testtest

Skills Check: CCW Qualification

Here in MO you don’t even need a permit to carry concealed. For those who do want a permit the live fire requirement is only 20 rounds at a B-27 silhouette target at 7 yards.

That article has a good drill but there isn’t anywhere near my location I could practice that. At my local gun range you are not allowed to practice draw and shoot…much less from concealment. Practicing shooting accuracy is about all I can do.
 
I've stated this before here but it's still scary. A few months ago I got my enhanced CCL here in Arkansas. Out of 13 participants, 11 of them didn't bring a weapon to the class so they had to use the instructor's .22 pistol he kept for the "occasional" student who forgot to bring a weapon. Out of 13 people, almost half failed the shooting requirement........HALF........these aren't beginners, these are people who already have their CCL! Here's the shooting requirements for the enhanced CCL...

1. Stage 1: 3 yard line – 20 Rounds

a. 5 shots fired in a “one shot exercise” – 2 seconds allowed for each shot;

b. 10 shots fired in a “two shot exercise” – 3 seconds allowed for each 2 shot sequence;

c. 5 shots fired in 10 seconds;

2. Stage 2: 7 yard line – 20 rounds

a. 5 shots fired in 10 seconds

b. 5 shots fired in 2 stages

i. 2 shots fired in 4 seconds;

ii. 3 shots fired in 6 seconds;

c. 5 shots fired in a “one shot exercise” – 3 seconds allowed for each shot;

d. 5 shots fired in 15 seconds

3. Stage 3: 15 yard line – 10 rounds

a. 5 shots fired in 2 stages:

i. 2 shots fired in 6 seconds

ii. 3 shots fired in 9 seconds

b. 5 shots fired in 15 seconds

All shooting is from the “ready” position.



The target utilized will be a B-27 target. The shooter will be scored “hit” or “miss.” A successful hit will be scored if the round fired cuts the line of the 7 ring or is within the 7 ring of the B-27 target.



This is not a hard course if you have any kind of proficiency with your weapon....or if your remember to bring your weapon..lol It just amazed me how many people failed the course and even more so how many people didn't think to bring their weapon to an enhanced CCL course.....scary....
 
When I go to the local indoor shooting range I am amazed at how poorly some people shoot and handle their guns. I'm glad there is a bullet proof partition between the lanes. And as I said in my previous post, if you can legally own a handgun in MO then a Missouri resident can legally conceal carry it without a permit. Now that is scary.
 
I'm with the author - I have a hard time with "requirements" in order to get a carry permit...but I'm also scared to death by the ineptitude of many gun owners who think they can simply buy, load, point, and hit targets like the movies.

It's a slippery slope.

Do we go for "legal to own anything for home protection, but safety and proficiency courses required if you ever want to take it off your private property and out in public"?

Do we simply say "anyone can own and anyone can carry, and if you don't know how to shoot properly, Darwin takes over"? This would rely on the common sense of all owners...and we all know, common sense ain't all that common anymore.

Personally, I'm glad for the live-fire side of my Maryland qualifications. Nothing beats hands-on practice and testing, and training by accomplished persons. But then...I'm the type who understands that you have to practice in order to hone your skills, and that skills are perishable.

What I didn't like about the MD licensing process is the whole "may-issue" BS, and the nearly-six-month-timeframe. If I want to carry and I'm not a convicted felon (and I'm not)...it should be a matter of a rubber-stamp, and possibly a fee (government has to make a buck on everything, after all)...and that's it. Smile for the camera, thank you very much, live long and prosper.

When I go to the local indoor shooting range I am amazed at how poorly some people shoot and handle their guns. I'm glad there is a bullet proof partition between the lanes. And as I said in my previous post, if you can legally own a handgun in MO then a Missouri resident can legally conceal carry it without a permit. Now that is scary.
Click to expand...

