excellent instructor with more than 30 years LE experience. He took great lengths to instruct on more than just the minimum standards and hold open discussions of real life applications. He also stressed throughout the entire class that education did not end at the door and it was all of our responsibility to seek more information in an online community, through books, other lectures, or advanced shooting classes.

 

[GM]

I am torn on this one. While I agree that many of the courses out there leave a lot to be desired, I am hesitant to give The State, local or federal, any more excuses to expand its control of our daily lives. Gun ownership (including carrying) isn't like a driver's license or other privilege, it is the right of a free person. An expanded class requirement from the government means another mass hire of government employees and an expanded bureaucracy (I promise they would not be able to do it with available resources...promise). The mediocrities who do not seek knowledge and expertise will continue to be mediocre after the classes. There is an instinct in our society to solve any issue by increasing the government's control/responsibility for it, and at the risk of being melodramatic, I think the Republic will eventually cease to exist if we do not reverse this trend (I personally feel it's too late, but we have to try) I think our best bet is to increase awareness of your concern, a very valid one, through organizations like the NRA. It is politically dicey, as such organizations will tend to want to focus on the positive aspects of CCW holders versus our shortcomings. But if enough of us sound the call, we can create a culture of high standards that can influence people. It will never be perfect, but we can make it better without the government.

I agree with Cartman.
Furthermore, I should not blame the state, but the instructor. I do agree with you that 90 minutes is way to short time; but again, it was the instructor’s fault.
Consider the consequences of having mandatory training. Do you really want the state or the feds to decide that? And what about the 2nd Amendment? Our Constitution and the state gave you the right to carry a firearm (since you refer to FL “a weapon”), it is your responsibility now to be proficient with your firearm/weapon and a good CCWer with all it imply. And if you mess it up in any way, it is your own fault, not the state’s.

 

[RETSUPT99]

Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.

Having stated the initial point, one is only risking his/her own life by not getting advanced/extended training on SD.
If one thinks that instead of taking a 2-hour course and firing one round is any less dangerous than taking an 8-hour course and firing 50 rounds...explain, because in today's world of dirtbags and crime, an armed citizen needs LOTS of training and practice to manitain an awareness and readiness level not offered in any firearms license course...1 hour or 8 hours.OMHO:scruntiny:

 

[9MMare]

I see 2 sides to this (as others have).

I think that the right to carry should be just that...unless you are a convicted felon or have mental illness, you should have the right to carry....no questions asked, no training required.

In my state, that IS all that was required. It is our responsibility to get training and to know the laws. And we pay the consequences if we dont.

Does that make us less safe in WA?

In a recent post I compared it to parenthood. Anyone can have a kid...should everyone? IMO, no. And with parenthood comes many responsibilities (but there's no training required! ;-) ) But there's no way we can or should restrict this right.

Same with carrying a gun. You cant make people be responsible, even if they have some training, even if they 'qualify'. You can only rely on education and personal responsibility.

Hence my signature line. Do we want more laws that bind us so the govt can try to 'protect' us? Or do we want to be responsible for ourselves? (As a group, I think that means education on gun ownership, outreach, and discourse ...as we do here.)

 

[9MMare]

Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.

LOL, I was typing as you wrote this. :hand10:

 

[GM]

Some of you fellows are missing the BIG point. We shouldn't have to take a course anyway...it's a right. We should have the RKBA without the need for a course or training.
The country might be better served by having a certificated and required, extensive training courses in 'raising children'.

Having stated the initial point, one is only risking his/her own life by not getting advanced/extended training on SD.
If one thinks that instead of taking a 2-hour course and firing one round is any less dangerous than taking an 8-hour course and firing 50 rounds...explain, because in today's world of dirtbags and crime, an armed citizen needs LOTS of training and practice to manitain an awareness and readiness level not offered in any firearms license course...1 hour or 8 hours.OMHO:scruntiny:

I must say you got a point here :redface:
By the way, I agree with the rest of your post too.