Jump to content


Photo

Changes to proposed rules for FCCL


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
163 replies to this topic

#151 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 11 August 2015 - 03:43 PM


 


 
 
 
 
You said you see no issue if the instructor is setting a higher standard. Is YOUR standard better than the 2A? We're already dealing with th attitude from the state legislature. If you want to train to a higher standard, that is fine. If the law says 21 in the black, then THAT is your standard for pass/fail.
You're right.  The instructor should teach only to the bare minimum standard, and if students want better quality instruction, they should have to come back and take another class and pay more money.  What could he possibly have been thinking, giving them more than the bare minimum at no additional cost and in the same required amount of time.  What a rip-off!​​
 
/smh​
Would you pass someone who could get 21 of 30 in the black, but not in the 7 circle? Even after they went through your training and reshooting? If the answer is yes, then I have no issue. If you're going to keep making them shoot over and over until they get 21 of 30 in the 7 circle, then you're as bad as the state legislature, ATF, Dart and all others who want to impose their own standards on who can carry. Training to a higher standard is one thing. Not passing someone because they don't live up to YOUR standards is another. THAT was the OP on this subject.
 
I wouldn't know.  I have yet to have a student that couldn't put 21 through the 7 ring on the second attempt.  I have only had a very small handful who couldn't do it on the first.
Say someone shoots your class and hits 30 out of 30 in the black, but only 20 out of 30 in the 7 ring.
Do you make them reshoot? If so, do you provide the ammo for the 2nd round of shooting?
 
Seriously?  You would complain about spending another $12 on ammo to have an instructor work with you for 15 more minutes to learn how to overcome your anticipation of recoil, as evidenced by the fact that you put 10 out of 30 rounds into the hips and thigh of the B-27 silhouette at 10 yards or less?
Reading these forums, it's apparent that there are many people who can barely afford the costs as they are... so I'm sure there are many who would complain about the additional cost.
Personally, my issue is with the fact that you would not pass someone who shot within the standards set forth in the law.
Maybe someone's nervous? Maybe they're shooting with a snub nose revolver, because that's what they intend to carry if the need ever arises for an up close and personal encounter. Maybe they're just not concerned about hitting within the rings, because the law doesn't say they have to? The reason doesn't matter.
To reiterate a point I've made in the past... before the FCCA was passed, the vast majority of members here (instructors included) were adamant that there should be no training required to defend oneself... but if it had to be included, it should be minimal and inexpensive.
The FCCA is passed and instructors come pouring out of the woodwork with training requirements and costs all across the board. Many who complained before were now touting they they wanted to go above and beyond to make sure their students were fully qualified... yet months before proudly proclaimed that there should be no training.
So in your case, I think that if you want to recommend that someone reshoot or get more training, that's fine. But if they refuse, and you choose not to pass them because of that... then you are 100% in the wrong.
 
Not a single student has complained or refused to reshoot.  NOT ONE.
 
Not a single student has "failed" as a result of the range qualification.  NOT ONE.
 
The overwhelming attitude of students I have trained is that they want to "get the highest score" on the qual.  No, I do not "score" the targets, aside from pass/reshoot.  But if I have two students in adjacent booths, one that puts 30 through the rings and the other that puts 29 through, the competition is there.  I have had one or two who have passed the range qual with flying colors and STILL WANTED TO RESHOOT because they "wanted a better score".  This is with no encouragement from me, and if time is tight, I don't let them reshoot.
 
fail - fāl/  
1. be unsuccessful in achieving one's goal.
    "he failed in his attempt to secure election"
2. neglect to do something.
    "the firm failed to give adequate risk warnings"
 
Failing is not completing the range qual successfully.  Failing is not receiving a certificate for the course.  Not a single student of mine has "failed" as a result of the range qualification.  I have had a few that did not receive certificates, mainly because they did not come back to complete the training.  I have been fortunate enough to not have to ask anyone to leave my class because they were unsafe or because I was worried about their motives (also been discussed here).  Not one of my students has been too strapped for cash to use a little more ammo to do a qual, and regardless, I have been known to open my own ammo can if someone is a few rounds short.  No one is getting rich providing CCW training, and I am no exception.  Ammo is a business expense, and one that I take into account when pricing my training.  I have also been known to have students try one of my pistols, either to compare with what they have brought to shoot, or because their own pistol for whatever reason may be a little...unwieldy.  Every class is different.  Every student is different.  But, hey...we should just put them all through the same cookie cutter because that is all the law requires, right?