And that is what I was talking about in the "is a 1911 safe" thread - range rules about empty firearms until you are at the firing line isn't because "a 1911 is unsafe to carry" - it's because you can never tell who is going to be on that range, or what their skill level may (or may not) be. It's a personnel decision, not an equipment decision.
 
In MN, you take a 4 hour class, pass a range test, pass a background check, and they give you a permit. That being said, there were some pretty ignorant questions asked in class, and some pretty poor shooting on the range. However, as @Peglegjoe states above, it's gets tricky on peoples' right to carry. I think everyone should own a firearm for home protection. If you make an investment in a firearm, hopefully you go to the range regularly and maybe get a lesson or two. I had two good buddies who were very skilled shooters who taught me A LOT when I was just getting going.

I'm a maximum freedom guy, so I say let the people carry. But...if you do something foolish, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. You are taking your own life, and the life of others in your hands when you draw that gun. I hope the people who take these classes are taking their carry right seriously. They should be mentally prepared, physically prepared, and practice a routine for life-or-death situations. Otherwise, leave the gun at home to defend the castle. Oh...and practice a routine for defending the castle too.
 
Who is ultimately the judge of competency? I do not agree with mandatory training to own a firearm because

The term mandatory training Is not what a birth right means!

What appointed politicians gets make make up the rules or qualifications of the day of said mandatory law?

The road to ruin is paved with good intentions and feel good laws are part of this problem.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
 
The question of other's competency is answered very easily, even if somewhat uncomfortably........

Our constitution GUARANTEES our freedom, not our safety! Yeh, my preference would be for everyone who carries to be proficient with it, but not to the point that anyone, and I mean no one has authority to say ya! or nay! about them excercising their 2nd amendment rights.
 
I know I’m going to catch a ton of crap for this response. I don’t think requiring people to be able to handle and shoot competently would infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Wouldn’t being competent with a weapon fall under the 2nd Amendment wording “well-regulated militia?” I take the words “well-regulated” to mean trained and competent.

Perhaps I’m more sensitive to clowns who own guns because I go to my local gun range about 4 times a week and see some of those idiots who can’t hit a full-sized silhouette target at 21 feet. In Missouri these same people can conceal carry without a permit or training.
 
I take the words “well-regulated” to mean trained and competent.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

And as I said - there should be zero requirements to purchase, own, and keep at home. No permits, no fees, no requirements. Your house, your property...do what you see fit. Make a mistake and shoot a family member or pet, and its on you. Shoot someone off your property, be prepared for serious consequences (i.e. hit a neighbor walking their dog, or through a townhouse wall...).

To take out in public, however? There should be some basic standard of training, even if it only includes the Four Basic Rules, one mag's worth of target shots, and a pamphlet describing the legal repercussions of using a firearm to defend yourself.

All of this is yet another argument for a FEDERAL carry permit, as opposed to state permits. Either that, or 50 state reciprocity. If ALL states have the SAME rules, it is much easier for lawful owners to know what to expect when they change jurisdictions or travel.
 
Mandatory 2A training is bull 💩 and it infringes on every american citizens rights and by trying to advocate for this will only open the door for other well intentioned people to push for new restrictive laws regarding all of our rights.

We all have to start somewhere as beginners with training and not every citizen has the means, money, or transportation to attend formal training and they should not be restricted to where in the country they are allowed to defend themselves.

Disclaimer:
The quote below is not directed at anyone and it is intended to be generic satire.

Example of an extremist thoughts:
“There should be mandatory training for all citizens to be able to freely speak in public because I hear people say idiotic and offensive things all the time and my feelings get hurt easily and sometimes words can be used to encite violence even without a direct threat and these people need to be censored as not too offend"
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between free speech (protest), and physical harm (riot).

Likewise, there is a difference between free speech, and an unintended discharge of a firearm.

One, in each of those examples, could kill a person. The other, in each example, cannot.
 
