Jump to content
revenger

qualification thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

I am pretty much set up to run quals. Email me at [email protected] to make a booking.

Currently quals will be held at Phillipsburg Pistol Club where, in order to prevent a high volume of quals from preventing the general membership from using the facilities, the range can be booked from 8am-12pm Monday thru Thursday. I need to give them some notice to make the range booking and it needs to fit in with my day job. Right now, I could take a booking for Thursday morning (7/21) but you need to let me know today. Future sessions will available depending on my work schedule. I am also working on getting approval to run quals at EFGA which should make some evenings and weekends possible. It will take 20-30 minutes per person, per gun and I would prefer small groups rather than set up for just 1 person.

The CoF will be HQC1 - 60 rounds at a Q target from 1 to 25 yards.

You'll need to bring:

  1. the gun(s) you intend to carry
  2. 60 rounds per gun
  3. 2 magazines or a speedloader (there is a mandatory reload on the clock in the CoF)
  4. a strong side hip holster (IWB or OWB is fine. No AIWB, SoB or shoulder holsters allowed)
  5. a magazine/speedloader pouch is useful but not required
  6. eye & ear protection
  7. Appropriate outdoor gear (sun hat, rain jacket, etc.)

I will be signing the certification based on the shooter scoring a minimum of 80% (48 hits) and observed safe gun handling. Safe gun handling will be assessed based on the well established rules that have been used in IDPA/USPSA/ICORE for years.

The fees will be $65 per person for the first gun and $40 for each additional gun during the same session.

N.B. When you sign the qualification certificate you will be attesting that you have read the New Jersey Statutes pertaining to your responsibilities and liabilities regarding carrying a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:3-1, et seq. These statutes describe the laws pertaining to use of force in NJ. I am not qualified to teach use of force and will not be doing so. This is purely a certificate to satisfy N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4 (b). I will include a copy of my certification as an NRA Instructor to satisfy N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4 (c).

Where are you located in state?  Ahh I see Philipsburg - :) - Reading is fundamental

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Combat Auto said:

Check your "infernal" skills, I don't know anyone who said such a thing...What I did say, it is reasonable to qualify people up to 30-45 feet max. To which you responded and started this debate, and now have change it to no qual at all. So the entire discussion in moot at this point.

 

Are you unable to read the quoted text where YOU said

2 hours ago, Combat Auto said:

In reality it gives them the wrong impression of a legal self defense shoot. Where is that #? Who knows, i would say 10 yards, 15 Y tops.

Not talking about qualifying at all. You stated that a "legal self defense shoot" was at "15 Y tops."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

^^^^^^This

^^^^double this

^^^^^^^triple this

 

So much guess work, as I said in another thread, saw some guy at CR using NRA targets..where everything I have seen for any 'real' quals in NJ are Q targets....

My guess is that HQC-1 is what it will be....

Now the question remains, if you qualified using some.other course of fire, is your app going to be accepted? 

If it is not, is your instructor going to make good on fleecing you of green...or is it caveat emptor?

 

The problem with the statute is it states qualification by a certified firearms instructor without stating what course of fire or what is a "certified firearms instructor".

If you shoot the HQC1 I'm pretty sure you'll be covered.  All these other courses I'm not sure about.  Perhaps they're leaving it this way to give a chief or a judge a way to disapprove the application.

Some have mentioned the NRA Concealed Carry COF.  I haven't been able to find that anywhere.  Could someone provide me a link?

I do have an answer to what constitutes a certified firearms instructor.  NJSP directed me to the part of the statute that says, "other recognized certified instructor".  That would cover anyone who is a "recognized certified instructor".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

Are you unable to read the quoted text where YOU said

Not talking about qualifying at all. You stated that a "legal self defense shoot" was at "15 Y tops."

 

The entire thread is about getting a carry permit (as a non retired LEO) and qualifying, you must lost! We are not writing a detailed book on SD techniques...Of course a Legal SD event can happen after 15 yards (everyone knows that), but you will have a lot of explaining to do especially in NJ...In this context, yes, it is ridiculous to insist on proficiency at 25 yards to get a carry.

Sorry to tell you, in this state, as a carry holder that isn't a COP you have a duty to retreat if at all possible...You might want to study the law before you get in trouble out there!!! Forget the Rambo attitude.