I don't care about your past students, whether or not they complained, none have failed, etc.
A student takes your class and shoots 30/30 in the black... just to keep it interesting, let's say none of them are within the scoring rings.
Per state law, they passed... perfect score!
Would you fail them if they refused to reshoot?
 


Past students are irrelevant.  Look above at the definition of "fail."

Your words... failing is not completing the range qual successfully.

You also said that, for holding a student to a higher standard, you would supply additional coaching and allow them to reshoot.

But you're not answering (i.e. avoiding) a very simple question.

A student shoots 30/30 in the black, zero within the scoring rings. You offer the option of additional coaching and an opportunity to reshoot. They refuse, they passed IAW the FCCA, and they want their certificate.

Do you pass them and provide a certificate, or do you "fail" them and refuse to issue a certificate because they did not meet your standards?

Perhaps all this talk of the shooting requirements should be moved to it's own thread so we can respect Todd's wishes?
 
This thread was broken off from another just to discuss the proposed rules changes.
 
Per Todd V.-
'That being said, please list either your complaints, beefs or suggested changes to the carry rules here. I would like to get this document turned in by week's end, as I have other commitments next week. '
 
Mods, sorry to ask for more work on your part, but this discussion does not belong in this thread.
 
Matt
Todd's deadline was the end of last week, so I assume he's gotten what he needs.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#152 singlecoilpickup

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,310 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 14

Posted 11 August 2015 - 03:49 PM

I'm with many of the others that the size and placement of the GFZ sign needs specific codification so that it has to be close to the door, not at your feet, not above your head, not on interior doors in a set of doors, not on one panel of a revolving door (I'd suggest it must be to the left or right of the actual door frame), not behind tinted glass, etc.

 

Secondly, I'd say the "substantially similar" requirement for out of state residents needs specific definition of what requirements need to be met for a resident of another state to obtain a license. 



#153 gangrel

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,870 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 11 August 2015 - 03:53 PM

Your words... failing is not completing the range qual successfully.


You also said that, for holding a student to a higher standard, you would supply additional coaching and allow them to reshoot.

But you're not answering (i.e. avoiding) a very simple question.

A student shoots 30/30 in the black, zero within the scoring rings. You offer the option of additional coaching and an opportunity to reshoot. They refuse, they passed IAW the FCCA, and they want their certificate.

Do you pass them and provide a certificate, or do you "fail" them and refuse to issue a certificate because they did not meet your standards?

 

 

I'll tell you when it happens.  My experience tells me that it would be inadvisable for you to hold your breath until then.


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#154 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,733 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 11 August 2015 - 03:54 PM

And the off topic comments shall end there.  Thank you.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#155 mqqn

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 12

Posted 11 August 2015 - 05:16 PM

Where have the ISP backed off on "inside the scoring rings"? 

 

It is still listed that way on the instructors requirements on the ISP site. 

 

best 

 

mqqn


NRA Life Member | NRA Certified Instructor
Utah BCCI  Instructor | ISP CCL Instructor

IllinoisCarry Rules


#156 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,733 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 11 August 2015 - 06:17 PM

Where have the ISP backed off on "inside the scoring rings"? 

 

It is still listed that way on the instructors requirements on the ISP site. 

 

best 

 

mqqn

 

 

Yes, it is.  They backed off when the Col. in charge of the division agreed that the ISP stance was outside the confines of the FCCA.  They were going to send out updated notice to instructors.  However, the Col. retired at the end of the year and his replacements did not send out an update - supposedly because they were waiting to see if the law changed and then the update would include those as well.  In the meantime, they also did not change the website.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#157 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,390 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 11 August 2015 - 08:26 PM

Legislative intent?


