CCW Handgun Qualifying - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: CCW Handgun Qualifying

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Islander View Post
    For part of our training we shot 5 yards with eyes closed, and I am not ikidding. Everybody hit the target.
    Geez, CFP students are not Padawan learners. They don't have to learn the ways of the Force.
    "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

    -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Uh, you might want to review the NEVADA CONCEALED HANDGUN TRAINING STANDARDS, Revised May 24, 2010 by the NVSCA. See http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Do...dards_2010.pdf


    It does say:


    Note it says instructors can provide "additional TRAINING." It doesn't say instructors can make additional requirements.

    For example, it says: Could an instructor use a 3" bullseye target at, lets say, 50 yards and require a 70% or greater score? No, I think not.

    Another example, could an instructor add 100 questions to the written exam and virtually require a law degree to pass it? No, I think not.

    Bottom line: If your instructor is adding some goofy requirement, I recommend notifying the NSCA and finding another, more reasonable, instructor.

    And/or, notify me. I am the first civilian to be appointed to the NSCA Sub Committee (appointed last year) - and I could bring it to the committee's attention.
    Exactly. These are minimum standards. An instructor can have tougher standards, and many do as we see.

    You stated that it says an instructor could not use a 3" bullseye, etc. Where in the doc you attached does it say that? I missed it.

    If your instructor is adding some goofy requirement, don't be a child and complain. Just go somewhere else. I called about 6 different people to make sure I took my class from someone who was competent. Many wanted me to qualify using higher than minimum standards. I could have passed anyway, but skipped on principle (plus, they were usually more expensive).

    It may not say you can add additional requirements, but no law gives me the right to open carry in NV either.
    Last edited by buddy; 08-16-2010 at 08:03 PM. Reason: crappy spelling. I'm tired.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by buddy View Post
    Exactly. These are minimum standards. An instructor can have tougher standards, and many do as we see.

    You stated that it says an instructor could not use a 3" bullseye, etc. Where in the doc you attached does it say that? I missed it.

    If your instructor is adding some goofy requirement, don't be a child and complain. Just go somewhere else. I called about 6 different people to make sure I took my class from someone who was competent. Many wanted me to qualify using higher than minimum standards. I could have passed anyway, but skipped on principle (plus, they were usually more expensive).

    It may not say you can add additional requirements, but no law gives me the right to open carry in NV either.
    Buddy,

    Methinks you're missing the point. And you certainly did miss where it says that! Simply look on page two of the NSCA Training Standards:
    A humanoid style target such as the B27, B21 or FBI Q shall be used.
    By the way, you can read the entire document here: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Do...dards_2010.pdf

    It does NOT say an instructor can impose tougher standards.

    It DOES say instructors can provide additional training.

    There is a big difference between the two statements (above.)

    In accordance with the law and the training standards, a person should be certified/qualified if he/she passes the minimum standards.

    Additional training is a great thing, but you must bear in mind that some folks simply cannot - and have NO need to - undergo more rigorous training.

    Would you deny certification to an elderly person simply because he/she cannot qualify to your higher standarrds? Using the "3" bullseye @ 50 yds" example (extreme example to clarify a point), who cares if a student can hit a 3" bullseye at 50 yds? We are concerned with competency and proficiency at closer "defensive" ranges.

    And that makes perfectly good sense. Have you not read of the untold numbers of law abiding citizens (most without the benefit of CCW permits or extensive training) that have used firearms to thwart crime and save lives? Virtually none of them needed "minute of rabbit head" accuracy at 50 yds.

    Additional training, over and above the minimum standards, is a good thing - but instructors should not make it mandatory because that (at a minimum) is contrary to the intent of Nevada's "shall issue" law/system.

    If a student meets the minimum requirement outlined by law/NSCA standards, and/or

    If an instructor requires a higher standard of accuracy than required by law/NSCA, and/or

    If an instructor imposes a time limit, and/or

    If an instructor uses a target significantly different than the required target, and

    If the instructor refuses to certify the student,

    THEN I would recommend the student notify the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte that the instructor is not complying with the law and/or NSCA standards.

    Nevada is a shall issue state - meaning if a person meets the requirements outlined by law and the NSCA, said person shall be issued a permit.

    Again, it does NOT say a person must meet the requirements of the law/NSCA AND the requirements added by an individual instructor.

    It is not "childish" to complain when you've paid your fee and expect to comply with the law and standards, only to be told/denied because an instructor has added unlawful requirements. Again, additional training (beyond minimums) is good - but additional requirements are bad.

    This is my personal opinion.

    However, I am also a member of the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte (the first civilian member ever appointed) .

    Additionally, I think you misunderstand open carry in Nevada. You do NOT need a law to give you the right to open carry in Nevada. There is no law prohibiting open carry, therefore you can open carry. There is a difference.

    Everyone is encouraged to get additional/advanced training - and practice!

    Do you live in Nevada? I urge you to study the law, training standards, etc. Get facts!

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    Buddy,

    Methinks you're missing the point. And you certainly did miss where it says that! Simply look on page two of the NSCA Training Standards:

    By the way, you can read the entire document here: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Do...dards_2010.pdf

    It does NOT say an instructor can impose tougher standards.

    It DOES say instructors can provide additional training.

    There is a big difference between the two statements (above.)

    In accordance with the law and the training standards, a person should be certified/qualified if he/she passes the minimum standards.

