CCW Class...How They Have Changed.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 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.

For a basic CCW class? Certainly, advanced classes are based on the students providing their own firearms and their own ammo. As an instructor, I would not be at all comfortable, from a liability perspective, with allowing students at an introductory CCW class to bring their own gun and ammo.

[pwc]

Original AZ CC course was 16 hrs, heavy on law, and you had to pass written test. Firearm familiarization and qualification was easy. Now there is no requirement other than form, fingerprints, and $$...renewal is form and $$.

CC is less about what firearm in what holster is carried where on your person than it is about how and when that firearm can be used to protect yourself or others.

It is the responsibility of the CC permitee to know the law governing the use of deadly force. In some jurisdictions, a CC permit may not be required to carry. The carrier can research and read the laws, but how many really do? I believe most acquire the firearm and follow general ‘feel good’ knowledge learned from others or some online website posted by others with no legal training. Big changes to law may even be covered by local media, but there may be changes that don’t see public light, especially if local media is biased in their reporting.

I see the CCW requirement as the requirement to provide, at least, the minimum legal requirement as to when and where deadly force can be used, and the consequences of doing so. CCW renewal provides a refresher and information about any changes to legal requirements.

One of the hardest parts of CCW is finding a reliable, reputable source of that instruction.

[zincwarrior]

That's why. Not intended to be impolite but, what? Absent some specialized class like a F on F class using sims or airsoft, I've not seen this and don't understand the liability argument. You are making yourself liable by supplying your own firearms.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by pwc

Original AZ CC course was 16 hrs, heavy on law, and you had to pass written test. Firearm familiarization and qualification was easy. Now there is no requirement other than form, fingerprints, and $$...renewal is form and $$.

CC is less about what firearm in what holster is carried where on your person than it is about how and when that firearm can be used to protect yourself or others.

It is the responsibility of the CC permitee to know the law governing the use of deadly force. In some jurisdictions, a CC permit may not be required to carry. The carrier can research and read the laws, but how many really do? I believe most acquire the firearm and follow general ‘feel good’ knowledge learned from others or some online website posted by others with no legal training. Big changes to law may even be covered by local media, but there may be changes that don’t see public light, especially if local media is biased in their reporting.

I see the CCW requirement as the requirement to provide, at least, the minimum legal requirement as to when and where deadly force can be used, and the consequences of doing so. CCW renewal provides a refresher and information about any changes to legal requirements.

One of the hardest parts of CCW is finding a reliable, reputable source of that instruction.

Indeed. Even if not a requirement, I would seek this out before carrying.

[labnoti]

Yes. Your own gun for a CCW class. This is the case for my state and all the surrounding states (western US).

There were in the recent (few years ago) past at least one state that required you to use the type of gun you would carry and you could only carry the type of gun you tested on. But that was done away with.

My answer about ammo applies to all classes. Reloads are allowed in CCW classes. When I mentioned special ammo requirements for shoot houses and such, I was talking about classes other than CCW. My point was that virtually all the schools and classes I know of allow totally unknown personal reloads.

I've never heard of a class that required school guns or school ammo -- but I'm not disputing that it could exist somewhere.

[armednfree]

I used to assist with a CCW class. I would explain to the people how a criminal thinks and how he attacks. One thing I conveyed was about the rapist whom many times I heard them say, " My only mistake was I let that b*tch live."

I would go into keeping out of his line of attack, line of power, by using obstructions and basically moving your ASSets. Then to use strikes to redirect or distract while drawing the firearm. Then I would encourage them to seek a more advanced class. One that includes both physical defence and firearms.

The instructor told me that what I taught was too much. He even said I scared people. He told me that was more for an advanced class and if he had one we would use that.

Better then to use time to espouse the superiority of a Glock. Also to impress the class with how many concealed weapons he can carry. Better do do that and teach people to be flat footed and stupid.

He said he might start an advanced class. The problem with that is that he has never been in a self defense situation, he has no direct experience. He has no idea how these people think and how they actually act. I have bunches of direct experience on both.

[pwc]

Armednfree- you should start your own class if you can swing the insurance.

[Double Naught Spy]

I can't find any states where it is a requirement that the CCW classes provide firearms to students. If there are areas where that is popular, that would be on the instructors and/or ranges. It would seem silly to make students take a class with a gun that they weren't going to be carrying.

There were in the recent (few years ago) past at least one state that required you to use the type of gun you would carry and you could only carry the type of gun you tested on. But that was done away with.

Nevada?

[armednfree]

After I retire maybe. The difference in what I would teach against what others I've seen would be, " How not to be a cowboy" and, "Be a coward because cowards survive." All that not focused on defeating the threat but disengaging from it as soon as possible. A good number I've watched focused on overpowering the threat.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

That's why. Not intended to be impolite but, what? Absent some specialized class like a F on F class using sims or airsoft, I've not seen this and don't understand the liability argument. You are making yourself liable by supplying your own firearms.

