The Concealed Weapons and Firearms License law training standard for the license is marginal to non-existent in Florida. Having a hunter safety certificate, or even a DD214 meets the training standard. I am amused by the fact that many with a DD214 never touched a handgun in the service. A person with no training can go to a gun show and take a 2-hour class and meet the standard. There is a broad range of courses being offered ranging from an hour or two up. Our basic CWFL course runs 10 hours with a qualification course and we can barely get it done in that time.

I understand why the legislature did it this way-the law is 2nd Amendment driven and they did not want to allow bureaucracy to erect barriers to people having a license. I respect the legislature for their attitude on this issue. The legislature has taken the position that it is up to the individual to attain competence.

The problem that nags me is that there are thousands of people walking around with a CWFL carrying concealed handguns that they are not competent with. In general this does not create a problem because the people who have CWFL's are law abiding and responsible adults. Bottom line is, having a CWFL does not equate to competence.

We have trained hundreds of people from rank novices to highly experienced armed professionals at various levels. We have encountered many individuals who already meet the training requirements, but have really poor safety habits and are clueless about safe gun handling or marksmanship. Those in that category who come to us for real training recognize their shortcomings and out of personal responsibility want serious training. But it makes me wonder about so many others who couldn't be bothered with taking the time to develop a minimum level of competence.


I am conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, I agree with the legislature's desire to make the CWFL accessible to as many people as possible with no bureaucratic barriers; at the same time I often wish there was a more stringent training requirement for the license. For the time being we still have to rely on the individual's sense of responsibility to attain competence, and maybe that's the way it should be.

No arguing but: training costs money. Should only those who can afford training be licensed to carry? Poor people, well, tough luck, call 911.

I agree, 100%, that other than the criminal type background check, there should be no legal impediment to a citizen's firearms rights.

I also believe that people should be strongly encouraged, not required by law, but encouraged, to become competent.

To this end, it is A Good Thing for those of us who have the opportunity, to invite others for a range session and use this as an occasion to reinforce safety standards and maybe point the guest(s) toward a source of good training.

How 'bout a campaign here in Florida, for gun dealers and trainers to work together? Maybe something like a discount certificate for training, when somebody buys a gun?

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
No arguing but: training costs money. Should only those who can afford training be licensed to carry? Poor people, well, tough luck, call 911.

And when you call 911 the chances are you're gonna get someone responding who at best put 60rds downrange this year to "qualify" and quite possibly didn't fire another round in practice all year.

way back when (mid 80's) when I applied for my first CCW, Va was a 'show need' state,
as in I had to give a legit reason to carry,
had to also list the firearms I was going to carry, (and update the county if I carried something else that was not on the list)

paperwork, fingerprints, fee, and in a couple of months, I had my permit,

never mentioned anything about qualifications, never had to fire a round, never asked about hunting or competitive background

years later I had to provide some proof I knew which end to point where, but a hunter safety course was sufficient for that,,

point is this is not a new thing, been that way for ages,


back when my Father applied (60's) he had to go in front of a Judge and ask for a permit,



I'll agree that there may be folks that maybe should not be carrying at all with CCW's but thinking they are few and far between (I hope)



where do you draw the line, so to speak, as far as minimum training or competence vs just do the paperwork like we have now?

We should have to be trained on ALL of our Constitutional Rights.

quote:

. For the time being we still have to rely on the individual's sense of responsibility to attain competence, and maybe that's the way it should be.

you've covered a wide swath of 'reasonable concerns' illustrating the difficulties in arriving at a rational conclusion.

Given such behavior anomalies as the recent FBI agent doing a back flip on the dance floor resulting in a wounded person, just what level of training would it take to be secure from similar unforeseen exposure?

For every guy like that gun shop owner who drew down and very smoothly put down the guy robbing his shop there are lots of folks like the two woman in the convenience store who defended themselves while being undergunned and obviously from the video untrained.

The point is folks successfully defend themselves or others all the time without much training or being steely eyed Gun fighters.

None of that is to say folks shouldn’t get training or practice of course.

I worry more about all the folks with firearms who lack even the fundamentals of the safe operation, storage and manual of arms for their weapon.

I worry a HELLUVA LOT MORE about TN drivers and these are folks who have had to get training to drive.

Like you said there is no way to legislate responsibility.