    Additional training is a great thing, but you must bear in mind that some folks simply cannot - and have NO need to - undergo more rigorous training.

    Would you deny certification to an elderly person simply because he/she cannot qualify to your higher standarrds? Using the "3" bullseye @ 50 yds" example (extreme example to clarify a point), who cares if a student can hit a 3" bullseye at 50 yds? We are concerned with competency and proficiency at closer "defensive" ranges.

    And that makes perfectly good sense. Have you not read of the untold numbers of law abiding citizens (most without the benefit of CCW permits or extensive training) that have used firearms to thwart crime and save lives? Virtually none of them needed "minute of rabbit head" accuracy at 50 yds.

    Additional training, over and above the minimum standards, is a good thing - but instructors should not make it mandatory because that (at a minimum) is contrary to the intent of Nevada's "shall issue" law/system.

    If a student meets the minimum requirement outlined by law/NSCA standards, and/or

    If an instructor requires a higher standard of accuracy than required by law/NSCA, and/or

    If an instructor imposes a time limit, and/or

    If an instructor uses a target significantly different than the required target, and

    If the instructor refuses to certify the student,

    THEN I would recommend the student notify the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte that the instructor is not complying with the law and/or NSCA standards.

    Nevada is a shall issue state - meaning if a person meets the requirements outlined by law and the NSCA, said person shall be issued a permit.

    Again, it does NOT say a person must meet the requirements of the law/NSCA AND the requirements added by an individual instructor.

    It is not "childish" to complain when you've paid your fee and expect to comply with the law and standards, only to be told/denied because an instructor has added unlawful requirements. Again, additional training (beyond minimums) is good - but additional requirements are bad.

    This is my personal opinion.

    However, I am also a member of the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte (the first civilian member ever appointed) .

    Additionally, I think you misunderstand open carry in Nevada. You do NOT need a law to give you the right to open carry in Nevada. There is no law prohibiting open carry, therefore you can open carry. There is a difference.

    Everyone is encouraged to get additional/advanced training - and practice!

    Do you live in Nevada? I urge you to study the law, training standards, etc. Get facts!
    I live in NV. I talked to many instructors who told me the same thing. Some have you shoot strong and weak handed. Some do not. Some time you, some do not. All told me they can have higher than minimum standards, even those who just use the minimum. I just called CCW detail in vegas and they told me basically that some instructors do that. The person I spoke to said that sometimes someone passes, but the instructor makes them shoot more due to not feeling comfortable with that persons gun handling. I am not saying it is right, but if you live here and are in the business, you surely know many instructors do it.

    It is childish to go to an instructor, not ask about their standards, and then complain.

    Regarding open carry, I understand it. There is no law regarding it so people can do it. There is no law you have cited stopping people from enforcing higher than minimum standards. So instructors all across the valley do it.

    I urge you to stop citing all your cool qualifications, as well as to stop using the word methinks!

  6. #15
    Here we go - degenerating into "flames."

    What cool qualifications? I stated no qualifications. Actually I stated it was my personal opinion.

    Oh well.

  7. Qualification at my gun club to become a full member and not a proby is all at 25 yards. I don't know what the target is called but it is about 15" square. You must work your way up..... 25 rounds/25rounds on the target in .22, moves you up to 9mm. Again 25/25. Moves you up to .40 or .45 and again 25/25. Simple and it works just fine. On the other hand, when I took my very first safety course they simply wanted to know if I could tell the difference between cartridge calibers and which end was the pointy end, etc. What to do with a hang fire and so on. Much more practical stuff. And if you happened to point the muzzle in an unsafe direction while loading, reloading, holstering, etc., you were done for the day. THAT is what folks need to know. Not putting a bullet in a target at 10 feet. I know cops that have shot it out at 10 feet with PLENTY of training and ran their magazines empty.... neither the good guys nor the bad guys managed to get a single hit on one another. At ten feet. I also know that some of my training was to do with disarming from 21 feet and it was a real revelation! Learn how to retain your weapon! Just as important. Know your rules of engagement and follow them reflexively. Much more important. Accuracy comes with practice. Make sure the shooter is safe and give them a permit so they can go to the range and practice. Sic.

    BTW, I put 25 rounds out of 25 rounds in the target at 25 yards at all calibers on my first two visits to that range. The other ranges were more intererested in safety than in accuracy.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by torontogunguy View Post
    The other ranges were more intererested in safety than in accuracy.
    Thank God!

  9. #18
    When I qualified I shoot behind my back aiming with a mirror. The officer didn't like that very much.

    I'm glad that I don't have to do stuff like this in my state but I hope that the regulation works to some good end.

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by calmp9 View Post
    Geez, CFP students are not Padawan learners. They don't have to learn the ways of the Force.
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for having a good blaster at your side.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for having a good blaster at your side.
    That caught me by surprise!!

    LMAO!
    "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

    -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. List of Arizona CCW Instructors
    By lukem in forum Arizona Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 02:39 PM
  2. Handgun vs Long gun for Home Defense - a discussion starter
    By RochPersDef in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 12-26-2010, 10:23 AM
  3. Picking a CCW Handgun
    By 901-Memphis in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 12:34 PM
  4. Handgun Safety Course for CCW
    By lovedog06 in forum Maine Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-20-2009, 08:17 AM
  5. CCW and crime rates in urban areas
    By tattedupboy in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-16-2008, 11:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast