Variant

But it doesn’t adequately test someone’s proficiency, that’s the entire point. The cops who only shoot once or twice a year to pass that qualification are terrible shots. But apparently I’ve been told that it’s OK for someone not to be able to shoot Minute-of-Man at 7 yards because he has other skills… And I agree with you, a range time requirement is silly. Why would you want people to practice and train more with a deadly weapon that they are allowed to use at a much higher level and with significantly more authority than the civilians they put in danger. I never imagined I would ever read something like I’m reading here. Police should be the best trained and most experienced at shooting a handgun in the population. I just can’t fathom citizens defending police shooting once or twice a year instead of being heavily trained and practiced. This is the clown world we live in. Cue the video of the LEO telling the classroom how he’s the only one professional enough to carry a Glock 40.

I don’t know what it is, but either way it doesn’t matter. They’re going to do whatever they want, your only recourse is to pay thousands of dollars, possibly tens of thousands, to fight them in court over the next year or two.

No way, no reason to do that. As I already said, expecting Police to know how to use their handgun and fire it more than once or twice a year is completely unreasonable. Thank you for showing me the error in my original thinking.

You guys are right, you changed my mind. Expecting police officers to shoot more than once or twice a year is completely out of line. Expecting police officers to be able to shoot a reasonable sized group with the handgun that they carry is definitely an unreasonable idea. There’s no need for training and practice. Police have the ability to shoot dozens of rounds in public, miss their assailant with every one of them, hit innocent bystanders, then be cleared of all wrongdoing. No need to practice and be proficient at shooting, amirite?

Your average butcher is not better with a scalpel then your average surgeon. I am talking about close range with handgun. I’m sure you could define what a good shot is yourself. I don’t think it’s asking much for a police officer who has far more power and authority to use his handgun to be able to shoot as well or better than most of the other people at the range. But many of us know for a fact that officers often shoot incredibly poorly, terrible groups and sometimes missing paper completely. It’s a well-known fact that many police officers only shoot when necessary to qualify. I honestly can’t believe why anyone would defend this practice. Griz defended this by insinuating that all police are highly trained operators and war heroes who have other skills that could help more. I don’t believe that to be true and neither do you, but even if it was, why can’t we still expect them to practice enough to shoot better than average?

“You need to understand the belief that cops should be a very good shot is false.” No, I’m not going to believe that. I’m going to continue to believe that police officers should be a very good shot. I’m going to believe that police officers, who carry a firearm professionally and have far more authority and privilege to use it, should put the work in to be a better shot than the average citizen. I believe that the liberals who only want police officers to carry guns should stop believing that police officers are all more qualified to carry a gun than the average citizen, which is simply not true. I don’t question your credentials, I just don’t see how your stories change what is a very simple and easy to accept fact. Your stories make it out like cops are highly trained war heroes they could make up for being bad shots with grit and experience. Even if that was true, which it’s not, I still don’t see why they should forgo the most important part of it. I remember over 20 years ago shooting at the Bullethole next to Belleville and Newark police. It was embarrassing that a couple of 21-year-old with no training shot significantly better than the police who are most likely to use their firearm. And here’s the thing, I was a terrible shot back then and I’m still not that great today. But I don’t carry a firearm professionally and there is no theory that I’m more qualified to carry a firearm than everyone else. The same thing continued for years at Fort Dix and Cherry Ridge, my friend and I would meet many cops and they were almost always the poorest shots on the range. Why would they be good shots, many only shoot a couple times per year.

I would have liked to go to this but I missed this post. Any chance of it being recorded? I’d be happy to pay the fee to watch the video.

I’m not sure what that means or how it applies. You laugh at people who say they shoot better than cops. That’s a very serious problem when cops are the ones who everyone expects to be a very good shot. And it’s even worse when considering that such a huge amount of people think only cop should be the ones carrying guns.

I laugh at those who say "I shoot better than the cops". I’m not sure why. The average firearms enthusiast and casual shooter is a far better shot than the average cop. It’s unfortunate, and also ironic since half of the country thinks only cops should have guns.

What process?

I have a feeling that all these legislators will be patting themselves on the back for “effecting change” and “making the world a better place” and whatever other garbage they tell themselves. They will probably vote to give themselves raises and longer vacations as a present to themselves for all the hard work they did making us safer.

Prosecutors as well as the people working in their offices don’t make nearly as much as they could the private sector either. Nor do politicians. Or soldiers. It’s service, they make a choice to forgo money in order to serve. As far as respecting them, that should be on an individual basis. Judges who knowingly break the law and infringe on our rights should be taken off of the bench and shamed in the streets.

I believe some people who received their PtC have said that they were told if they want to add any new firearms on they could go back to the court to have it added. So I assume if you lose the card you could go to the court the same way to have a new one issued. As far as the card itself, since it’s just a piece of thick paper, I’m thinking we could fold it in half to fit it in our normal wallet. It’s not like there’s a picture or fingerprint or chip inside of it, it’s just ink on paper.

Speaking of restaurants, are you allowed to carry in places that serve alcohol in New Jersey? I know some states restrict that.

Even in this terrible state I can’t see them charging you with the same felony charges for carrying a firearm without your PtC card as if you didn’t have the PtC in the first place. But I don’t doubt for a second that you’ll be taking a ride and having an unpleasant night. So if I lost my card, I would be very worried to carry until I got a new one.