When I took my CPL training class in Michigan I expected to learn very little, and that is just what happened. I was in my 50s and had been shooting since I was a child. At the range we were given a 8&1/2 x 11 paper that was about 5 yards away and told to hit it. I shot two mags into the paper and there was no middle left of the paper. I didn't know the instructor was standing behind me at the time. He said I didn't need to shoot anymore if I didn't want to. In the lane to my right was a married couple in there 80s with a revolver that they could not operate. I pointed this out to the instructor and he sent them to the LGS (Same building) to trade for a clock. To my left was a young woman who had never had a gun in her hand before. She could not hit the paper target. The instructor asked me to help her, so I did and she got to where she could lit the paper once or twice with each mag. I passed, the old couple passed, and the young woman passed and we all got our CPL. I would bet my last dime that I was the only one of the four of us that got additional training. I too am conflicted about this. Competence with a hand gun seems a good thing and yet I am in favor of Constitutional Carry. Some times there are no easy answers.
Rod

quote:

Originally posted by thunderson:
And when you call 911 the chances are you're gonna get someone responding who at best put 60rds downrange this year to "qualify" and quite possibly didn't fire another round in practice all year.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
Given such behavior anomalies as the recent FBI agent doing a back flip on the dance floor resulting in a wounded person, just what level of training would it take to be secure from similar unforeseen exposure?

Excellent points and there are plenty of other examples of this.

All the training in the world cannot make up for stupid or the human element.

I'm in the camp that believes that rights should not be restricted to only those who can afford it.

What is the difference between an onerous training restriction and a poll tax?

I’ve met chl holders ranging from those who won’t fire 200rnds their entire lives and those who barely know how to load their gun. They really shouldn’t be carrying, they don’t have the necessary mindset or skills for it but what are you gonna do? Who would determine what level of training was necessary? Who’s gonna be forced to pay for it? It’s the cost of individual liberty. Most Americans are too ignorant and stupid to be trusted with the responsibility of voting for the city dog catcher but how can that be fixed without infringing upon the individuals liberty?

As far as I can tell there are no differences in crime or negligence rates among concealed permit holders when comparing states that mandate training and those that don't. In Oregon we only have to do classroom training, across the border, Washington doesn't not require training.

Example: how many hunters have negligent incidents per/year as opposed to concealed permit holders?

Requiring people to go through training has been and can be used by anti-freedom fascists to restrict 2A.

Either freedom for all or freedom for none.

Someone in the know and with a little money will realize that he or she does not have enough training.

There are a lot of people who may realize it but do not have the money or time to get that training.

Then there are those who just do not have a clue, just like anything else in life.

I have had various training over the years, but unless you get out and practice to get better, it just is not a honed skill.

My weakness even though I am retired it just making the time to practice regularly. I get some in, but just not enough.

Nobody should be forced...but I sure wish a lot more of them cared!

I bet 99/100 CHL holders can easily afford a 2 day defensive handgun course if it were a priority.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
I agree, 100%, that other than the criminal type background check, there should be no legal impediment to a citizen's firearms rights.

I also believe that people should be strongly encouraged, not required by law, but encouraged, to become competent.

^^ Exactly right! ^^

The problem is that "when" something doesn't go right then the gun control crowd comes out of the woodwork to apply their agenda using {fill in the blank} as an excuse.

I qualified in Whackyland, very exacting, each pistol, max 3.

I also did the pretty simple test in Texas, 50 rounds at various distances. Top score is 250. I scored either 244, 250 or 256 depending on whether those outlier holes count, were mine or from the shooter in the next lane.

A couple of the women were clearly uncomfortable, had repeated jams, probably from limp wristing their mouse guns.

I’m not sure anyone is safer with these people exercising their rights.

Texas law allows loaded gun in one’s dwelling place, in a vehicle. Except for the idiotic Federal GFZ rules, you can get along fairly well without a permit. It seems a reasonable way to balance rights, public safety, self defense, etc.

are there any other constitutionally guaranteed rights that you have to be trained and qualify to use?

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:
are there any other constitutionally guaranteed rights that you have to be trained and qualify to use?

Are there any that can have you kill someone through carelessness or ineptitude?

I suppose people have drowned in full immersion baptism in exercise of their religious freedom, maybe some have been condemned to hell exercising polygamy and quite a few have been convicted and sent to prison or even executed because they insisted on talking ignoring their right to remain silent.

Driving a vehicle on public roads are widely considered an inviolable right, despite the unanimous view of state licensing oficials that it is a privilege.

quote:

the law is 2nd Amendment driven

Not really. If it was, there would be no "Mother may I?" permit at all - like nearly a dozen other states.

Competence is what you get when you have the desire to obtain it...and the cash. Competition experience is even better, i.e., you handle your guns more in a safe manner under the "stress" of a timer.

Neither should mean *anything* or be required when it comes to exercising your rights.