It's been a few years, but as I recall the shooting test for carrying was 35 rounds inside the silhouette with no misses from 3-15 ft. Griz78 can attest that I was shooting the 44 mag and had to run the target on out there, because the percussion was ripping the paper from the clips at the closer ranges. I know that most confrontations are close range, and the number of misses at that range are astounding, but if you can just barely hit a man at 15 ft, I'm a little scared to be around if you pull a trigger. I would like to see the shooting test specifically toughened a bit. Does anyone agree, or are the tests different in other places?

We had to shoot at a life size silhouette at 7 yards to pass the CCW class. I could have thrown the bullets at that distance and still would have passed. I stared getting bored and made a happy face on the target with my 9MM.

No "Qualification" course for CCW in WV. License applicants must take a safety course but there's no provision that they show any proficiency.

Be careful about wishing for an intelligent and fair course of fire from the government.

The oldest person i saw taking a basic pistol course was 83 years old. He was in better shape than some 70 year olds. I wouldn't want to make it harder for the elderly. And if someone was gonna rob them, they're more likely to be beaten up or pushed around than shot at from a distance.

I think that is like making driving tests easy so the elderly can keep driving longer, even after they can't see or react well enough. Just an example, nothing against the elderly.

When I was a teenager, we had a box stand down past another club member's box stand. The other club member was pretty darn old and couldn't see squat. He would shoot almost every day, and hadn't "killed" a deer in three years. We made Dang Sure that we heard his four wheeler crank up and leave before we got down and walked down the road past his stand.

I'm probably playing devil's advocate here, because I'm sure not for more gov't interference, but you should have a decent level of proficiency if you are going to have a lethal weapon at your disposal. IMHO.

lol. i didn't say make it easier. just leave it like it is.

No qualification test in Oregon-- class, fingerprint, mug shot.

In Washington state there's not even a classroom instruction requirement. You apply. They hand you a pamphlet, like hunting/fishing regulations. If you're not legally barred in Washington, you get the CCW in the mail in about six weeks. Fingerprints, no mug shot.

I would be very careful what you wish for.

No doubt the type of tests people think are "fair" would remove the incompetent and suspect off the roads etc. However, they would also be manipulated and / or control the general public.

Using the UK as an example, whether it is offsetting business expenses against taxes, going faster than the authorized speed limit on the roads or using physical violence for self defense, there is one law covering the masses and a completely different law for politicians, civil servants (higher level government workers) and the police.

Politicians and the police really are the new "untouchables".

If you really want 'shooting tests', then make them all the same standard for the police and the general public, which the UK police would not like.

Or better still, make them the same standard as the skirmisher units within the British armed forces, people like the Brigade of Riflemen / "Green Jackets amd the Royal Marine Commandos. The Police will be dead set against that, as they would be disarmed.

I predict a surprising number of memebers of the general public could meet the standard though. Afterall, where does the state get it's soldiers in the first place.

The problem with "qualification tests" for CCW is that it puts the govt. "in charge" as regards who gets RKBA. The Constitution says, "Shall not be infringed."

As soon as you allow govt. to create "standards" by which they determine who is allowed RKBA, you set a precedent which provides govt. the option to deny "the people" their Constitutional right to defense.

The criteria starts out reasonable enough, and once the "precedent" is set that the govt. has the right to set a standard, the standard "creeps" up and the govt. has "infringed" on your RKBA.

Oregon, a few decades back, decided to require a "motorcycle endorsement" for riders. At first it was a free test/endorsement, and the test criteria was pretty basic. The DMV person watched you handle your bike in the parking lot -- start, stop, turn, etc.

Then, once the "endorsement" became set in law, Oregon began charging for the endorsement. Also, the test became more and more complex. Currently the "test" for motorcycle endorsement in Oregon is pretty much impossible to pass with a full-size Harley-Davidson. The test requires slow speed turn/balance manoeuvres that simply cannot be performed on a full-sized, 800 lb Harley. (But you know that someone with a full-size $20,000 Harley probably knows how to ride the thing.)

