CCW Training Requirements

[tortoise1956]

I'm sure some of you know that I am passionate when it comes to protection of our second amendment rights. (And that's an individual right, BTW...) However, when it comes to CCW, I believe that is a different animal. There is no 2A right to carry concealed, and this allows states and the government to place restrictions how it's implemented.

In my opinion, before anyone is issued a CCW, they should have to complete a course that includes, at a minimum, the following:
1. Instruction in how to correctly and safely load, reload, and unload your weapon, with a competence demonstration.
2. Comprehensive instruction in the laws regarding CCW in your state and locality.
3. Some type of marksmanship testing to show that you can actually hit what you are aiming at.

I'm sure there are other things, but I'm really tired after working from 2 PM Monday to 1130 AM Tuesday. It's no fun to do that any more.

I'm fairly certain that one or two posters might want to respond. Just be gentle with me...:scared:

[mvccd1000]

1. Why concealed?

That position doesn't make sense to me, so I ask that question in order to hear your reasons (and not simply to argue).

I can see supporting a training requirement "before carrying in public," or I can see supporting a training requirement "before purchasing a firearm." What I can't see is not caring about someone buying or openly carrying a firearm, but supporting a training requirement "before putting on a jacket when the evening cools off."

Many or most states allow open carry, often without any kind of permit, then they DO require a permit to put on a jacket. Why? Is the gun more deadly if I have a jacket on? Are my latent criminal tendencies likely to suddenly explode from within when I put a jacket on? Will I knowingly walk into dangerous situations with my distressed leather bomber jacket?

I don't get it... to me, it's almost backward. I think a person should have more training before OPEN carrying, not concealed carrying. Anyone can walk around with a hidden gun and not worry about anyone seeing it or talking about it. Open carry, on the other hand, could attract attention if you're in a state where it is not common, and you may find yourself having a conversation about it, or even dealing with an unnecessary police interaction if someone who is unaware of the law calls the police. Open carriers are the ones who should know the law so they can discuss it should the occasion arise... concealed carriers are unlikely to ever need that knowledge.

FWIW, I do support training, and I wouldn't even mind if training was required for everyone (like in school). I just don't support training as a means of the government deciding who gets a permission slip to exercise a protected right.

[tortoise1956]

2. Good points

I agree with you on training for everyone, if it is done in a fair and equitable manner. I went through the NRA gun safety course before I was ever allowed to touch any weapon. The same applies to knowledge of local law. However, I worry that putting these types of restrictions on a constitutionally guaranteed right will embolden others to attempt to increase the restrictions - you know, the camel's nose under the tent argument.

The reason I believe in extra training for CCW is that concealing a weapon reduces the situational awareness of those around you who don't know you have it, and places them at a disadvantage in responding to possible misuse of that weapon, either intentional OR accidental. I want the additional requirements levied to ensure that permit holders have proven themselves to be competent to carry a weapon. I would also make carrying a concealed weapon without a license a felony. In addition, there would also be certain classes of people who would be prevented from carrying CCW, such as felons convicted of violent crimes, those who suffer from some types of psychiatric disorders such as paranoid schizophrenia, and possibly some others. However, as a general rule the law would be implemented to ensure that CCW permits would be issued to anyone who completes the training course and is not otherwise disqualified.

Wow, now I'm REALLY tired. I hope this helps to make my line of reasoning more clear.


Edited to add that I believe open carry is a right and shouldn't be restricted other than obvious stuff like violent felons and other limited classes - CCW is a privilege and thus subject to REASONABLE legal restrictions.

[mvccd1000]

3. Still not understanding your points.

1) *I* need to get more training because people around me are at a disadvantage if I CCW (but not if I open carry), and therefore the government should license me? You may need to expand on that one, because I'm not seeing it at all.

2) CCW without a license should be a felony? So if the evening cools off and I put on a jacket, I've just gone from law-abiding to being a felon without any other action? Again, not seeing it. Luckily the number of states that do not infringe on concealed carry has doubled in the last year. I hope that trend continues.

3) All of the categories of people you listed are prohibited by federal law from even touching a firearm; why would you need to redundantly prohibit them from carrying one concealed?

4) To address your edit about open carry as a right and CCW as a privilege: not all states see it that way. A growing number see "bearing arms" as a right, regardless of the clothing you choose to wear when doing so. For some reason, that seems to distress the NRA... I've often wondered if they obtain their mailing lists from the rolls of state CCW license holders - they sure seem to favor the CCW licensing scheme!

