Part of my business is firearms training, mostly for armed professionals, but we do a concealed weapons and firearms license course on demand several times a year.

Florida's training requirement for the CWFL is minimal-hunter safety, any NRA or LE sanctioned safety course, or just a DD214 meets the requirement.

My CWFL course is 10 hours with 4 hours of law, with a qualification course of fire. Or you can go to a gun show and take a 2 hour class and shoot a plastic bullet into a bucket of water and get a certificate that meets the same requirement for gun safety training. My experience has been that people who want to know the law and learn how to safely operate and fire a pistol will seek out the training. Those who feel they are already competent will take the minimalist route. I will tell you that it is disconcerting to see how many with no prior training have no clue about muzzle discipline or trigger finger discipline.

The Florida Legislature's intent was to not erect any training barriers that would allow a bureaucracy to prevent a law abiding citizen from getting the license. Florida has issued 2 million concealed weapons licenses. I wish everyone carrying a gun had some training, but if the lack of a state mandated training course were a public safety problem we would know it by now.

Nope

Absolutely not. And if there ever was some type of federal requirement I would ignore it and carry anyway.

I had to take a class in my state. Waste of time. I read the laws before the class and as someone else pointed out, I heard many incorrect things from the instructor. The firing portion was a joke. 10 rounds each at 3, 5, and 7 yards on a B27 target. 27 of 30 had to hit the black. Anywhere. About the only thing the permit is good for in this state is buying without the NICS check. Well it's recognized by a bunch of other states too I guess. Thats all.

An enumerated right is not a right when it comes with strings to attain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Expat:
CHL/CCW Should training be a requirement?

No, absolutely not.

I think it's a good idea, but shouldn't be a requirement (infringement of 2A).

I not only train, but periodically re-train. That's because I want to be proficient, and not just a "shoot me first" person.

We don't have any training requirement here in PA.

What I fear the most about making everyone have a training/qualifying type thing is what stops an overzealous anti-gun state government from making the requirements SO hard, SO expensive, SO impossible to achieve in order to have de facto no carry?

It could easily go to that. I've seen a local county here in PA get a proudly anti-gun Sheriff (all permitting is through your county Sheriff) who let everyone know that he was immediately doing away with same-day permitting in his county and would be cutting WAY down on the number of carry permits issued during his tenure.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

Can you give me a single example of 1. A state or county that has these thousands of dollars cost to obtain a permit and 2. An example of a proficiency requirement that you thinking is designed so that people can't ever qualify?

It could easily become that, overnight. And you know it.

I live near a PA county where the anti-gun country Sheriff has proudly stated that he will do everything in his power to limit people in his county from getting the PA License To Carry Firearms (LTCF).

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Flashlightboy, have you been to a CHL/CCW training class?

If you have can you share with us what you learned, what impressed you the most?

Yes, several times for the initial CCW and then the renewal. I've had quite a few other classes on active shooter/civilian responses where the CCW topic comes up. This is from two different training schools with excellent staff.

I formed several great conclusions. The first one was on where you can and cannot carry. No schools, federal buildings or facilities, state facilities oron private property if the owner says otherwise. So few people knew the boundries and most thought the permit and 2d A meant they could carry anywhere they wanted. If they carried into somewhere theys shouldn't, it gives all conscientious shooters a bad rep.

The second is that there are some people who should not be given a CCW because they don't have the skill or mindset to put together an armed response. They were simply clueless and really didn't seem to improve as the 16 hour class went on. Where I was at is a facility whose training is accepted as meeting minimally accepted standards in easy issue counties but the shooters didn't have their shit together. Not that day and likely not ever going to grasp the power of the gun and the life and death considerations.

Another response is that some people just acquired their guns - their first one ever in their life - the day before the class. One gentleman sat who sat next to me struck up a converstaion about what I was shooting (G19) and he said he bought his first gun and picked it up last night, also a G19. He thought it was rusty because he saw glittering metal inside, he asked if the G19 was a good gun, said he'd never shot before and said he just wanted to have it just because you never know.

Another impression was that you don't have to have any kind of competence to get the permit beyond the state minimum. At the range those folks had very little muzzle awareness, didn't grasp range commands, had no idea how to clear a a malfunction, struggled with mag changes, drawing from a holster and you can go on. Beyond just having classroom and placing a percentage of your shots into a B27, nothing else was required and these folks didn't seems to care because they were going to get their permit. The classes were told, more than once, that just because you have a permit doesn't mean you have the skill to shoot competently and the students were told to take classes, train somewhere but don't think you are well-equipped for anything life and death based on shooting as little as 50 rounds or some other very small number of rounds.

Finally, instructors who are on SWAT and HRT said over and over that they welcome a competent good shooter protecting themselves or their families but they expressed a strong preference for CCW holders who have no training other than the permit to just run away if possible and not use deadly force in a mall type of setting where there is an active shooter. They repeated that minimal skill is just barely adequate and not really even adequate for a SD shooting.

These people are as pro 2d A as can be. they just think training is necessary instead of just shoving a gun in your purse or waist. I agree.

Thank you all for your input.

And yet, despite all of the crappy CCW courses, constitutional carry states with no training requirement, idiots at the gun range, and most gun owners never getting training at all...where are the bodies? What are the accidental death and injury rates to support such a mandatory action?

How many innocent people have been accidentally shot by an un-trained CCW holder? A handful? None?

Mandatory swimming lessons would save way more lives...it's for the children!

Yep. ^^^^

The evidence to support training requirements just isn't there.

We don't want to pull a page from the anti-rights side and go with our feelings. It just doesn't "feel" safe! Logic and...common sense should prevail.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
And yet, despite all of the crappy CCW courses, constitutional carry states with no training requirement, idiots at the gun range, and most gun owners never getting training at all...where are the bodies? What are the accidental death and injury rates to support such a mandatory action?

How many innocent people have been accidentally shot by an un-trained CCW holder? A handful? None?

Mandatory swimming lessons would save way more lives...it's for the children!

You make fair points however your comment doesn't quite touch on the relevant things, IMO.

The unspoken premise is that these untrained CCW holders are pulling their guns and harm is avoided however that's not correct.

Every CCW holder does not pull their gun so the actual number of people who do is extremely low. I haven't seen any stats, one way or the other, that identifies how many CCW holders use their guns on a daily basis, from which states, how many have consitutional carry, how many have mandatory training and so on.

My guess assessment is that people who carry are, by and large, more into guns and SD than most, like here and with that comes greater skills to use a firearm. People who hunt experience stress so that's part of their routine but people who just buy a gun and put t straight into their pocket or purse are the very people who need some training.

I'm not concerned with people here who are consicientious but rather the ones who aren't.

I'm very much CCW and think an armed society is a very polite and civil one. Please do carry as much as you can but if you have no training at all, no firearms awareness and haven't shot a gun before, those are the ones who need a minimum level of proficiency. It makes them a better shooter and that means a safer shooter.

If you are aware of any stats that break down how often a CCW holder pulls their gun daily and all that other data, I'd really like to study it.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
Yep. ^^^^

The evidence to support training requirements just isn't there.

We don't want to pull a page from the anti-rights side and go with our feelings. It just doesn't "feel" safe! Logic and...common sense should prevail.

It isn't feelings. It's what trainers have said, taught and what I've seen at the ranges over multiple decades and to be honest, what you've seen as well.

There is absolutley no downside to a minimal level of required training. Not SWAT level or anything of the sort but rather just basic skills besides whipping out one's wallet.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

Can you give me a single example of 1. A state or county that has these thousands of dollars cost to obtain a permit and 2. An example of a proficiency requirement that you thinking is designed so that people can't ever qualify?

It could easily become that, overnight. And you know it.

I live near a PA county where the anti-gun country Sheriff has proudly stated that he will do everything in his power to limit people in his county from getting the PA License To Carry Firearms (LTCF).

That's not true. If you can point me to any stats where a CCW exists but the locals have made it cost prohibitive to apply for one, it would be great to read about. To date, I'm not aware of any state or county raising prices to make application virturally impossible. Administrative fees and such are fine and those are permissible but outright fees to keep you from applying are not something I'm aware. It hasn't happened to date.

I love it when people blindly trust politicians, who openly want to disarm us, to do the right thing.

I'm sure that there were some that said that an Assault weapon ban couldn't happen, because it had not happened to date. I'm sure that prior to restrictions to gun ownership in Chicago happened, there were people that trusted the politicians not to take away their ability to protect themselves because it hadn't happened yet.

This argument that a Constitutional Right should have restrictions put on it is a tired one.

The left can't strip us of these Rights. We just have to give them up voluntarily. Some are standing in line to give it away, one small piece at a time. The whole "commonsense" argument is a familiar one. Especially when there is nothing commonsense about restricting a Right by requiring training. The same tired arguments have been made in states trying to pass Constitutional Carry, the whole "streets running red with blood" bullshit. And amazingly, just like when the permitting process started, nothing has happened. These ERMAGHAD TRAINING types screwed Kentuckians out of Constitutional carry a couple of years ago. And it was mainly the people selling training, and those who profited from the process that sold Kentuckians down the road. Luckily, it was passed, and signed by the governor. And the streets haven't run red with blood.

The idea that some trust Pelosi and company to do the right thing is all you need to know about the "reasonable, common sense restrictions". Just ask California how they feel about the cost of permits, training and who gets one and doesn't.

No thanks. Freedom is supposed to be scary.

Basic firearms training and SAFETY should be a requirement. But not a "graded" requirement. Isn't this at least close to what some states are looking for when they accept your DD214 as proof of being qualified?

As far as outrageous fees being used to discourage those who seek a permit, I don't know of any either. But in my county the sheriff has one deputy who you have to schedule an appointment with. It's an all day affair for one applicant. He doesn't endorse or object to CCW. But I think his message couldn't be clearer.
What most residents here do is go to the next county where nearly the whole office staff (all LEO except for the woman who answers the phone) will accept your paperwork, finger print and take a photo for your permit. They then mail it to your address. Speaks volumes about our so-called "conservative" county government.

No training should ever be required. Training is good, but not at the expense of my rights.

I don't trust politicians. Even the good ones seem to turn corrupt once they have been in office for a while...

I'd rather run the risk that 0.002 deaths per year result from a lack of CHL training than run the risk of thousands of dirt poor people get robbed of the "right" to carry because they can't afford the fees and the time needed to get trained/permitted. Some folks don't have vacation or sick leave and need their entire salary. They can't take off work for a day to sit in a class. And most government stuff isn't going to be open on Saturday or Sunday.

Formal education in English is good idea, before writing a novel, but it is not a requirement. Nor should training be a requirement for CCW.

Frankly, the idea of requiring a permit to carry, is repugnant.

We, as a populace, have to start getting much more angry about the State degrading us from being citizens, to chattel.

Define "training" please. In MY opinion, my DD-214 plus every week or two at the range qualifies as something, huh? My DD-214 also shows expert M-16 AND S&W .38 (yes, the crappy .38 the Air Force has).

Having to physically attend a class room environment with an instructor (who probably does not want to be there) negates any decent actual range time with a range instructor watching (and correcting) while there.

Tinyman

No.

In the past, parents and close family use to teach such things and they also demanded respect and obedience to a lot of things, manners included.

We were taught not to "start a fight", but if we found ourselves in one, to hit hard and fight to prevail.

We were also taught to defend and protect those in trouble, mostly our own.

Most were also taught about firearms, safety, responsible behavior and actions with same.

That was the best training one could get outside of military/law enforcement and often set the foundation for the most successful outcome of the later.


Sadly, parents and family have little desire and involvement in the rearing and shaping of children in the things that matter most and carry us through life.

Rather being "friends" with their children and quick to "prove" they are "with it" on all manner of social issues (that are empty calories in the food of life dept.)

Parents that behave and live like adults.
We need more of that.