A legal Civilian SD event at 25 yards is so off the charts rare it makes no sense to require Granny or Grandpa to qualify at that range. You would be stifling their constitutional right to SD.

Since you are so set on continued to harp on this because you can't connect the dots of what this thread is about, why don't you show me even 1 event in NJ --- now listen carefully - where a NON cop, non retired cop, carry holder legally shot a perp at 25 yards in NJ. And did it legally? Just one.

Try to follow the context of this thread. We are talking about qualifications.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are a hoot!

49 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

Sorry to tell you, in this state, as a carry holder that isn't a COP you have a duty to retreat if at all possible...You might want to study the law before you get in trouble out there!!! Forget the Rambo attitude.

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and read the statutes yourself. It is not "if at all possible".

2C:3-4  Use of force in self-protection.

b.   Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(2)   The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 (b)   The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

   (i)   The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor;

49 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

Since you are so set on continued to harp on this because you can't connect the dots of what this thread is about, why don't you show me even 1 event in NJ --- now listen carefully - where a NON cop, non retired cop, carry holder legally shot a perp at 25 yards in NJ. And did it legally? Just one.

Until last month, getting a non-cop, non-RPO permit was all but impossible. Approximately 0.013% of the population of NJ had carry permits. This is so vanishingly small a group that it is about the same as zero. And from this pool of zero people you want me to show you someone that has used their gun at a distance of 25 yards? You're hilarious!

 

ETA: you were the person that introduced the incorrect notion that a shooting beyond 15 yards was not self defense so cut the nonsense about derailing the topic from qualifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

You really are a hoot!

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and read the statutes yourself. It is not "if at all possible".

2C:3-4  Use of force in self-protection.

b.   Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(2)   The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

 (b)   The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

   (i)   The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor;

Until last month, getting a non-cop, non-RPO permit was all but impossible. Approximately 0.013% of the population of NJ had carry permits. This is so vanishingly small a group that it is about the same as zero. And from this pool of zero people you want me to show you someone that has used their gun at a distance of 25 yards? You're hilarious!

 

ETA: you were the person that introduced the incorrect notion that a shooting beyond 15 yards was not self defense so cut the nonsense about derailing the topic from qualifications

Yea, and they all have justifiable cause (meaning according to them and the SONJ they are in a concentrated group in a high risk of being attacked), you would think at least one of them would have had a long range SD encounter. It just shows how rare it is, hasn't happened even once in NJ in a very threatened group. Why, because it almost always doesn't qualify as a legal self defense shoot. There are very extremely rare exceptions elseward statistically.

Sorry Bud, you can't prove your point with this post.

Actually, i don't even know what point you are trying to prove anymore. You started by sighting the 45 yard shoot in mall as if this is some statistically significant event that all carry holders need to qualify for (comical), and after a flip-flop or two you wound up saying folks shouldn't have to shoot any qual at all...So in essence you started at one side (You: 45 yards) of the distance proposal I threw out which was (Me: "no more than 10-15 yards") to the other side (You: no test at all).

Yea, so in essence given that this is NJ and for the foreseeable future there will be a qualification (meaning your no qaul proposal is a lack of reality), my proposal makes a lot more sense than your 45 yard proposal...If anything you help proved my point -LOL!

What a waste of time all around. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

Why, because it almost always doesn't qualify as a legal self defense shoot.

If you're so sure of this, how about you cite a case where self defense was claimed, but that claim failed based purely on the distance he/she was from the person that they shot? That excludes cases where the self defense claim failed because the aggressor was not an imminent threat due to distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

If you're so sure of this, how about you cite a case where self defense was claimed, but that claim failed based purely on the distance he/she was from the person that they shot? That excludes cases where the self defense claim failed because the aggressor was not an imminent threat due to distance.

YIKES!!!! You still don't get it, it isn't going to fail on distance (that isn't a requirement either way), it is at a significant risk (with rare exceptions) of failing on at least 2 of the 5 precepts of a legal SD shoot. ALL 5 must be met to make it legal...If you don't now what these 5 precepts are I suggest you google for it. They better become second nature to you before you get "out there".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

Actually, i don't even know what point you are trying to prove anymore. You started by sighting the 45 yard shoot in mall as if this is some statistically significant event that all carry holders need to qualify for (comical), and after a flip-flop or two you wound up saying folks shouldn't have to shoot any qual at all...So in essence you started at one side (45 yards) of the distance proposal I threw out which was "no more than 10-15 yards" to the other side (no test at all).