Thanks for the discussion. :)

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Training should include self-defense law, conflict avoidance, conflict de-escalation. N/T

[RSillsbee]

5. At least 10 states require no training of any kind

before issuing a permit and they don't seem to have higher instances on firearms related accidents.

Training is great but it isn't the State's place to mandate that I attend training before exercising a civil liberty.

Ho would you feel about a training requiremenrt for voting?

[Hoyt]

6. Most training won't prepare a person for an unlikely event that might be over in 5 seconds.

Some guy was on here talking about his training that included "dodge and shoot." That's wild, and far too typical of gun carriers. They are in a public area with other people and they are going to lay themselves out like a clown dodging a bull and fan away with a blast of bullets. Give me -- and the 300+ million who don't carry -- a break.

I appreciate your sincerity though.

[benEzra]

8. The majority of violent assaults don't happen in crowds, as you well know...

but thanks for playing.

Also, I'm not sure how competent you yourself are with a pistol in dynamic circumstances, but keep in mind that you are you, and not anyone else. I shoot USPSA with my carry gun, so I do know how to use it.

FWIW, most LEO firearm quals, even for state police, are quite basic. Here is the course of fire for the Virginia State Police:

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standardsTraining/documents/performanceOutcomes/section7.pdf

[Hoyt]

9. Exactly, yet carriers insist on walking into crowds with a gun tucked in their . . . . . . .

[benEzra]

11. If you can provide me a gadget to teleport my 9mm to my gun safe when I enter one of those areas,

I'd consider using it.

In the absence of such, if you're not allowed to carry a firearm during that part of your day, you're not allowed to carry it during any part of your day, yes?

[Hoyt]

12. Ben, if you were so inclined, I think you could figure out how to make it work.

Maybe you would have a problem 15% of the time. But the other 85% you could walk into a park, church, nursery school, restaurant, etc., without a gun ready for a confrontation.

[benEzra]

17. Meh.

I decided to undergo a mental health records check, FBI background check, FBI fingerprint check, state background check, class on self-defense law, live fire drill, and lots of time at the sheriff's office in order to have that choice.

You obviously dislike carry and despise those who choose to, as is your right. Don't obtain a CHL, and don't carry; your choice. However, I happen to choose differently, and I'll certainly retain that choice.

[Hoyt]

18. Then, be honest, you want to wear a gun all the time. It's not because of inconvenience or anything.

You just want to be in the 2-3% that are armed at a children's recital or wherever.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. There's more of us than you think.

Packin'.



Aaaaalways packin'.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. How does him packing at a children's recital harm anyone?

Obviously you are going to get the vapors and clutch your pearls on the internet. But if you really were at an event with him, you would never know he was packing. Since you don't know, how are you, or anybody, harmed?

[cleanhippie]

26. Hoyt, are you fabricating statistics again?

Care to cite that claim?

[benEzra]

29. Shrug. Maybe 30% of an average day, though it varies. But that's my choice,

I also volunteered to submit to a whole lot more vetting than the average citizen is ever subjected to in order to be entrusted with that choice.

Yes, I've probably carried to some of my daughter's public dance performances on occasion, where permitted, since she's on the performance team. There's often a firearm in the vehicle when we're on other road trips, too, or when she and I are mountain biking in the National Forest, where permitted. So? You'd never know (I don't open carry), and I'm demonstrably less of a risk to you than the unlicensed, unchecked person next to you carrying a pocketknife.

I think your fundamental mistake here is in viewing lawful gun possession, or holding a state license to carry a firearm, as something other than mundane. You seem to view guns as something akin to anthrax or mustard gas, or something that someone would only lawfully possess in dangerous and extreme circumstances or when they are up to no good.

I don't know what has happened in your life that has triggered such animosity for those of us who choose differently than you re: gun ownership and CHL licensure, but I would suggest that your efforts to reduce gun misuse (if that, and not prohibition for the sake of prohibition, is your goal) would be more effective if you could learn to differentiate between lawful, responsible use and misuse.

