your take on...

[scot623]

Introduce me to one anti who "trusts" firearm/CPL class/advanced training instructors to carry. These guys get way more training than anyone...even LEO's. imop, to an anti, they still just see a guy with a gun, a gun that should be taken away.

[13mile9]

I am fond of this idea, but continually move away from it.  At what point is someone considered qualified?  In regard to conceal carry, shouldn't our current MI system of training "qaulify" someone to conceal carry?   If not, there should be a more in depth course.  Where do you draw the line?  One would also have to prove that higher levels of training and ownership qualifications would prevent a nut case from "sailing through the course."   In our most recent mass gun murder incidents, were these individuals untrained/unqualified/unproficient with a weapon?  A brilliant phsyco will not be stopped, and probably could pass any type of gun regulation/ownership qualification course.  (unless we start profiling and integrate mental health aspects into the quaulification system...and whose job will it be to deem someone to crazy to own a gun....)  We're back to "heart" issues, a regard for human life, and acknowledging that "evil" exists... when it raises it's ugly head, you shoot it off!  And make sure there are enough gun owners around to do so.    To add, I am pro training and qualifications--where the line is drawn (and who draws the line) is what concerns me.   

[bigbob]

Q, you dont have to take the written test if you are 18? you still have to take the road test though correct?

gryphon 3,000 people a year? that is 58 people a week. I think you are a bit on the conservative side of what could be done. The easy way around it is to make it effective when an individuals cpl is up for renew. in the case of non cpl holders put some other dead line on it. and I an not suggesting to a training course I am suggesting a qualification. I know you were replying to someone else I just want to keep that point clear. So you appoint someone to run the qualification. Say it takes an hour  and you do it 10 at a time.  with a 10 hour business day at the range you can do 100 qualifications. 350,000 \ 52 weeks is 6,730.  if you do 100 people a day every Saturday , at 60 locations, you would have it completely done in less than a year.

It looks like we are all only complaining about the logistics of it, and the principal of keep your laws off my guns. And these are both serious problems. But can I get anyone to agree it could be worth pursuing? Instead of making our current gun laws just suck a little bit less. and keep fighting for bill after bill. would you be behind reforming the system like this?  what would YOU like to see if the MI carry laws were reformed? keep it realistic, we are not going to get AZ laws just yet.

[gryphon]

What does a qualification consist of?  Standing still, aiming carefully, and shooting at a piece of paper at a distance of seven meters?

Strong hand shooting, weak hand shooting, shooting while moving, shooting behind concealment or cover, type 1, 2, and 3 failure drills, multiple threats with mandatory reloads, up close or contact shooting, gun retention, gun retention during a hand-to-hand defense gun grab, good guy/bad guy shooting...

These are all things--just some of the things--you might have to deal with while carrying in public.

[bigbob]

No i was thinking more of bench rested pistol shooting . I dont know the exact details but i would suggest we start with the standards that MI LEO has to hit to carry their weapons.

[Ezerharden]

State police qualifications, as I recall from shooting them, were a combination of shooting standing and kneeling, and from behind cover or in the open, and traverse shooting. No shooting on the move. That is the pistol only, as to hand to hand, weapons retention, etc those are different courses that to the best of my knowledge don't have a practical exam, just course material presented and practiced, but no qualification test.

[bigbob]

Ezerharden Thank you for that information! Do you feel It is something that would be an excessive burden on the average person to pass? If for instance a guide was available with what would be expected. Could your average citizen pass the qualification by their own practice at a range, and possibly a few books or instructional videos with tips to help you practice? I think hitting that standard would be what would make this worth the time. Much like the Swiss with their trained militia approach to national security. I don't know that any amount of training and clean underwear would prepare you fully If the worst should happen. In my mind though, If we would meet this criteria it would be very hard to impose a lot of the tedious laws we have to abide by. Were we can carry our pistols, how we have to store and transport them, waiting a few months to receive your card if you chose to go the CPL route. The argument that crowded areas would be a nightmare with citizens shooting wildly, and all that type of stuff would be pretty hard to impose restriction on. Registration and background checks would be a different argument completely, but if we could get a plan on the stuff relevant to this thread it might be a start. I know this seems far fetched to have us author a plan and get a sponsor for a bill. I write my elected officials often and it is usually just my opinion on bills and or their stance on the bill. I have not given and suggestions as to what I feel would help. That is what brought me to start this thread. I don't want to start suggesting things that are not in our best interest or have consequences I did not for see. I certainly do not want to step on the toes of all of my 2A supporting brothers and sisters by not giving serious thought to this and spouting off my mouth. Thank you all for contributing and keeping everything civil thus far!

EDIT TO ADD: I am NOT for registration or background checks. I did not mean " a different argument with your fine people". I meant "a different argument with the gun control advocates".

[bigbob]

13mile9 I share your concerns. The cpl course is a qualification as you said. I am suggesting raising the bar of that qualification to something that would hopefully be more meaningful and possibly allow us more freedoms with our gun rights. I do not think this will have any effect whatsoever on stopping criminals from getting guns. That is not the angle I am playing. You said it perfectly, there is evil in the world, and this will not stop criminals from qualifying the class at all. A criminal by virtue of being a criminal is not going to care what the law says about the guns no matter what so this will have no effect. and if we 100% eliminated them getting firearms through magic powers, they would switch to another tool. so how can we enhance our populations ability to protect against such evil? That is the angle I am coming from.

[gryphon]

I am NOT for registration or background checks.

These are two things the anti-freedom people will be pushing hard.  What this means is no more private sales.  All sales must go through an FFL.  It also means there will be more scrutiny to psychological checks.  Right now all that info is kept private for many reasons, including the fact that if it weren't, fewer people who need help will seek it out knowing that the fact they once sought help will be held against them in the future (jobs, purchase of firearms, etc.)  The anti-freedom people would like nothing better than to prevent ex-military from owning firearms (they are the ones highly trained in firearms and tactics), and using PTSD against them is one option.

[Ezerharden]

I would have reservations on imposing that level of training. It would not take into account someone who may have a physical disability, say in a wheel chair perhaps. They have just as much a right to carry as anyone without and physical disabilities, yet that level of training would exclude them. I think it is up to each person who chooses to carry to continue to train as a matter of personal responsibility given the responsibility of possibly using a fire arm.

[ken243]

Bob, you may want to research the firearms training that area LEO's receive/complete. Yearly qualifications, most of which are a joke compared to what many of us do every time we hit the range. Almost any IDPA stage I have run is much more challenging than all the police departments I have looked into other than MSP.

It is just an illusion that LEO's are experts with a gun. Take a look into some major officer involved shootings. 50% hit ratio is about average.

[T3000]

Ok but we all have heard of shady doctors that give pills to people that don't need them. And the drivers Ed teacher in my home town was convicted of touching the girls in class, bet they got any easy pass. There are cpl teachers that just sign people paper. Who's gonna watch the watch men?

There are already regulating bodies that deal with doctors who violate the laws concerning prescription drugs. Sure, you can't stop them all but there is at least some effort to stop them. As far as I know there is no regulating system set up for CPL instructors (save maybe the NRA who certifies the instructors, but I really doubt they monitor the many many people who become certified). Which validates my point. Sure there are instructors who take a good amount of time to teach the class well but there are a lot out there that just sign the paper and send the person on their way. That is an issue.

[T3000]

What if firearms owners had to take the equivalent of MDFI's Handgun 1, or perhaps Handgun 1 and 2?  With approximately 100 million firearms owners in the United States, how long do you think it would take to train them all?

Let's just look at Michigan's 350,000 CPL holders.  *If* an instructor/company can teach 3,000 people a year (that would require teaching M-F also, and good weather most of the year--and really in MI you can't), that would take 117 instructor years.  How many companies in MI are qualified to teach this, three?  How would you like to be put on a waiting list for 39 years before being licensed to carry?

Well if the requirements were increased, I'm sure there would be more instructors qualified to teach it. It's simple supply and demand. If there is a market for it, then the instructors will be there.Why would that be a bad thing? It would also help to eliminate the unqualified instructors who don't teach the basic requirements (as they are set now) and end up just signing your certificate and sending you on your way. Sounds like a win win to me.