All I did was challenge YOUR assertion that a shot more than 15 yards could not be self defense. I gave you an extreme example which was far more than 15 yards, but which was clearly self defense.

You went around in circles saying that you hadn't said things that you did indeed say, and when they were quoted back to you, you ignored them.

I never said anything about requiring everybody who shot a qualification should do so at any distance. I said repeatedly that I don't believe any qualification should be required.

19 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

Waste of time all around.

At last something we agree on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Combat Auto said:

YIKES!!!! You still don't get it, it isn't going to fail on distance (that isn't a requirement either way), it is going to fail on at least 2 of the 5 precepts of a legal SD shoot. ALL 5 must be met to make it legal...If you don't now what these 5 precepts are I suggest you google for it. They better become second nature to you before you get "out there".

So you finally admit that distance is not a factor in claiming self defense? JFCOAB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

All I did was challenge YOUR assertion that a shot more than 15 yards could not be self defense. I gave you an extreme example which was far more than 15 yards, but which was clearly self defense.

 

:facepalm::banghead:That is an unfortunate false/wrong infernal/assumption which you came up with. I never asserted such a thing. You need to learn how to get the context of the discussion straight in your head. Otherwise your interpretation skills will continue to be very lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Combat Auto said:

In reality it gives them the wrong impression of a legal self defense shoot. Where is that #? Who knows, i would say 10 yards, 15 Y tops.

 

4 hours ago, Combat Auto said:

I don't know anyone who said such a thing.

Yeah, right. :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic...booked a qual at Shooters and we'll see how it goes...was told to bring 100 rds per person...and yes, the distances are 5/7.5/10...

Was also told the gun you shoot with gets registered,  you can bring other guns with you, but it's up to the instructor as to whether or not they'll get listed without being shot...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RichP said:

Wouldn't it behoove most of these qualification providers to just run folks thru a HQC1 CoF instead of their "modified" programs?

I said previously I think someone will be okay qualifying with the HQC1.  

However, the statute just says qualification not specifying COF.  I think they'll have to accept whatever COF is used at this time as long as you can attach that it's used by a LE organization or the NRA.

When my daughter decided to have a handgun (she got a S&W Model 10 and a Taurus 85 from my accumulation) I trained her to 10 yards.  She was shooting a 3 inch group at 10 which interpolates to about an 8" group at 25.  She doesn't want to carry (although she's lived in a shall issue/open carry state for about 20 years).

I was satisfied with her performance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CJack said:

Attached is a recent letter from Bergen County Prosecutors Office.  There is lot of typical NJ garbage in here, but pay attention to page 2. FYI.

20220718_122035.pdf 800.3 kB · 2 downloads

It seems that Prosecutor is taking the statute and requiring safety, qualification, and use of force training when the statute only requires one.

Then again, it's Bergen County.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GRIZ said:

It seems that Prosecutor is taking the statute and requiring safety, qualification, and use of force training when the statute only requires one.

Then again, it's Bergen County.

I read that as "either". He also uses "alternative requirements". That tells me he is calling for ONE of those.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

I said previously I think someone will be okay qualifying with the HQC1.  

However, the statute just says qualification not specifying COF.  I think they'll have to accept whatever COF is used at this time as long as you can attach that it's used by a LE organization or the NRA.

When my daughter decided to have a handgun (she got a S&W Model 10 and a Taurus 85 from my accumulation) I trained her to 10 yards.  She was shooting a 3 inch group at 10 which interpolates to about an 8" group at 25.  She doesn't want to carry (although she's lived in a shall issue/open carry state for about 20 years).

I was satisfied with her performance.

In my sole opinion, if you are going to carry, and being this is NJ - if you God forbid end up in a situation where you need to use your weapon to defend yourself.  

I would want, as part of discovery, those looking into my history who may be trying to prosecute me - to see that I at least qualified to a standard that is accepted as part of the RPO qualification.