[Hoyt]

30. Carrying guns in public should be unlawful, and if not at least condemned as unresponsible misuse

by people who don't care where this society is headed. Further, those who carry should be considered just like those who wear mink coats, ship jobs overseas, cheat on their spouses, etc. All of those are legal, but not good for society or by decent standard. Our society will progress better once we get past the few (percentage wise) who just can't see life without a gun tucked in their waistband worth living.

[oneshooter]

33. And you are the one to determine this?

"All of those are legal, but not good for society or by decent standard"

I would like to know were you voted to this position as what is,or is not,good for society or a decent standard?

Or are you all powerful and decided on your own to dictate those standards to us poor slobs?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

43. those who wear mink coats

Then why don't you go try to pour a bucket of red paint over the next person you see OCing.

Let us know how that works out for you

[PavePusher]

63. Mink coats are a sustainable, environmentally responsible natural resource.

Who wants to wear oil?

[RSillsbee]

71. I never thought I'd say this

But I do have to agree w/ Hoyt on this one. I don't mind wearing leather because that cow is going to die anyway and we use the meat. but killing an animal just so I can wear it's skin is repulsive to me. (of course, swinging back to the other end of the spectrum I wouldn't make that decision for another person)

[AtheistCrusader]

20. 85% of the time I walk around armed to

stop arterial bleeding
perform CPR
delay shock
diagnose a possible stroke
clear an airway

etc


without needing it. (actually closer to 99.999%, I've only assisted with CPR once)
Should I just forego keeping my training and practice updated? After all, it's not really needed most of the time, is it?

[Hoyt]

25. No, you are far more likely to need CPR than a gun. And you can put it to better use.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I disagree.

Well, on the 'better use' part anyway.

All examples are tools for solving problems, specifically in the realm of protecting human life. When any of these examples are necessary for saving a life, nothing else will do.

[benEzra]

28. Ah, the either-or fallacy. I'm AHA CPR/AED certified, volunteer with my local CERT group,

and hold a CHL; they're not mutually exclusive. Heck, I had two certified EMT's in my most recent CHL renewal class (out of 8).

It appears that those stereotypes you are holding are obstructing your view a little.

[Hoyt]

31. Good on the CPR. Maybe one day you will progress on your view of guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. What's the problem with that?

I carry for the other places where I may need it. In a crowd I am almost certainly not going to need it. So it is going to stay in the holster, unseen. It isn't going to jump out and start shooting by itself. My guns are all drop-safe designs. They only fire if the trigger is pulled so they won't go off by themselves. So I wander around doing my shopping or whatever and leave with noone injured or even aware that I was carrying. So what's the big deal?

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Your don't understand how most muggings happen.

Criminals try to isolate their victims. They rarely attack in the middle of a crowd. Most defensive gun uses are at extremely close range. So close in fact that in about half the encounters the person shot also gets powder burns. Those of us with CCWs don't spray bullets all over the place the way you imagine.

In real life you are more than 30 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally shot and killed by a CCWer.

[Marengo]

16. What type of training and/or experience do you have

which leads you to such a conclusion:

"Most training won't prepare a person for an unlikely event that might be over in 5 seconds."

ditto for this statement as well:

"Some guy was on here talking about his training that included "dodge and shoot." That's wild, and far too typical of gun carriers."

I ask as you comment in terms of great authority, as if you KNOW these things to be certain, absolute, and inviolable. Typically, such authority is the result of extensive training and/or experience. Sharing your presumably extensive credentials with the forum would enhance the validity of your claims considerably.

[Kennah]

24. I never learned "dodge and shoot", but I did learn how to shoot and move

One of the very first things I learned in handgun tactics was moving--to cover.

[YllwFvr]

53. would you include police training in that broad statement? nt

[benEzra]

7. Already the case in NC.

Live fire on a range (at three distances, for the class I took), and a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum.

[oneshooter]

10. Texas CHL requirements

Of a possible score of 250 points, 175 (70%) is required to pass. A total of 50 rounds are fired during range qualifications. The B-27 target shown below will be used in any of the approved 4 colors (black, blue, orange, green). (Learn how shots are scored)

You must use a handgun of at least .32 caliber (9mm and .380 are acceptable). No laser sights permitted.

The course of fire is as follows:
3 yards, 20 rounds
■1 shot in 2 seconds, 5 times
■2 shots in 3 seconds, 5 times
■5 shots in 10 seconds, 1 time
7 yards, 20 rounds
■5 shots in 10 seconds, 1 time
■2 shots in 4 seconds, 1 time
■3 shots in 6 seconds, 1 time
■1 shot in 3 seconds, 5 times
■5 shots in 15 seconds, 1 time
15 yards, 10 rounds
■2 shots in 6 seconds, 1 time
■3 shots in 9 seconds, 1 time
■5 shots in 15 seconds, 1 time

There is also a 10 hour class that includes conflict avoidance, conflict resolution, Texas CHL laws, where you can and can not carry,and the legal definition of "concealed". 50 question closed book test. 70% to pass

I believe that covers all of your requirements.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[tortoise1956]

37. Wow!

That is more than even I had considered. However, I have to say that I like it a lot. Might be a bit much for some, though.

I have one question. The B-27 targets I have used are set up for a 10-point max score, except for the one time I shot to earn my marksman ribbon in the Navy Reserve. (Missed Expert by 3 points, mainly because it was the first time I had ever used a Beretta model 92 and I blew an early round completely off the paper. Oh well) Anyway, is there somewhere online you would recommend using to order targets? I need to go out and test my first handloads...

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Amazon has them. N/T

[eallen]

72. And open carry is illegal in Texas.

[PavePusher]

13. How do you see a Right to carry openly, but not one to carry concealed?

There is nothing in the 2nd about method of carry.

Now I will concede that in the period that the document was written, and for quite some time afterwards (and still in many areas today), it was the custom for lawful Citizens to bear their weapons exposed, except for perhaps a back-up knife or two. Partly due to culture, partly due to most weapons, and firearms particularly, being too large to conveniently conceal.

I do think that origonal intent has some bearing on how the Constitution must be interpreted. If our needs/customs have varied enough from the O.I., then there is a simple method to update the document, purposely included by the authors/ratifiers. (Note that "simple" =/= "easy"...)

[DWC]

19. A driver's license is not required to own a car

But a driver's license is required to operate it.

Formal "training" is not required to obtain a driver's license. Passing a written test and a proficiency test are.

The operation of guns and automobiles share many of the same rights and responsibilities.

Semper Fi,

[YllwFvr]

32. Picking nits like I do...

A license isn't required to operate a motor vehicle on your own property, just for on public roads ;)

[Atypical Liberal]

22. What is the problem these requirements would solve?

In my opinion, before anyone is issued a CCW, they should have to complete a course that includes, at a minimum, the following:
1. Instruction in how to correctly and safely load, reload, and unload your weapon, with a competence demonstration.
2. Comprehensive instruction in the laws regarding CCW in your state and locality.
3. Some type of marksmanship testing to show that you can actually hit what you are aiming at.

While I'm not against these requirements at face value, one has to wonder what problem these regulations would solve?

Right now, CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. The rate of revocation is extremely low.

It's not like we have a problem with CCW-permit holders being unsafe or unlawful with their firearms right now.

This is why some states are getting rid of CCW permits altogether for carrying concealed firearms. The people who apply for and obtain firearms are model citizens. Making the State license and track them just wastes state resources.

[tortoise1956]

34. My thanks to all the posters who remained civil...

I appreciate it. Especially when it sounds as if some of you were thinking of questioning my sanity...nicely, of course!:)

I would have been back sooner, but this week really sucked at work. Anyway, I will try to answer some points raised in the posts.

First, if it was up to me, you would show your ID at the gun store, the proprietor would run it against ONE database, and if there were no hits you could buy right then and there. No record of the purchase, no waiting period, and NO HASSLE. Open carry is a right under 2A, and so you shouldn't have to get permission from Big Uncle for that either.

However, CCW is a different animal. For one thing, in my vision there would be very few reasons to have to carry concealed. If you truly believe you have a need, then you go down, have your ID checked, go through the skills testing, and this time your name is recorded and you get a license. Voila, you are good to go.

As far as skills testing, I want to have at least some confidence that the person with the gun I DON'T know about has some competence with this weapon. Yes, I know that I am not requiring the same training for open carry, that is because if 2A is truly a right, you shouldn't put strings on normal citizens exercising that right. CCW is NOT a right, but a privilege. So, if you want it, you put up with a little hassle, namely demonstrating proficiency.

No, I don't know of any burning problems my CCW training would solve. Doesn't really matter, though. Still a privilege, you need to show you are competent.

As far as making unlicensed CCW a felony, that's negotiable. I do think that there should be some non-trivial penalty for breaking the law.