When my father decided to get his CPL he had never shot a gun in his life. He went to a local shop a few times to talk to someone about what gun to purchase and ended up taking home a pistol. He shot it a few times in our backyard (we live on a farm) and then signed up for his course. Now it turned out that he has handled gun ownership fairly responsibly and understands the power and danger that comes along with firearms. But he could have just as easily purchased his gun, paid his $100, daydreamed through his class, passed the pathetically easy qualification shooting and went on his way carrying a deadly weapon with little to no training and complete ignorance of the law. Which, whether you would like to admit it or not, would potentially put not only himself but everyone he comes into contact with in danger. 

I understand that most people who go through the process of obtaining a CPL are generally responsible, knowledgeable, and practice somewhat regularly. I guess I just don't trust people in general. I would rather have fewer, well trained people carrying a concealed pistol than a bunch of under trained individuals running around. 

[gryphon]

Well if the requirements were increased, I'm sure there would be more instructors qualified to teach it.

I don't think half the CPL instructors are qualified to teach the CPL class.

[T3000]

I don't think half the CPL instructors are qualified to teach the CPL class.

I think you missed my next point "It would also help to eliminate the unqualified instructors who don't teach the basic requirements (as they are set now) and end up just signing your certificate and sending you on your way."

[bigbob]

very good point about disabled people. I did not take that into consideration. Maybe there could be a way to accommodate them and eliminate some of the qualification tasks or offer a special needs version or something. I really don't have a good response for that. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. Thank you

Ken, I am by no means saying that the LEO is the top their of skilled marksmen. I don't know exactly what the qualification entails. I do know that it is yearly. Have you shot a police qualification? you say they are a joke next to what most of us do anyways. would this not be more of a reason to change the standard to which we qualify? If a person with a moderate skill level can pass it and it would allow us to say we have passed the same test the LEO do, I don't see the downside (at least not until the disabled persons argument was brought up). You could argue that the LEO has a longer time of training, but that can be refuted by a rookie on the force. It comes to an "end justifies the means" type of deal. you might have to train for weeks, you might have to just show up with your current level of skill. What is the difference if you pass it? as far as the ability to carry the pistol goes...not the ability to purchase, that is for another debate... if we meet the same level, there is no reason not to have the same freedoms. I understand that the anti's don't understand reasoning and logic, but that is not an acceptable excuse not to put us in the position to be able to use the logic of this hypothetical revision to the law.

as far as instructors go, people would line up to judge it. you would have no need for extensive training or teaching ability. Its a qualification not a class. you have to have the ability to look at the targets and make sure they were shot to a passing standard. You would have to watch for anything that would disqualify the shooter as well, and possibly run a stop watch. If CPL classes were tossed for a yearly qualification, those instructors are not going to take up knitting.  and now that we are talking about yearly qualification to be more accurately in line with LEO standards. take the original math at $7,000,000 a year for the 350,000 CPl holders. That is at 20$ a person times 100 students a day. so $2,000 gross, then take out rental of the range for the day (most ranges already do this for the 8 hour CPL class. and I am sure The range, "instructor" and state can agree on a way to split that up. not to mention the ammo/target sales. 7,000,000$ a year is nothing to scoff at. if there is money to be made people will come. maybe the proceeds on the states end could go towards education on firearm safety. Or maybe mental health research as that seems to be a hot topic.

[TheQ]

If you're going to have physical shooting requirement, why would you exempt disabled? Will their disability help them become better shooters in a life/death situation?

[Ezerharden]

Should a person who is in a wheel chair not be allowed to carry because they couldn't kneel and shoot as part of the test?

[bigbob]

The chance of a person in a wheel chair shooting  from behind cover, or kneeling is extremely unlikely. I don think it would be out of line to have a test slightly modified to fit their needs. As Ezerharden said, they have just as much a right to protection as anybody else.

[TheQ]

I think we can all agree that training is a good idea. That being said I would hope we can mostly agree that state training requirements are a bad idea.