Riders can waive the test by attending a two day class with "field instruction, practice." The class runs $100.

Presto! The state has turned what used to be unbridled access to the road into a $100 rider tax.

What's your state charging you for a CCW? AND, the CCW is pretty much "gun registration." They have YOU registered as a gun owner, your ID, probably fingerprints and a photo. Some states require that you "register" your CCW gun.

Under the guise of "RKBA" the state has instituted gun registration, and you're paying for it.

"too easy" ,.. borders on gun grabbing, as it strikes me this morning. There should be a demonstration that you understand how to charge, aim, and fire the weapon. That can be done without actually FIRING the gun.

CCW isn't about target shooting, its about becoming BRIEFED on the laws that apply.

Its not a taget shooting club, its not a sport, its much like a driving test ..

If you want to compete with people on shooting, there's plenty fo clubs and classifications you can find and join. Me, I don't shoot pistols consistently enough to do anything but hunt, as the ONE shot group, perfectly aimed, under no time limit, is about the best for me.

Ditto what Jeff said. The stress of actual life and death gunfighting makes poor shots of anyone if the mind isn't right and no class outside of Gunsite type training prepares the mind. Just look at the police stories where 20-30 shots fired and no injuries.

The point is to arm the citizenry. That in itself has made a huge difference.

Most of our shooting was from the hip at 3-7 FEET. A little aimed at 7 yards. Using sights to hit a black spot at 25 yards is little help when the bad guy is at arm's length.

quote:

Originally posted by griz78:
The oldest person i saw taking a basic pistol course was 83 years old. He was in better shape than some 70 year olds. I wouldn't want to make it harder for the elderly. And if someone was gonna rob them, they're more likely to be beaten up or pushed around than shot at from a distance.

A young man will kick your ass. An old man will kill you.

If I'm confronted and have to shoot, I'm shooting from the moment the muzzle clears leather and shoot my way into a stance, if it lasts that long. Been point shooting since I was a kid.

IMHO, there should be no test.

quote:

Originally posted by daniel77:
I think that is like making driving tests easy so the elderly can keep driving longer, even after they can't see or react well enough. Just an example, nothing against the elderly.

When I was a teenager, we had a box stand down past another club member's box stand. The other club member was pretty darn old and couldn't see squat. He would shoot almost every day, and hadn't "killed" a deer in three years. We made Dang Sure that we heard his four wheeler crank up and leave before we got down and walked down the road past his stand.

I'm probably playing devil's advocate here, because I'm sure not for more gov't interference, but you should have a decent level of proficiency if you are going to have a lethal weapon at your disposal. IMHO.

[sarcasm on]
Yes, let make the tests really hard and charge large fees for testing.
Lets make is so only professionals can have gun.
Lets make it required before you can purchase a firearm.
Lets make requirements for all hunters also.
The less guns and hunter and more money going to the gov.
[sarcasm off]

We are not talking about levels of safety when we are talking about the test. We are talking about shooting skills. We can not test for levels of safety.

As for your example someone should have talked to that old man who shot and shot and wasn't bringing home a deer. IF that didn't work you should have sent a game waren to his stand. If he shoots at the warden, you may be able to solve two problems at once.

As a CCW instructor here in MO, I am amazed at the ability levels I see in my 12 hours CCW course. I always offer additional isntruction on combat shooting to every student. The MO proficiency standard is 15 of 20 rounds at a B27 or equivalent at 7 yards.

My focus is on laws enabling or restricting the use of lethal force, safely loading, unloading and carrying a roscoe and being able to make the decison to employ it the best they can under extreme stress (hecklers are allowed and encouraged!).

Carrying firearm for self-defense should become a lifestyle, with regular and challenging practice (realistic matches help in this area).

Molon Labe

Just clean the course in the head to impress the instructor.

I would advise course participants NOT to shoot "expert" level in the CCW classes.
If you are involved in a shoot the instructor and course participants may be subpoenaed to witness against you. (has occurred already)

I would additionally advise not making statements that would show "intent" or a "cavalier attitude"during the classes.
just something to think about.

Duggaboye, you raise a valid point.