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#158 mqqn

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 12

Posted 11 August 2015 - 10:17 PM

Thank you, Molly. 

 

best 

 

mqqn 


NRA Life Member | NRA Certified Instructor
Utah BCCI  Instructor | ISP CCL Instructor

IllinoisCarry Rules


#159 sirflyguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 09

Posted 12 August 2015 - 06:24 AM

 

Where have the ISP backed off on "inside the scoring rings"? 

 

It is still listed that way on the instructors requirements on the ISP site. 

 

best 

 

mqqn

 

 

Yes, it is.  They backed off when the Col. in charge of the division agreed that the ISP stance was outside the confines of the FCCA.  They were going to send out updated notice to instructors.  However, the Col. retired at the end of the year and his replacements did not send out an update - supposedly because they were waiting to see if the law changed and then the update would include those as well.  In the meantime, they also did not change the website.

 

And this is why suspending instructors for supposedly not reading the updates is just plain wrong.  If they have knowingly incorrect information on their website, it is NOT a good source of information or a reason we should be suspended.  


Defensive Firearms Coach (DFC)

Fundamentals of Home Defense Handgun

Fundamentals of Concealed Carry
NRA-Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection In the Home Instructor
NRA-Certified Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor 
NRA-Certified Chief Range Safety Officer

IL FCCA Approved Instructor
http://www.mlftraining.com
https://www.facebook...ps/mlftraining/


#160 Merrymotor38

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 13

Posted 12 January 2016 - 06:24 PM

 

 

Where have the ISP backed off on "inside the scoring rings"? 

 

It is still listed that way on the instructors requirements on the ISP site. 

 

best 

 

mqqn

 

 

Yes, it is.  They backed off when the Col. in charge of the division agreed that the ISP stance was outside the confines of the FCCA.  They were going to send out updated notice to instructors.  However, the Col. retired at the end of the year and his replacements did not send out an update - supposedly because they were waiting to see if the law changed and then the update would include those as well.  In the meantime, they also did not change the website.

 

And this is why suspending instructors for supposedly not reading the updates is just plain wrong.  If they have knowingly incorrect information on their website, it is NOT a good source of information or a reason we should be suspended.  

 

I hate to even bring this subject up again, but, in talking to a couple of other instructors, they are adamant that the state still stands by the seven ring requirement.

My position is what Molly had posted above, that it never went forward.  Has anything changed and I missed it here on IC?

Thanks to all



#161 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,733 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 12 January 2016 - 06:42 PM

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is.  They backed off when the Col. in charge of the division agreed that the ISP stance was outside the confines of the FCCA.  They were going to send out updated notice to instructors.  However, the Col. retired at the end of the year and his replacements did not send out an update - supposedly because they were waiting to see if the law changed and then the update would include those as well.  In the meantime, they also did not change the website.

 

And this is why suspending instructors for supposedly not reading the updates is just plain wrong.  If they have knowingly incorrect information on their website, it is NOT a good source of information or a reason we should be suspended.  

 

I hate to even bring this subject up again, but, in talking to a couple of other instructors, they are adamant that the state still stands by the seven ring requirement.

My position is what Molly had posted above, that it never went forward.  Has anything changed and I missed it here on IC?

Thanks to all

 

 

 

Nothing has changed.  Inside the 7-ring was never approved by JCAR.  ISP proposed it again this past August - if it were already approved, they would not have proposed it again.  This second attempt has not been approved by JCAR.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#162 Merrymotor38

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 13

Posted 13 January 2016 - 07:00 AM

Thank you Valinda for clearing this up!

#163 aka

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 893 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 13

Posted 13 January 2016 - 05:00 PM

Hi,

 

Can someone please repost the link to the latest JCAR rules?

 

Thanks. 


Thank you

 

AKA

--------------------------------
IL CCW License Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Member
Glock Armorer
 


#164 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,733 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 13 January 2016 - 05:25 PM

Hi,

 

Can someone please repost the link to the latest JCAR rules?

 

Thanks. 

 

 

http://www.ilga.gov/...31sections.html


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams