Serious question about CCW training...

[Downr@nge 22]

Seriously, we all know this will probably be one of the next key items of controversy regarding CCW. To require training or not. Where do you stand on the issue and why?

 

Me personally, I know my rights end where other's begin, however, i'd feel a little bit more comfortable knowing CCW Permit holders at least have the bare minimum training with a handgun. I say keep it at the level of the Basic NRA Pistol Course. Cost me $35 bucks and 8 hours of my time and I had fun while doing the class!

[PK90 3,570]

NO TRAINING. Do other states have training requirements? How is that working for them?

 

There should be no "requirement" for a "right", period.

 

Your poll is skewed.

[Downr@nge 22]

NO TRAINING. Do other states have training requirements? How is that working for them?

 

There should be no "requirement" for a "right", period.

 

Your poll is skewed.

 

Poll fixed.

[YWHIC 18]

If the state required Basic NRA (like FL does).. then I'd be OK with it.. not HAPPY, but ok.. and maybe some politicians would be OK with us carrying..

 

The current NJ CCW/CCP classes are EXPENSIVE and hard to find.. and got be signed (I heard) by like at least 1 officer.. and run $100+ and all thats BEFORE you ever get approved by your local judge (which you won't)...

 

This states CCW/CCP is insulting to say the least..

 

(off soap-box.. for now)..

 

Happy T-Day.

[Maksim 1,504]

Voted.

 

I am for a required class to attend, however with no pass/fail, if you can't show up, then it was not that important to you.

[PeteF 1,044]

Required: No

 

Stupid if you don't get some: Yes

[djg0770 481]

If the state required Basic NRA (like FL does).. then I'd be OK with it..

 

FL does not require Basic NRA. They merely require "some type of live fire training". A NJ hunter's education course (free) meets their requirements.

[SpecialK 193]

I voted no training, but I am actually for mandatory training with firearms. This training should be a requirment to graduate from high school in my opinion.

[NicePants 58]

I voted for no requirement, HOWEVER, if they implemented a training requirement, I would be okay with it as long as it was absolutely free.

[tommy3rd 132]

I'm actually all for just a little warning..."No training required, but if you hit an innocent bystander and can't prove you had some sort of training, you're going to jail."

[mcbethr 42]

Training is one of those "sounds like a good idea" elements.

 

I have a feeling that the state would make the training requirement so onerous that it would turn "shall-issue" back into "may-issue" by making the standards unacceptably high. Or instead of "Shall-Issue" it turns into "won't pass."

 

Like PeteF said:

Required: No

Stupid if you don't get some: Yes

[tommy3rd 132]

Training is one of those "sounds like a good idea" elements.

 

I have a feeling that the state would make the training requirement so onerous that it would turn "shall-issue" back into "may-issue" by making the standards unacceptably high.

leaving the laws how it is now while removing the "justifiable need" clause would still make it difficult to get a CCW. That range qualification they have now, even though it's easy, is just a pain in the a$$ to do every year and a half...specially if you have to pay for it out of your own pocket. Not a lot of folks would go through the trouble just to carry.

[Socom 19]

Wondering if i can maybe slip by on a ccw my cousin is married to the chief of police's daughter in hoboken =P

[Jon 264]

Wondering if i can maybe slip by on a ccw my cousin is married to the chief of police's daughter in hoboken =P

 

Need to get both the CLEO signoff and the Judge... forget which judge it goes to though...

[zoid 24]

I said yes. I can see the arguments for no. I just think you

should show some basic level of competency if you will carry

a loaded weapon on.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I would be all for a FREE state provided class explaining the justifiable use of force...

I would not be for a "qualifying" portion because I find it to be an emotionally driven standard.. you have no idea how the shoot will go down.. and unless the person is trained day in and day out.. NOTHING they will learn will be carried over to an actual shoot.. in a high stress situation your most basic primitive instincts take over.. the ability to hit a static target at 10 yards while standing at a line with an instructor next to you.. on a nice sunny afternoon will mean NOTHING at 10pm in a dimly lit alley as you head to the car from the movie theater and are attacked from behind.. I am not for "law" that lacks real application.. and a range style simple class with a short shoot session at the end of it is not going to prepare you any more to defend yourself with a gun than watching an action flick on TV (granted that is an exaggeration but you get the point)..

mandating training that will not have any measurable impact on a self defense situation is an emotion driven one..

a class on the justifiable use however seems reasonable as you are educating people as to how and when they can use a gun for defense.. FURTHER you are explaining what they are liable for if they miss and shoot an innocent person.. this in itself will likely get people to seek training.. training that they may repeat often thus actually netting an increased level of safety....

[YWHIC 18]

FL does not require Basic NRA. They merely require "some type of live fire training". A NJ hunter's education course (free) meets their requirements.

 

I sent my NRA Basic Pistol cert in.. or was is my DD214 that listed firearms 'fam-fire'??..

 

Been a while (like 2002) when I had a FL permit..

 

That's correct a NJ hunters education class would work.. my err.

[bulpup 98]

Way back when I was working with the Motorcycle safety Foundation, they were vexed by the fact that with State available training (in NY) that trained you to ride safe and get you a reduction of your insurance, people sometimes could not bother - and this is training to keep yourself alive.

 

 

Some took the self training route, some were taught by family and friends but the most disturbing was that kids in the city got all of their "training" from gangs.

 

So I can see that it is a right and it is in the constitution, but when you miss an opportunity to get the right info out in the beginning, you can never get it back.

