CCW Class...How They Have Changed.

[AzShooter]

I first got my CCW when Arizona first required it to go concealed. The class was 16 hours and required a test of proficiency and a test at the end of the class to make sure you knew what the laws were.

Today I took a new CCW class. No requirements to prove your proficiency and nothing at the end of the class to test your new knowledge. All you really had to do was fill in the Arizona Permit information.

I was disappointed.

Although in Arizona you don't need a CCW to go concealed, if you have the permit you must carry it with you anytime you are carrying your gun.

The advantage of the class is that I now understand some of the laws that have changed. I can also go into any gun store and buy a gun without having to wait for the background check.

[pwc]

That was exactly what I said before on another AZ specific gun board, and many people were critical saying who needs mandatory govt required training. I prefer to have someone who can summarize the changes in the law, from 5 yrs ago. ASRPA has a lawyer who does an excellent job.

[Leaf]

As with anything of that nature, your mileage may vary. If you want to get the most out of a CCW class, do a little research beforehand as to what will be covered and attend the one that fits your desired goals the best.

Personally, I don't like the idea of having government bureaucrats dictating the curriculum. Heck, I support the right of the people to carry CCW without ANY mandated training which is generally the case right now in Arizona.

[TXAZ]

Ditto experience.
When in AZ 10 years ago the class was rich in content, law and you had to be able to at least consistently hit the target.
Class I took in Austin TX was 1/4 the time, and the girl next to me on the firing line had never shot a gun before, swept the entire class multiple times and kept wanting to know why she couldn’t shoot all her rounds at the close target.

[Onward Allusion]

We just got our AZ permit. Class, Background Check, Fingerprints, & $60. Not as easy as PA, but pretty painless. If someone wants to be proficient, then practice. It shouldn't preclude anyone from owning a gun or carrying to defend themselves, however. But, hey that's me.

[FireForged]

We just got our AZ permit. Class, Background Check, Fingerprints, & $60. Not as easy as PA, but pretty painless. If someone wants to be proficient, then practice. It shouldn't preclude anyone from owning a gun or carrying to defend themselves, however. But, hey that's me.

__________________

Exactly.. I concede that its different from place to place but I am not really sure what people are really expecting from a class that is barely 101 stuff on its best day.


My personal belief is that people have a right to defend themselves with a firearm no matter if they are good at it or not. It should go without saying that being law abiding and of a certain age is certainly the custom. In my neck of the woods, there is no training. You fill out a 4x6 card wait 5 minutes for your background check, pay $10 and they hand you a permit.

[zincwarrior]

I could care less about the firearms aspect. What is needed is a review of the law in the jurisdiction, and scenarios in how the law applies.

Being a good shot is up to you. Knowing you can't blast someone in the face because they cut in front of you...priceless.

[ROCK6]

I had to take the class in Texas, but since moving to GA, it was just the process of filling out the background check and fingerprint cards with payment. My son was able to get his CCW when he was 19 (enlisted in the National Guard which is one of the exceptions to obtain it before 21).

The burden of safety is on the gun-owner and as adults, they have all the access and means available to know the basic laws, obtain safety information, and find local classes if they want additional training. To mandate it is simply unnecessary.

That said, there is value in getting updated law-information. I've introduced numerous new gun-owners to shooting and to getting their CCW. I've always recommended a few classes for them to take if they were serious about carrying often. I've taken several classes with my son (my stipulation for him before he got his CCW...that's a "parental mandate").

I've never known an incompetent CCW practitioner; gun owners are far more responsible without a class than the majority of drivers with a driver's education. Training is valuable as are classes, but it should be left up to the individual to make those decisions on how they want to exercise their liberty. Just my soap box opinion.

ROCK6

[Aguila Blanca]

The fundamental purpose for CCW classes isn't to make you a marksman, or an "operator," or even to teach you the laws in order to help you stay out of jail. If you read the various state laws for states that require some sort of training as a prerequisite to issuance of a license/permit, the overwhelming majority that I have read all talk about firearms safety training. In a nutshell, they want to be sure that people who walk around with guns know which end the bullets come out of, and that there's at least a reasonable chance that the person won't shoot someone by accident.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Why would a ccw holder require “safety training” more than someone engaging in open carry where no permit is required?

When it comes to the government, it has little to do with safety. It is about control and/or revenue!

Who said the bureaucratic rules made sense?

Who said it took brains, common sense or a knowledge of laws and procedures you should follow after a shooting?