So there it is. Sorry if it's a little incoherent, I'm still recovering from this last week. Once again, thanks to all for participating in a rational discussion without resorting to emotion and insults.

[Taitertots]

35. Ok, No one should accept these restrictions unless.....

It comes with the assurance that these services will be made available to the public.

People oppose restrictions like these because they can be used to create de facto gun bans. For example, how much is it going to cost me to learn all the local, state, and federal gun laws? Do I need to hire a lawyer, that is certain to be expensive. Is this going to create a de facto ban preventing any low income individuals from being able to carry?

What about all the people who don't live near a public range? How much is all that range time and ammo going to cost? Is this going to be a de facto ban for low income individuals?

[tortoise1956]

36. Whoa, red rider!

There would be restrictions on CCW, not open carry. You could still carry a weapon in plain sight while you go for a stroll. As far as learning the law, that would be satisfied by a section of the course that deals with state and local law, without a written test of that knowledge. Not sure, but I believe that current CCW training in my state (Nevada) already provides that information, as well as a marksmanship section.

Whoever offers the CCW training would be responsible for providing access to a shooting range. Heck, we could probably push for opening up the local police training facilities to the public on a regular basis.

My point is, I want CCW to be something you can't just go out and get on a whim. If you really want it, you will put in the time necessary to shoot straight. If you can't shoot straight, maybe you shouldn't carry at all - open OR concealed.

Once again, good points. I hope I've answered them.

[Taitertots]

38. How do you make sure those restrictions are not de facto bans for low income individuals?

How many decades of practice do you think it takes to "shoot straight"? Do you see how requiring excessive marksmanship training could create de facto bans for low income people? Requiring thousands of dollars for accurate firearms and thousands of dollars for range time, ammo, and training creates a de facto ban for poor people.

Opening police ranges to the public is a good idea. The government should offer free firearms instruction so low income members of society are not prevented from exercising their rights.

[tortoise1956]

39. There's no de facto ban for open carry

My restrictions would only apply to CCW. As far as the "thousands of dollars for accurate firearms", I refer you to an earlier post on Radio Shack giving away a Hi Point .380 when you purchase a Dish Network plan. A quick look online gives prices of around $160 for a Hi Point .40 (Buds Gun Shop).

DoS for $250 you can buy a pistol, some ammunition, and pay the license fees in most areas. That is all you need to open carry in my world.

[Taitertots]

40. Hi Point firearms are notoriously inaccurate....

And the ammo required to learn to shoot accurately is going to cost significantly more than $100, and doesn't include the numerous trips to the range. Accurate firearms are prohibitively expensive for most low income individuals.

We are not discussing open carry, but rather CCW. So it doesn't matter if there is no de facto ban on open carry, when there is a de facto ban on CCW for low income individuals.

[tortoise1956]

41. One at a time...

I have never owned a Hi Point, but there is at least one owner on this forum who would argue that they shoot fine. Reviews on the web are all over the place, but there appear to be a lot of satisfied owners.

As for the de facto ban stuff, that's like saying that even though getting a driver's license isn't that expensive, cars are priced so high that there is a de facto ban on low income individuals being allowed to drive. Simply not a valid argument. besides, the price of equipment has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Just because you can't afford the equipment doesn't mean you don't have the right.

[Taitertots]

42. They are not satisfied due to the accuracy

They are satisfied with reliability of function for the price. Accuracy depends on what you want to use the pistol for. Any sort of high accuracy shooting ("shooting straight") will require a significantly more expensive firearm.

The government isn't the driving factor behind the price of an automobile. If they increased the price by several orders of magnitude than they would be creating a de facto ban. If you had to buy an M5 (expensive car) to take your drivers test it would be considered a de facto ban. If you needed to train on non-existent driving courses than it would be a de facto ban.

[tortoise1956]

46. WTF?

your argument has wandered far astray of my original post. Do you do much shooting? I can think of three beginners I watched learning to shoot at the range I usually go to, and in all three cases they were hitting a B-27 target at 5 yards with no trouble - in their first session. I would call that shooting straight.

I'm not going to argue about the injustice of low-income people having to spend (imaginary) copious amounts of money to learn to shoot, because no matter what I say you will see inequities in the system.

I'm done.

