internet ccp...

[gunderwood]

Personally, I think too many people worry about all kinds of factors that could possibly affect them in a shooting related self-defense trial. Training, trigger pull weight, ammunition type, and gun modifications are just some examples. If you were legally authorized to use deadly force when you did, then you should be OK in a trial - there are no guarantees though.

Skimping on training is likely to bite you with a negligent discharge or a failure to defend yourself.

+1

[Molfeens]

I'll chime in with my .02.

I applied for my CHP in Rockingham Va. (JMU/Harrisonburg) on my 21st birthday. I supplied the notarized application, finger print cards and a check for $50. That's the way it should be.

5 years later when I renewed in Fairfax County I had to provide a training certificate. My permit from another court/county was not enough.

Government should only be able to require a bare minimum. Similar to driver education. Individuals need to take ownership of themselves and their offspring. None of us at 16 with a license and a Driver's Ed class was proficient. Some of us got fast cars loose rules and others got 4 cylinder beaters and restrictions from the parents or any mix thereof. Some of us paid the price for poor decisions, some of us got away with stuff and some of us were victims to other's stupidity. Such is life.

Added legislation and government involvement will never replace good parenting, strong communities, common sense and a little shame if you do something stupid and embarrass yourself and your family.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ProShooter]

I'll chime in with my .02.

I applied for my CHP in Rockingham Va. (JMU/Harrisonburg) on my 21st birthday. I supplied the notarized application, finger print cards and a check for $50. That's the way it should be.

5 years later when I renewed in Fairfax County I had to provide a training certificate. My permit from another court/county was not enough.

How did Rockingham give you a CHP wit no proof of training? and how did Fairfax not honor the permit from another county as proof of you have had a permit?

[Molfeens]

Back in the late 90s Rockingham did not require proof of training. The requirements were as stated in the law which does not require training. I just needed to NOT be a felon, drug user, stalker, wife beater or previously committed head case. I think they also adhere to the "know what you are getting into, because ignorance of the law is no excuse mentality." I just had to pay my tax and pass a background check. There are thousands of other laws already in place to deal with me if I do something stupid with a gun regardless of how it was carried.

Fairfax County has their own standard they apply. For renewals that either fall outside of the 90 days remaining active or that are from another jurisdiction they treat you like a new applicant. New permit applications require training verification. It's just another jacked up way to waste my time and make it enough of a hassle to decrease the total number issued by making it more of a hassle to some than it is worth.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

Big fan of the in-person courses. Way too much credit is given for that DD214, no matter how many years someone has an empty M9 dummy-corded to their LBE. I took a CCW course while I lived in San Fran last year despite no hope of getting a permit. Now I live here, have a VA CCW and will likely take another CCW course in Jan as a refresher. Since I go about my life pretty peacefully now, I'm not often in situations where I have armed confrontations. The annual refresher just seems like a good idea *for me*.

[dusterdude]

Big fan of the in-person courses. Way too much credit is given for that DD214, no matter how many years someone has an empty M9 dummy-corded to their LBE. I took a CCW course while I lived in San Fran last year despite no hope of getting a permit. Now I live here, have a VA CCW and will likely take another CCW course in Jan as a refresher. Since I go about my life pretty peacefully now, I'm not often in situations where I have armed confrontations. The annual refresher just seems like a good idea *for me*.

Generally i would agree with the 214 statement especially for someone that may have been in the air farce,trust me,i had plenty of firearms "training" during my time

[Topsider]

You have to pass a driving test to get a driver's license. Is it really unreasonable to ask people to pass a shooting test to get a CHP?

I took a 6-hour course offered at a local gun range. There were several people in the class who had previously taken on-line courses and found them lacking. We had to shoot for qualification at the end.

The course does not teach you how to handle your firearm or shoot. You're expected to already know that coming in. The bulk of the class is spent going over what you need to know about the law as it relates to CC and defending your life. All you have to do is read a few gun forums to realize how many people could benefit from a better understanding of this.

[sambuh]

This one is only $24.95...

http://www.vaguntraining.com/

I did this... I didn't watch the video. I signed up, took the test and printed my certificate all in under 3 minutes. For me as others stated, it was common sense. I grew up with this training. However, I thought to myself, I know some really dumb people... And they want their CCW. That concerned me. Haha.

[Chasbo00]

You have to pass a driving test to get a driver's license. Is it really unreasonable to ask people to pass a shooting test to get a CHP?

What do think the standards should be for this shooting test?

I took a 6-hour course offered at a local gun range. There were several people in the class who had previously taken on-line courses and found them lacking. We had to shoot for qualification at the end.

What were the standards for qualification?

The course does not teach you how to handle your firearm or shoot. You're expected to already know that coming in. The bulk of the class is spent going over what you need to know about the law as it relates to CC and defending your life. All you have to do is read a few gun forums to realize how many people could benefit from a better understanding of this.

So, this was an intermediate or advanced course rather than a basic handgun course. Were there any prerequisites for course attendance? You state that the bulk of the course was about concealed carry and self defense related law, was the instructor a legal professional of some sort with either special training or experience? Or, was the legal training just a regurgitation of what anyone could discern from reading the law themselves so long as they were willing to make an honest effort in doing so?

My intent in asking all the questions is not to pick on you, but rather to use your post to highlight some of the problems associated with handgun training focused on the concealed handgun carrier. A key issue is that the concealed carry training population is huge - all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds. So, when determining a shooting standard (speed and accuracy, for example) what would be a good standard that could apply to everyone? Should an instructor deny a permit to some fellow who had Parkinson's Disease because he could not shoot well enough? Or, how about an 72-year-old recent widow now with very little income who could not perform the malfunction drills fast enough on the old semi-auto pistol that belonged to her husband. Should she be denied a permit to carry?

My view is that government should not be requiring any training. Firearms training should be an individual responsibility and individuals should get training that is appropriate for them and the guns they own, carry and use. Good firearms training includes plenty of gun handling and actual shooting. Also, I think that top-notch firearms training includes performance standards that are graduated by degrees such as basic, intermediate, and advanced level. The standards are there to let you know where you stand with respect to your skill level, they are not pass or fail
measures. The only pass or fail measures I think appropriate are those bare minimum standards (normally called qualifications) applied to those who carry and use firearms a part of their job.

[dorminWS]

My view is that government should not be requiring any training. Firearms training should be an individual responsibility and individuals should get training that is appropriate for them and the guns they own, carry and use. Good firearms training includes plenty of gun handling and actual shooting. Also, I think that top-notch firearms training includes performance standards that are graduated by degrees such as basic, intermediate, and advanced level. The standards are there to let you know where you stand with respect to your skill level, they are not pass or fail
measures. The only pass or fail measures I think appropriate are those bare minimum standards (normally called qualifications) applied to those who carry and use firearms a part of their job.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

+1

Once you let the government regulate ANYTHING, it has a tool to severely restrict that activity. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT we are talking about. It should not be subjected to arbitrary conditions imposed by the government it is meant to restrain.

[VACoastie]

Well said Chas.

Topside, that last sentence made me chuckle. Why? Because it's so true!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Topsider]

The shooting portion was basically proving you knew which end of the gun to hold, and could hit the broad side of a barn.

25 rounds. At 3 yards: shoot 6 rounds right-handed, 6 left-handed, 6 using both hands. At 7 yards: shoot 7 rounds using both hands. Needed 70% on target (anywhere within the biggest circle) to pass. Everybody passed.

What do think the standards should be for this shooting test?

Nothing more difficult than the above. It's not really a marksmanship test. The idea is simply to show that you know how to operate your firearm, and can hit a man-sized target at typical defensive range.

Were there any prerequisites for course attendance?

Only basic familiarity with your firearm.

was the instructor a legal professional of some sort with either special training or experience?

DCJS and NRA certified.

[Topsider]

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT we are talking about. It should not be subjected to arbitrary conditions imposed by the government it is meant to restrain.

Actually, concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

[Chasbo00]

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT we are talking about. It should not be subjected to arbitrary conditions imposed by the government it is meant to restrain.

Actually, concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

I'm pretty sure dorminWS will reply, but I could not resist responding as well.

Why is it not a constitutional right? The 2nd says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A government saying that I can't bear arms in a concealed manner seems like an infringement to me.

[Chasbo00]

The shooting portion was basically proving you knew which end of the gun to hold, and could hit the broad side of a barn.

25 rounds. At 3 yards: shoot 6 rounds right-handed, 6 left-handed, 6 using both hands. At 7 yards: shoot 7 rounds using both hands. Needed 70% on target (anywhere within the biggest circle) to pass. Everybody passed.

I'm a little surprised at the requirement to shoot weak hand only - this is usually considered an advanced skill.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

[dorminWS]

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT we are talking about. It should not be subjected to arbitrary conditions imposed by the government it is meant to restrain.

Actually, concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

I'm pretty sure dorminWS will reply, but I could not resist responding as well.

Why is it not a constitutional right? The 2nd says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A government saying that I can't bear arms in a concealed manner seems like an infringement to me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Close enough. +1.

The infringements that are already imposed are too much. Any more are intolerable.

[Topsider]

Why is it not a constitutional right? The 2nd says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A government saying that I can't bear arms in a concealed manner seems like an infringement to me.

The 2A pretty much only covers gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. Laws regarding gun purchase, transportation and carriage are state-dependent. While most states are "shall issue" with regard to CHPs, not all are, and the requirements to obtain a CHP vary from state to state, as well.

We're fortunate in VA to have open carry and "shall issue" for CHPs.

[Chasbo00]

Why is it not a constitutional right? The 2nd says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A government saying that I can't bear arms in a concealed manner seems like an infringement to me.

The 2A pretty much only covers gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.

The 2nd Amendment is a right afforded to all US citizens unless that right has been specifically rescinded by due process according to law.

Laws regarding gun purchase, transportation and carriage are state-dependent.

Not true. It's federal law that prevents one from taking possession of a handgun purchased out-of-state without going through a federally licensed dealer. There are plenty of federal laws prohibiting the carrying of guns such as those that prohibit carrying a gun in US Post Offices or Federal Buildings.

While most states are "shall issue" with regard to CHPs, not all are, and the requirements to obtain a CHP vary from state to state, as well.

What you state here is true, but it has nothing to do with the constitution or the 2nd Amendment other than it's an infringement.

The concealed carry permit has the effect of turning what should be a right into a privilege. Here in VA if you give the state $50, meet the stated qualification criteria, and properly file associated paperwork with the county court, VA will then issue you, a state resident, a CHP that allows you to carry a concealed handgun in some places where doing so would otherwise be against the law. If you have to do all these things, you are not dealing with a right, you are dealing with a privilege. In my view, VA's CHP is really just a special tax applied to persons desiring to carry a concealed handgun outside their home or business.

We're fortunate in VA to have open carry and "shall issue" for CHPs.

This depends on your basis of comparison. Many in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming probably think we are unlucky to live where we we do, plus we are having to pay for a privilege that should be a right.

[Topsider]

Obviously, firearms regulations are a mishmash of Federal, state, and local laws. Whatever. We're arguing semantics. The point is, you apparently feel that any firearms regulation of any kind is an infringement of your 2A rights. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm supportive of laws that help keep guns out of the hands of BGs (e.g., background checks) without overreaching to the point where they have a significant negative impact on law-abiding citizens.

[Molfeens]

So unbelievably tired of the car versus gun analogy.

Vehicle ownership and operation is not an inalienable right drafted into the single greatest document ever written whose only purpose is to ensure a free republic in major part through a system of checks and balances.

If I choose to own and carry a gun it is my right. If you don't like my choice then you can exclude me from your property or business. If I commit a crime, act negligently or infringe on the rights of another than I should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for MY actions. This issue is that simple, we don't need legislation we need individual accountability.

I am terrified of the world my children are growing up in especially when we can take something so simple and allow it to polarize a nation. We need to get back to being a nation of individuals who accept consequence and earn rewards. We need to get back to accountability and common sense.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]