10mmLife said:
Mandatory 2A training is bull 💩 and it infringes on every american citizens rights and by trying to advocate for this will only open the door for other well intentioned people to push for new restrictive laws regarding all of our rights.

We all have to start somewhere as beginners with training and not every citizen has the means, money, or transportation to attend formal training and they should not be restricted to where in the country they are allowed to defend themselves.

Disclaimer:
The quote below is not directed at anyone and it is intended to be generic satire.

Example of an extremist thoughts:
“There should be mandatory training for all citizens to be able to freely speak in public because I hear people say idiotic and offensive things all the time and my feelings get hurt easily and sometimes words can be used to encite violence even without a direct threat and these people need to be censored as not too offend"
Click to expand...
Agreed. The purpose of the 2A isn't merely for hunting or personal protection, it's meant as protection by the citizenry (militia), against a tyrannical government like the patriots fought against with their then British government. The Founding Fathers, could have used Army (the army the patriots had led by G. Washington), instead of specifying a "well regulated militia", but didn't. It's main objective was to safe guard the public from a government that tried to exert to much control. Something our current government is getting very good at especially during this pandemic in my opinion.
Besides, I don't think the criminals have to take any classes nor gain a piece of paper when they carry their firearms concealed.
 
Peglegjoe said:
There's a difference between free speech (protest), and physical harm (riot).

Likewise, there is a difference between free speech, and an unintended discharge of a firearm.

One, in each of those examples, could kill a person. The other, in each example, cannot.
Click to expand...
The price of freedom is not living in a safety bubble.

Just like a driver's license and test has eliminated accidents, speeding, & other reckless situations.

Just saying...😁👍
 
Last edited:
While I agree that a firearm owner should be able to hit the broad side of a barn ( especially if standing inside it ), our Government , nor anyone else should be able to dictate that we pass a shooting test to be able to carry said firearm.

Indiana , my state neighbor to the East , has had a carry law for over 70 years with no training requirement of any kind. There hasn't been any report of people shooting themselves or others accidentally because of this. If that had been happening it certainly would have been reported in the news.

Yes , there are people out there who don't practice the best safety rules. Before anyone starts demanding shooting requirements be the law of the land to get concealed carry license ask yourself this , how many times have you pulled your carry gun out of its holster while in public. Also think about the average distance of most violent encounters.

Here in Illinois we have to have 16 hours of training with a range test. 10 rounds @ 5 yards

10 rounds @ 7 yards

10 rounds @ 10 yards.

If a round hits anywhere in the black portion of a B27 target it counts as a hit. There is no time requirement to make your shots at the target either.
 
An inspirational quote about the restrictions on freedom associated with mandatory CCW training.
Screenshot_20201009-113941_Firefox.jpg
 
Last edited:
papa said:
While I agree that a firearm owner should be able to hit the broad side of a barn ( especially if standing inside it ), our Government , nor anyone else should be able to dictate that we pass a shooting test to be able to carry said firearm.

Indiana , my state neighbor to the East , has had a carry law for over 70 years with no training requirement of any kind. There hasn't been any report of people shooting themselves or others accidentally because of this. If that had been happening it certainly would have been reported in the news.

Yes , there are people out there who don't practice the best safety rules. Before anyone starts demanding shooting requirements be the law of the land to get concealed carry license ask yourself this , how many times have you pulled your carry gun out of its holster while in public. Also think about the average distance of most violent encounters.

Here in Illinois we have to have 16 hours of training with a range test. 10 rounds @ 5 yards

10 rounds @ 7 yards

10 rounds @ 10 yards.

If a round hits anywhere in the black portion of a B27 target it counts as a hit. There is no time requirement to make your shots at the target either.
Click to expand...
Agree with you papa. I should have stated in my previous reply that I'm not arguing against people getting training, as I think that's a good idea for new and experienced gun owners alike. As you stated, I just don't believe someone in government should make it mandatory (2A and all that ;)).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top