[Taitertots]

47. Hitting the broad side of a barn (b-27) at 5 yards is hardly shooting straight

When I go shooting, I typically shoot bullseye pistol. Which requires making shots out to 50 yards, ten times farther. We have a huge difference in opinion regarding shooting straight. Shooting straight isn't hitting a large target at close range.

Edit: How many of those people at the range were using Hi Points or other cheap firearms? How many were using rounds/pistols that are not suitable for defensive carry?

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Self-defense shooting at 50 yards with a pistol is almost unheard of.

Well over 50% of self-defense shooting are at extremely close range. So close that the gun is almost in contact with the bad guy. In an NYC stuedy of 6,000 police shootings, 90% occured withing 5 yards.

Further, over 70% of officers used instinctive or point-shooting instead of sight alignment.

http://www.pointshooting.com/1asop9.htm

[Taitertots]

52. Which is exactly why I oppose regulations that make arbitrary requirements

Requirements that create roadblocks or in the extreme case a de facto ban. Being able to shoot straight at self defense ranges is not something that requires creating an addition burden.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. That is why I think the current Texas requirements are about right.

Although I must admit that VT, AK, AZ, & WY haven't had any problems either.

[PavePusher]

54. I currently use a Hi-Point as my daily carry.

It was the most accurate out-of-the-box firearm I've ever owned (two clicks windage for dead-zero) and functioned just fine with FMJ ammo. It needed a feed-ramp fluff-n-buff and a break-in period to reliably feed HP's, but this is quite common in many semi-auto's.

There is nothing wrong with the current generation of Hi-Points, just as there have been many firearms in the past that had a sketchy reputation in their first iteration or two.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Isn't that awfully heavy for a daily CC carry pistol? N/T

[PavePusher]

57. A little more than my previous 1911.

And as soon as I get another 1911, and get it broken in, I'll be switching.

But really, it's the width more than the weight. It's a stone beyotch to conceal, but I mostly O.C. anyway, especially now that the weather is nicer.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. I would need a Sam Browne belt to carry something like that around.

For those who don't know a Sam Browne belt is the kind that has a supporting strap from the hip to the opposite shoulder to help support the weight.

[tortoise1956]

60. That's a real fashion statement!

Seriously, one of the reasons I have never applied for a CCW is that during the summer here in Las Vegas, it's kinda hard to carry without printing. I may break down and get one though, my neighborhood is turning getting a little rough as more and more houses turn into rentals. When I walk the dog, I've started carrying a golf club with me.
I usually go for a sand wedge - more bounce on the sole...:evilgrin:

Also, a CCW would let me have one in the car if I ever feel the need.

Another option is to buy a baton for walking the dog. According to local law enforcement, as long as I wear it on my belt, no problem. God help me if I shove it in my pocket though. I wonder if I can include batons on a CCW permit here. Any locals know the answer to this?

[rl6214]

68. Another option would be a fanny pack

There are a number of companies that make concealed carry fanny packs that are qwik to get open a retrieve your pistol. The one I carry is Tommy's Gunpack. It comes in different sizes for your different handgun sizes. Runs about $25.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Tommy's Gunpacks are excellent. I have one, wife has one. N/T

[Taitertots]

65. What sized groups were you getting and at what distance?

What other guns have you purchased that got worse groups than your Hi-Point?

[PavePusher]

66. My first semi-auto, a Taurus PT1911, took some fiddling to get sighted in.

May very likely have been an issue of operator error, but let's not dwell on that...

Shooting off a rest at 15 yards, I can get 3-4 inch groups without trying too hard. I would attribute most inaccuracy to the fact that Hi-Point pistols seem to have the worlds worst trigger, both in form and function. It's gritty as hell and is curved in such a manner that it is actually painful to use after 30-40 rounds, as the bottom of the trigger seems to form a horn that digs into the pad or joint of ones' finger.

I've used several revolvers that were all quite good, but most needed a little more than two clicks adjustment.

I may very well have received the one good H-P in the batch, but everyone else I know who's bought a H-P product in the last few years has been quite pleased.

As always, YMMV.

On the gripping hand, Kimbers are supposed to be quite high quality guns, but I've heard many stories of having to send them back to get them working properly, straight off the showroom shelf.

Anecdotes do not neccesarily equal data, of course.