[zincwarrior]

Both OC and CC require the same license in Texas.

[Aguila Blanca]

This thread is in the "Tactics and Training" discussion area, so let's confine the discussion to the training aspects of CCW classes. If you wish to comment on the politics of CCW permits vs. the Second Amendment, start a discussion of that topic under "Law & Civil Rights."

[Leaf]

This thread is in the "Tactics and Training" discussion area, so let's confine the discussion to the training aspects of CCW classes. If you wish to comment on the politics of CCW permits vs. the Second Amendment, start a discussion of that topic under "Law & Civil Rights."

In other words, don't make a comment that is contrary to a position Aguila Blanca has taken.

The fundamental purpose for CCW classes isn't to make you a marksman, or an "operator," or even to teach you the laws in order to help you stay out of jail. If you read the various state laws for states that require some sort of training as a prerequisite to issuance of a license/permit, the overwhelming majority that I have read all talk about firearms safety training.

Why would a ccw holder require “safety training” more than someone engaging in open carry where no permit is required?

When it comes to the government creating such guidelines, they have little to do with safety. Such laws are about control and/or revenue!

[Leaf]

Who said the bureaucratic rules made sense?Who said the bureaucratic rules made sense?

Not I.

Who said it took brains, common sense or a knowledge of laws and procedures you should follow after a shooting?

I didn't say that either but to be honest those are important aspects of OC and CC. But, do you think that kind of knowledge should be a mandatory requirement for owning and/or carrying a firearm?

[USNRet93]

As a holder of a CCWP for about 19 months, I don't think some sort of 'standardized' curriculum would be a bad idea. My class was a combo of 'join the NRA' and 'buy this insurance if you are involved in a shooting', to 15-20 minutes about the upcoming midterms..we went through some topics in a handout we all got(30 people in the 'class')...but mostly a square filler...$90.

No test, evaluation of whether or not we learned anything...a show of hands showed more than half of the class didn't even own a handgun yet...the 'high point'(low point?) was how proud the instructor was of his new 'vest' with all sorts of pockets and such where he could stow his handgun...I expected a 'call now for a deal on this'...

I was disappointed, $152 to the county, figure prints, CCWP in about 5 weeks...

[OhioGuy]

My CCW class in Ohio was very good, but it was done at a range that has a very heavy emphasis on training and real-world preparation. It focused mainly on exploring the laws, but did include a competency test. One person who barely landed any hits on the full size target at 15' was not passed -- to this day, I wonder where the bullets went

No CCW class can make someone into a marksman. Nor can it turn stupid people smart. I've known people who had to take multiple remedial driving classes after losing their licenses, and they still can't drive worth a crap because they're frankly idiots. If someone will throw a fully loaded LCP into his pocket next to his car keys and Tic Tacs and no holster, I don't know that any level of forced training will fix it.

I have sought out many hours of professional training because I know how serious the matter is, and I want to be as trained as possible. That probably doesn't balance out those who tote guns around in fanny packs and don't even know how to clean them.

I've been carrying for 3 years, and tomorrow I'm taking an advanced CCW skills class, because I met the instructor and think he's the real deal. The topic list covers stuff I've done many times before, but why not? It's fun and there's no such thing as too much practice on the basics!

[OhioGuy]

What do you think of the idea of "Enhanced CCW" licenses, which I understand in some states require some advanced training in marksmanship or gunfighting, and then the license allows the holder to carry in otherwise "gun free" areas?

Since much of the country seems to be moving toward no-permit carry, perhaps the role of a CCW license should become to allow carry in more places for those who can demonstrate that they possess a sufficient level of skill?

[TailGator]

I have had a CC license since the late 80s, at which time the class was taught by the armorer for the local sheriff department. It was a good class, first covering firearm safety, then different kinds of hand guns, then laws, and finally a trip to the department range for a practice session. He may have been evaluating proficiency and safety at that time, but if he did so it was surreptitiously. I don't recall any one failing, but I remember him spending some extra time with certain individuals.

My wife and daughter took a class for their licenses more recently, maybe five years ago. They said it was all classroom teaching on related laws, followed by firing a .22 that the instructor brought. They didn't even have an opportunity to fire their own firearms.

[labnoti]

Permits in "constitutional carry" states are also for the purpose of reciprocity with other states that require permits.

Despite the fact that CCW classes are not intended as an introduction to handguns or even gun-handling skill building classes, shooting classes, marksmanship training or anything of the sort, there are a lot of people who treat them exactly as if they were.

More than half the ~14 or so people in the CCW class I took were totally new to handguns and had probably fired less than a box of ammo prior to the class.

I don't think beginners getting a CCW permit or lawfully carrying concealed with or without a permit is a problem for our society and it is their right. If they're informed about firearm safety and practiced in avoiding foolish mistakes, there is no justification to prevent them from carrying -- and that information can be made available without a bureaucratic requirement.

Erecting skill test barriers for the exercise of rights is unjust. Arguably, many of the people that need to carry defensively need it immediately and without delay, and they also won't ever achieve a remarkable level of skill, but their being armed creates a powerful deterrent and it does so because even without any training or significant skill, the firearm greatly empowers a self defender, especially at the short ranges where they're most likely to need to defend themselves.

With that said, people new to handguns would benefit tremendously if there was greater promotion of skill-building classes so that CCW classes were not perceived as the entry point as they are today by so many people.

[TunnelRat]

I've done hundreds of hours of instruction at this point. While I get the appeal of requirements, to a point it can be viewed as wealth discrimination. If you have the time and money to take the course it seems like no big deal.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TailGator

My wife and daughter took a class for their licenses more recently, maybe five years ago. They said it was all classroom teaching on related laws, followed by firing a .22 that the instructor brought. They didn't even have an opportunity to fire their own firearms.

The NRA Basic Pistol (which my state stipulates as the required class for a carry permit) is an all-day course. It includes basics of firearms safety, an explanation of different types of handgun actions (semi-auto vs. revolver, single action vs. double action), loading and unloading, how to use the sights, and a live fire component. It does NOT include anything about laws.

The NRA classes bring in laws when they get to the Personal Protection in the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home courses. But the NRA stipulates that if the instructor is not an attorney licensed in that state, they must bring in an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction to teach the laws module.

I have never heard of a class where students were allowed to use their own guns. I don't even want to think about the potential liability implications. The instructor has no way of knowing if the student's gun is safe, or if the student's ammo is safe.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The NRA Basic Pistol (which my state stipulates as the required class for a carry permit) is an all-day course. It includes basics of firearms safety, an explanation of different types of handgun actions (semi-auto vs. revolver, single action vs. double action), loading and unloading, how to use the sights, and a live fire component. It does NOT include anything about laws.



The NRA classes bring in laws when they get to the Personal Protection in the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home courses. But the NRA stipulates that if the instructor is not an attorney licensed in that state, they must bring in an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction to teach the laws module.



I have never heard of a class where students were allowed to use their own guns. I don't even want to think about the potential liability implications. The instructor has no way of knowing if the student's gun is safe, or if the student's ammo is safe.

At my Basic Pistol course, many years ago, I was allowed to use my own pistol with my own ammo. To be honest though, I agree with your concerns.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The NRA Basic Pistol (which my state stipulates as the required class for a carry permit) is an all-day course. It includes basics of firearms safety, an explanation of different types of handgun actions (semi-auto vs. revolver, single action vs. double action), loading and unloading, how to use the sights, and a live fire component. It does NOT include anything about laws.

The NRA classes bring in laws when they get to the Personal Protection in the Home and Personal Protection Outside the Home courses. But the NRA stipulates that if the instructor is not an attorney licensed in that state, they must bring in an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction to teach the laws module.

I have never heard of a class where students were allowed to use their own guns. I don't even want to think about the potential liability implications. The instructor has no way of knowing if the student's gun is safe, or if the student's ammo is safe.

You've never heard of a class where the students use their own firearms? I have never taken a class where I used an instructor's firearms. Thats definitely not the practice for CHL classes in Texas.

Maybe thats a mistype in your post.

[labnoti]

I've never heard of a course where bringing your own firearm was not a requirement, though most instructors/schools do offer rentals at additional expense.

Most classes allow reloads, but I've seen some that require factory ammo. A few classes have special ammo requirements such as lead-free, or reduced-hazard frangible bullets due to the requirements of the shooting range or the distance to steel targets or concrete walls inside a shoot house. However, I've never seen one of these requirements exclude reloaded ammo that meets the specifications.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

You've never heard of a class where the students use their own firearms? I have never taken a class where I used an instructor's firearms. Thats definitely not the practice for CHL classes in Texas.

Maybe thats a mistype in your post.

No, not a mistype. All CCW classes around here use only the firearm provided by the instructor.

Why would you assume that because my experience -- in a different part of the country -- is different from yours, I must be mistaken?