[usnmars 136]

I am for training. I feel though that Veterans that have been HONORABLY DISCHARGED should be waved from the training. All vets have had a hands on firearms training course and qualifications that need to be kept up with. Vets have shown that they can qualify and if honorably discharged, they should have the training portion waived. Treat it like the CMP. There are too many Fugg-tards that I see at the ranges that shouldn't even own a gun let alone carry one. Just because you passed a background check doesn't mean that you possess the mental capacity to carry a firearm.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

NO TRAINING. Do other states have training requirements? How is that working for them?

 

There should be no "requirement" for a "right", period.

 

yup

[gunnyr 17]

NO TRAINING. Do other states have training requirements? How is that working for them?

 

There should be no "requirement" for a "right", period.

 

Your poll is skewed.

Abso-freaking-lutely!!

It's not a right if it requires permission.

[compujas 21]

Abso-freaking-lutely!!

It's not a right if it requires permission.

 

What about the mentally infirm or those with previous mental health issues? What about those elderly or physically handicapped who are not fully capable of properly handling a firearm without endangering themselves or others? What about minors? What about the 1st amendment right covering protesting and needing to get a permit to protest?

[PeteF 1,044]

What about the mentally infirm or those with previous mental health issues? What about those elderly or physically handicapped who are not fully capable of properly handling a firearm without endangering themselves or others? What about minors? What about the 1st amendment right covering protesting and needing to get a permit to protest?

 

You need to do some serious thinking again if you think rights are absolute.

 

Go yell fire in a theater, and see what happens.

 

Go try and vote before you're 18 see how far you get.

[compujas 21]

You need to do some serious thinking again if you think rights are absolute.

 

Go yell fire in a theater, and see what happens.

 

Go try and vote before you're 18 see how far you get.

 

That's my point. Rights are either absolute, or require permission, but not both and not neither. You can't say rights don't require permission but don't apply to everyone. That's essentially the same as requiring permission.

 

Edit: Oh, and the 26th amendment limits the voting age to 18. No other rights are limited by age.

[TheWombat 67]

Seriously, we all know this will probably be one of the next key items of controversy regarding CCW. To require training or not. Where do you stand on the issue and why?

 

Me personally, I know my rights end where other's begin, however, i'd feel a little bit more comfortable knowing CCW Permit holders at least have the bare minimum training with a handgun. I say keep it at the level of the Basic NRA Pistol Course. Cost me $35 bucks and 8 hours of my time and I had fun while doing the class!

 

Having only been in the US for 2 years I think that:

1. In order to get a firearm permit/buy a gun you should have to undergo some training to show basic proficiency. e.g. NRA Basic Pistol. While it is not perfect it still would be of benefit to many.

 

2. In order to get a CCW then you should have to undergo additional training to understand aspects such as 'not shooting someone who is running away' etc. I have both my Utah and Florida CCW and I see it as part of the responsibility of owning and carrying a firearm.

 

I know my views will be at odds with a number of forum members, however I still believe that there needs to be some responsibility attached to the 'right'. The US is a very different place to 150+ years ago.

 

Would the training make much difference, perhaps not, but I believe it would help at least some people think and that in itself is worthwhile.

 

TheWombat

[gunnyr 17]

Well we sure as hell know where all these "reasonable" requirements have gotten us don't we?

 

All these restrictions in NJ are considered reasonable by someone.

[MrP 81]

I don't think any sort of training should be required, but I believe that a state-sponsored seminar on justifiable use of force should be encouraged.

[n4p226r 105]

no training required.

 

 

all schools must teach gun safety at least once per year.

[n4p226r 105]

You need to do some serious thinking again if you think rights are absolute.

 

Go yell fire in a theater, and see what happens.

 

Go try and vote before you're 18 see how far you get.

 

 

you are talking about different rules.

 

you cant yell fire in a theater any more than you can open fire in a theater. but you should be able to carry the tools to do either inside, just in case there actually is a fire, or if you get caught in the middle of an all out gang war between team jacob and team edward

[ChrisJM981 924]

Ever go to a range and have someone sweep the line? Walk out to their target on a hot range? Handle their weapon during a ceasefire? Sorry but these people are too stupid to carry firearms.

 

NO TRAINING. Do other states have training requirements? How is that working for them?

 

There should be no "requirement" for a "right", period.

 

Your poll is skewed.

 

People were all familiar with firearms if they owned them back in 1789. You don't have have fathers teaching their kids at the rate they did then.

 

I said yes. I can see the arguments for no. I just think you

should show some basic level of competency if you will carry

a loaded weapon on.

Absolutely

 

I would be all for a FREE state provided class explaining the justifiable use of force...

I would not be for a "qualifying" portion because I find it to be an emotionally driven standard.. you have no idea how the shoot will go down.. and unless the person is trained day in and day out.. NOTHING they will learn will be carried over to an actual shoot.. in a high stress situation your most basic primitive instincts take over.. the ability to hit a static target at 10 yards while standing at a line with an instructor next to you.. on a nice sunny afternoon will mean NOTHING at 10pm in a dimly lit alley as you head to the car from the movie theater and are attacked from behind.. I am not for "law" that lacks real application.. and a range style simple class with a short shoot session at the end of it is not going to prepare you any more to defend yourself with a gun than watching an action flick on TV (granted that is an exaggeration but you get the point)..

mandating training that will not have any measurable impact on a self defense situation is an emotion driven one..

a class on the justifiable use however seems reasonable as you are educating people as to how and when they can use a gun for defense.. FURTHER you are explaining what they are liable for if they miss and shoot an innocent person.. this in itself will likely get people to seek training.. training that they may repeat often thus actually netting an increased level of safety....

If you can't hit a static target you're not going to miraculously be able to hit something at 10 yards under high stress unless it's blind luck.