[Taitertots]

67. Accuracy is more about repeatable groups size than out of the box sight alignment

Those 3-4 inch groups at 15 yards is not bad for a self defense pistol. Off a rest I've seen new Kimbers that would leave a ragged hole at 15 yards, with quality ammo. You could buy a new S&W .460 and get close to that accuracy at 100 yards.

[PavePusher]

69. My brother was recently gifted a S&W .44 Mag, from a friend.

I haven't had a chance to shoot it this trip to Salt Lake yet, but they say it's very good. Trigger feels smooth as greased teflon....

[RSillsbee]

44. OC V CC

In Colorado I can (and do) legally open carry w/ no permit, no background check and no fee. So, why do I need a class and finger prints and a fee and a background check to put on a jacket?

Does .010 inches of cloth really change things that much?

[tortoise1956]

45. Do you currently need to do that to carry concealed?

I don't know the laws state by state.

[RSillsbee]

51. CHP requirements In Colorado

18-12-203. Criteria for obtaining a permit.


(1) Beginning May 17, 2003, except as otherwise provided in this section, a sheriff shall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant who:

(a) Is a legal resident of the state of Colorado. For purposes of this part 2, a person who is a member of the armed forces and is stationed pursuant to permanent duty station orders at a military installation in this state, and a member of the person's immediate family living in Colorado, shall be deemed to be a legal resident of the state of Colorado.

(b) Is twenty-one years of age or older;

(c) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 18-12-108 or federal law;

(d) Has not been convicted of perjury under section 18-8-503, in relation to information provided or deliberately omitted on a permit application submitted pursuant to this part 2;


(e) (I) Does not chronically and habitually use alcoholic beverages to the extent that the applicant's normal faculties are impaired.

(II) The prohibition specified in this paragraph (e) shall not apply to an applicant who provides an affidavit, signed by a professional counselor or addiction counselor who is licensed pursuant to article 43 of title 12, C.R.S., and specializes in alcohol addiction, stating that the applicant has been evaluated by the counselor and has been determined to be a recovering alcoholic who has refrained from using alcohol for at least three years.

(f) Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance as defined in section 18-18-102 (5). Whether an applicant is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance shall be determined as provided in federal law and regulations.


(g) Is not subject to:


(I) A protection order issued pursuant to section 18-1-1001 or section 19-2-707, C.R.S., that is in effect at the time the application is submitted; or

I) A permanent protection order issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S.; or

(III) A temporary protection order issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S., that is in effect at the time the application is submitted;

(h) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by submitting:

(I) Evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service;

(II) Evidence that, at the time the application is submitted, the applicant is a certified instructor;

(III) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces within the three years preceding submittal of the application;

(IV) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application;

(V) A certificate showing retirement from a Colorado law enforcement agency that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application; or

(VI) A training certificate from a handgun training class obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application. The applicant shall submit the original training certificate or a photocopy thereof that includes the original signature of the class instructor. In obtaining a training certificate from a handgun training class, the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete.

(2) Regardless of whether an applicant meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section, if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun, the sheriff may deny the permit.

(3) (a) The sheriff shall deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a permit if an applicant or a permittee fails to meet one of the criteria listed in subsection (1) of this section and may deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a permit on the grounds specified in subsection (2) of this section.


(b) Following issuance of a permit, if the issuing sheriff has a reasonable belief that a permittee no longer meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section or that the permittee presents a danger as described in subsection (2) of this section, the sheriff shall suspend the permit until such time as the matter is resolved and the issuing sheriff determines that the permittee is eligible to possess a permit as provided in this section.


(c) If the sheriff suspends or revokes a permit, the sheriff shall notify the permittee in writing, stating the grounds for suspension or revocation and informing the permittee of the right to seek a second review by the sheriff, to submit additional information for the record, and to seek judicial review pursuant to section 18-12-207.


Source: L. 2003: Entire part added, p. 638, § 1, effective May 17. L. 2004: (1)(g) amended, p. 1198, § 52, effective August 4. L. 2008: (1)(e)(II) amended, p. 426, § 27, effective August 5.



ANNOTATION

Plaintiff whose felony conviction in another state was set aside under that state's law and who was entitled to possess a handgun under that state's law was entitled to possess a handgun under § 18-12-108 and was entitled to a concealed handgun permit under this section. Seguna v. Maketa, 181 P.3d 399 (Colo. App. 2008).


Sheriff's decision not to reissue concealed handgun permit was a quasi-judicial decision. Copley v. Robinson, 224 P.3d 431 (Colo. App. 2009).