I disagree.

We carry instructor insurance. My firearms and my ammunition are elements that I can control, and that are covered under my insurance. I know that my guns are unmodified and properly maintained. I know that the ammunition I provide is standard-power, commercially loaded ammunition. I have no way to control either if I allow students to provide their own firearms and/or their own ammunition.

Then there's the issue of controlling the loading of the firearms. If there is only one gun per instructor, and that gun is on the bench at the firing station, there is no worry that some doofus (and there's one in just about every class) will decide that he knows better than the instructor and that it's a good idea to load his or her firearm behind the line, when there's no instructor watching.

It's the same problem we have in the classroom. The rule is no ammunition in the classroom, but there's often "that guy" who has a 9mm round in his pocket, and when a classroom prop gun is passed around he (or she, but it's invariably a he) just has to see if that round will chamber in the gun. That's why in the classroom I use blue guns, and as many non-firing or blank firing replicas as possible rather than real firearms.

For the discussion of different action types, I wanted to include top break revolvers. There are a few non-firing or blank-firing replicas of the S&W top-break cowboy revolvers, but a new replica costs more than an actual firearm. So for $25 I bought a very abused old Brand X top break pocket revolver in .32 Short. The likelihood that "that guy" will happen to have a .32 Short cartridge in his pocket is very close to zero but, even so, I filed down the firing pin so it can't fire even if loaded. For demo purposes, I bought a dozen .32 Short dummy rounds.

The CCW classes are not to be compared with more advanced classes. A large percentage of the people attending a CCW class have never held or fired a gun before. Most have never taken any sort of firearms safety class before. Some actually want to learn, but the majority are taking the class only because the state says they must take it in order to get a permit. They aren't interested in learning any more than the bare minimum required to get the class completion certificate.

That's why I think there's a huge liability risk in allowing students to provide their own firearms and/or their own ammunition.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armednfree

I used to assist with a CCW class. I would explain to the people how a criminal thinks and how he attacks. One thing I conveyed was about the rapist whom many times I heard them say, " My only mistake was I let that b*tch live."

I would go into keeping out of his line of attack, line of power, by using obstructions and basically moving your ASSets. Then to use strikes to redirect or distract while drawing the firearm. Then I would encourage them to seek a more advanced class. One that includes both physical defence and firearms.

The instructor told me that what I taught was too much. He even said I scared people. He told me that was more for an advanced class and if he had one we would use that.

The instructor is correct. That doesn't belong in a basic CCW class.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The instructor is correct. That doesn't belong in a basic CCW class.

I agree...a first exposure CCW class ought to be about law, when and where and maybe how. Technique, ‘combat’, seems like it is 2-3 steps above that.

[armednfree]

I still do the AOJP part. I am far more versed in it than he is. I also teach women occasionally, 1 or 2 at a time. I need better equipment for that really. But doing that for free, ain't got the money to spend on an good airsoft.

[TunnelRat]

In teaching women do you find them more receptive to instruction? I've seen other instructors say as much. A friend and I tried to teach his then fiance, however, and she was very stubborn.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[pwc]

I used to coach junior smallbore and girls were much easier to coach; the boys had watched too many John Wayne movies and had too many things to unlearn. The girls progressed thru sharpshooter, marksman, pro-marksman, eventually expert. That's all assuming the girls wanted to shoot more than smile at the boys, in which case both their scores went to hell.

[armednfree]

Not allowed to bring husbands or boyfriends. But must be bring someone else. Several reasons. I do not need her man's machismo on the range. I am a married man and do not need any reason for suspicion. I am a Christian man and don't need those whispers going around.

As far as the machismo, some men cannot accept that someone can teach a woman better than they can. But far more than that is the, "She can't do that." These guys who think a woman can handle a 25 acp and not much more. Horse crap, I've taught women to handle my Glock 23 and my Glock 26 extremely well. The SIG P250 (my favorite gun to teach with when we step to 9mm) and the 9mm Shield, no problem. For most a 1911 is not an issue.

One young lady, one my wife and I took under our wing at 19, I gave her a 10/22 for those two years. I taught her with a 357 3" GP-100 starting with wadcutters and ending with full power 125's. Then at 21 I gave her that gun. My pastor thanked me for looking out for her.

Then I taught him and his wife. I made it very clear, he was the teacher in church but I am the teacher on the range. He made some faces as I taught her right left Barricades then shoot and scoot, but he said nothing.

But these women, the 19 years old and the pastors wife and a few others that wanted to go that far, they know how to make space, how to deliver a stunning distracting blow, and how to break every kind of choke hold in every position. They know how to tactically withdraw, use obstructions in their attackers path, and how to move their ASSets.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armednfree

AOJP

Translation please ...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armednfree

But these women, the 19 years old and the pastors wife and a few others that wanted to go that far, they know how to make space, how to deliver a stunning distracting blow, and how to break every kind of choke hold in every position. They know how to tactically withdraw, use obstructions in their attackers path, ...