Additionally, there are those that carry reloads for self defense, it has been said you can.  I am not.  Specifically because I DO reload...lest they say I used a round that I "hot rodded' to kill and maime...above what would be at least acceptable for LE use.

If that day ever comes and I pray it never does, I want to have as little for those looking to jam me up, to have anything they can point to as a ding to my character. 

Overthinking? Maybe, but with this topic maybe we all should...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CJack said:

Attached is a recent letter from Bergen County Prosecutors Office.  There is lot of typical NJ garbage in here, but pay attention to page 2. FYI.

20220718_122035.pdf 800.3 kB · 14 downloads

More additional hoops to jump through that aren't in the statutes or in the admin codes.  Please send this to the NJ2SA, etc. @Smokin .50 et. al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

In my sole opinion, if you are going to carry, and being this is NJ - if you God forbid end up in a situation where you need to use your weapon to defend yourself.  

I would want, as part of discovery, those looking into my history who may be trying to prosecute me - to see that I at least qualified to a standard that is accepted as part of the RPO qualification.

Additionally, there are those that carry reloads for self defense, it has been said you can.  I am not.  Specifically because I DO reload...lest they say I used a round that I "hot rodded' to kill and maime...above what would be at least acceptable for LE use.

If that day ever comes and I pray it never does, I want to have as little for those looking to jam me up, to have anything they can point to as a ding to my character. 

Overthinking? Maybe, but with this topic maybe we all should...

I'm thinking along similar lines.  I plan to do a full HQC-1, largely because I live in a very obstructionist town, and I want to give them one less excuse to hold up my permit processing.   Also, your point about it giving a prosecutor one less thing to have fake histrionics about should I ever find myself in court is a good one.

Same thing with reloads.   I'm practicing with reloads that approximate my planned carry loads, but I won't carry reloads.   There is a cost associated with shooting enough of the premium factory ammo to make sure it runs well in the gun, but beyond than that my lifetime cost for premium ammo used in CCW is very likely to be $0

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, in the law, the only standard for NJ Qual is to insure that the applicant can safely handle a firearm and that they can hit targets up to 15 yards. To put everyone through the same qual test as a police/FBI qual is discriminatory to seniors, women and those who have trouble shooting from a kneeling position. Civilians are not police and should not be held to the same standards. NJ needs to adopt the PA CCW qual for a carry permit.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DAHL said:

NJ needs to adopt the PA CCW qual for a carry permit.  

The PA, meaning Pennsylvania? I have a PA LTC and while I appreciate the ease with which it was issued...the complete lack of qualification is concerning.

I was recently in a LGS in PA picking up a pistol. A woman walked in looking for a holster, she spoke in a fashion that suggested some level of slowed cognition. She told the employee her gun was loaded. He asked her to go outside and unload the firearm and to come back in to try holsters. She comes back in, hands the gun to the employee, he racks it and there's still a round in the chamber...

There really should be some degree of familiarity and ability evidenced before being permitted to carry. 

I think the Texas LTC qual isn't bad, 50 shots from ready position in timed groups from 3/7/15 yds and you need to have safe handling and TX law training that can be done online for ~$50. Drop the timed groups and it's a reasonably easy COF.

I'm pro 2A but the country is clearly falling into Idiocracy levels of durka durka...so I'm not a fan of handing carry permits out to anyone with a pulse and no criminal history.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ShootersShooter said:

With rights come responsibilities, so I agree that firearm training at least the basic level needs to be demonstrated before a CCW permit is issued.

I'll go along with this but civilians are not police and qualifying with a concealed pistol with a 9 mm with a 3-3.5" barrel at 25 yds is ridiculous. Safe handling and a qual in keeping your shots on the Q target at 10-15 yds max should is the requirement and it is at many ranges. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ShootersShooter said:

With rights come responsibilities, so I agree that firearm training at least the basic level needs to be demonstrated before a CCW permit is issued.

Thats the slippery slope that ALWAYS leads to class system.  "Demonstration", "Good Moral Character", "Test", "Proficiency" etc are all different ways to establish a controlling regime, which we all know how it ends up.   Letting the "irresponsible" ones bear the consequences after the fact. Thats what the laws are for.

It would nice if everyone prepare themselves upfront, but it should be up to individuals as to how they exercise that right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...