Sheriff's refusal to reissue concealed handgun permit was based on proceedings and procedures that violated applicant's procedural due process rights. Copley v. Robinson, 224 P.3d 431 (Colo. App. 2009).


Applicant was denied due process because he was not apprised of or allowed to review adverse evidence or given the opportunity to confront adverse evidence and witnesses. Copley v. Robinson, 224 P.3d 431 (Colo. App. 2009).


Sheriff's findings of fact and conclusions of law, prepared on remand from the district court, did not satisfy statutory requirement for a written statement of the grounds for suspension or revocation. By the time case proceeded to district court, it was too late for sheriff to inform applicant of the evidence against him and the grounds for sheriff's decision in order to provide applicant with a reasonable opportunity to exercise his statutory rights to supplement the record or request a second review to confront such evidence. Copley v. Robinson, 224 P.3d 431 (Colo. App. 2009).

[tortoise1956]

59. Sounds good to me

I agree with everything in the statutes, except for section 2. If the local sheriff is anti CCW, the term "reasonable doubt" can be twisted to mean almost anything. However, there should be some mechanism for local law enforcement to have some say in the process. I'm open for suggestions on ways to do this better.

Database checks would be done when you buy a weapon, and would be nothing more than a yes/no. If you're in the database - examples would be felons who haven't had their civil rights restored, people who are not judged to be competent to own weapons, and a few other categories that escape me now - no weapon. Otherwise, you get the weapon, and the fact that the check was run is the only record retained. (I figure you have to do that to protect both the seller and the buyer from ambulance chasers). CCW applications would include the database check, and approved permits would be recorded for the length of the permit, no longer. When you re-apply, new check, new record.

As far as fingerprinting, no way. That is not only intrusive, but idiotic. Not now, not ever.

BTW, I would also have a statute that makes it a felony to obtain either a weapon or a CCW under false pretenses, and make it almost impossible to plea bargain it down.

Is this any more palatable to you?

[RSillsbee]

61. I don't necessarily "mind" Colorado's requirements as they are

I'd much prefer Vermont carry but this will do till we get it.

Having said that though let me re-ask my question;

If I can openly carry a firearm w/ out any government intrusion at all why is is so critical that I have a permission slip to put a jacket on?


TYPO

[tortoise1956]

62. The honest truth is

that we need some way to differentiate between law-abiding citizens and criminals, or those with criminal intent. Sometimes that means that we have to put up with some inconveniences.

BTW, I am curious - what type of jacket do you have that keeps you warm in Colorado that is only .01 inches thick? Even in Vegas, I need more than that...
:7

[RSillsbee]

64. This may seem like a bold proposal

But how about we presume innocence until proven guilty? If I'm not doing anything to warrant police intervention in my life there shouldn't be any police intervening in my life

BTW, I am curious - what type of jacket do you have that keeps you warm in Colorado that is only .01 inches thick? Even in Vegas, I need more than that...


I generally just wear a fleece and layers of underarmor and flannel underneath.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. There are cheap ways to practice that are extremely effective.

Get a cheap laser sight for the pistol for about $15 on Amazon, and get some Snap-Caps (Dummy ammo that absorbs the dry firing shock). Put the red dot on a spot on the wall and practice pulling the trigger until you can do it without the red dot jerking away from the spot. That is cheaper and faster training than live fire because you get instant reinforcement when you do it right.

For real world carry I would us the more expensive Crimson Trace laser sights.

Practice using the sights with the laser turned on. Then practice some with a .22. I shouldn't take too many rounds with the .22 if you have done well with the laser. Now step up to the caliber that you plan to carry.

That is the way I taught my wife to shoot and it didn't cost a fortune in ammo and range time.

You can practice scenario by getting an AirSoft pistol and a protective mask. AirSoft pistols shoot a plastic BB and low velocity. The person playing the bad guy wears the mask and a heavy coat while the armed defender tries to shoot him with the AirSoft gun. I did scenario work with my wife that way until she was accurate doing point-shoot and knew how to handle different types of situations. You fight the way you train so try to make the scenarios realistic.

It worked for my wife. When the real event happened she didn't have to figure out what to do. She was able to use her training. I worked great. Bad guy discvered that the little old lady that he was about to attack was ready to shoot him. He turned and ran away.