Those are techniques and tactics for more advanced classes. This thread is about CCW classes and how they may have changed. Please stay on topic.

[armednfree]

Ability, opportunity, Jeopardy and Preclusion. That is a change from the original entirely safety based class.

[FireForged]

Preclusion is not a qualifier ..

efforts to prevent or avoid the problem is a separate discussion.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armednfree

Ability, opportunity, Jeopardy and Preclusion. That is a change from the original entirely safety based class.

I have no idea what "preclusion" even means, and I have no idea how any of those words apply to changes in CCW classes. If you are trying to say that CCW classes in your state have changed to now cover these things (whatever they refer to), it would be helpful if you would explain.

I took my CCW class twenty years ago in my home state. The requirement then was the same as it is now: the NRA Basic Pistol class. And that hasn't really changed. The NRA flirted with changing to an on-line course, which was not well received (and which was never approved by my state for satisfying the CCW class requirement). So CCW classes have not changed here for at least twenty years.

[armednfree]

Preclusion-preventing something from happening. Is there a reasonable way to take action other than use of deadly force? I.E. could you safely escape? Ohio has a duty to retreat except in your home or vehicle. That is very definitely part of the course. It is linked to the other factors.

Now, how much and to what level it is required to be taught I cannot say. Instructors do have a rather wide latitude in the class. Since they have 8 hours to do what can be taught in less than two they have to fill it.

I do know it's one damned sorry instructor that teaches anything to do with use of force that does not teach these basic elements. These are four basic questions that have to be asked in any use of force situation.

Until very recently Ohio required you to make an affirmative defense in such a situation. You needed to articulate in a manner a reasonable person would agree on all these four points. Now if you know this person, have dealt with him in the past, or have some knowledge of him you can toss in propensity.

[Aguila Blanca]

I suppose my perceptions and opinion have been heavily influenced by the fact that my state requires the NRA Basic Pistol class as the CCW class. Not NRA First Steps, not Personal Protection in the Home, not Personal Protection Outside the Home ... Basic Pistol. I'm NRA certified to teach that class, so I know what it covers and what it doesn't cover. I also know that if you don't follow the NRA course lesson plan ... it's not the NRA course and, properly speaking, you're not allowed to call it that or issue an NRA certificate of completion.

And the NRA Basic Pistol class doesn't cover tactics, "preclusion," or legal issues. Those are reserved for more advanced classes, such as the two Personal Protection ___ classes. Those both include a module on the state's gun and self-defense laws, and the NRA requires that the legal module be taught by an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction.

[Note: Technically, my state's requirement is the NRA Basic Pistol class or other curriculum approved by the State Police. As far as I know, only one person has gotten his own course approved, and he conveniently happens to be a retired state police officer.]

[Brit]

armednfree

When I first came to live in Florida. 2004 Dec. I was thinking of teaching. But the program that I observed had 50 students, one live round fired into a bin of sand. Taught at a Gun Show.

I met a friend of my Sons, who had taken that Gun Show course. He was carrying a Glock 19. Bought new from a Gun Shop. Loaded it, and was carrying it in a nice belt leather holster. Lifted his shirt to show it to me, made no attempt to remove it. Thank you. He had not fired it.

When I asked him how did he know it even would fire. "It's new, why would it not work?"

It appeared to me, that no holster work was even contemplated?

armednfree. Your discussing actual incidents/criminal behaviour. Was a good thing. And as you were not the actual teacher, a good extra.

The sport of IDPA, a holster competition program, moving from place to place, shooting from different positions, only one competitor on the line at once, observed by a Range Official, was the type of program required to teach safety and proficiency way more than talking.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I suppose my perceptions and opinion have been heavily influenced by the fact that my state requires the NRA Basic Pistol class as the CCW class. Not NRA First Steps, not Personal Protection in the Home, not Personal Protection Outside the Home ... Basic Pistol. I'm NRA certified to teach that class, so I know what it covers and what it doesn't cover. I also know that if you don't follow the NRA course lesson plan ... it's not the NRA course and, properly speaking, you're not allowed to call it that or issue an NRA certificate of completion.

And the NRA Basic Pistol class doesn't cover tactics, "preclusion," or legal issues. Those are reserved for more advanced classes, such as the two Personal Protection ___ classes. Those both include a module on the state's gun and self-defense laws, and the NRA requires that the legal module be taught by an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction.

[Note: Technically, my state's requirement is the NRA Basic Pistol class or other curriculum approved by the State Police. As far as I know, only one person has gotten his own course approved, and he conveniently happens to be a retired state police officer.]

Yes, Texas could care less about the NRA. The long form CHL course when I took it (all day class) was a mix of shooting test, the law regarding self defense and scenarios on when you could and couldn't use it.

The short form is primarily the law on self defense. License renewals need no class now.