Bud Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:01 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:01 PM A couple of thoughts about the need for a training requirment in any new Illinois CCW law. I am a licensed State of Illinois Firearms instructor, Police Firearms instructor, US Army trained Small Arms instructor and yadeyadeda etc all that hispeed stuff that reallyy doesn't matter to anyone. I have also been a member here for a number of years and I am pretty sure, actually positive that most of the members here have experienced some level of minimal firearms training so I am actually not talking about any of you per se. But, I am a range safety officer at Buffalo Range Shooting Park which, if you don't know, is a public access range complex with pistol, rifle and shotgun ranges (and soon to have archery and crossbow ranges). Because it is public, our customers come from everywhere and they have varying degrees of training. Unfortunately, I would estimate that more than 50% of the shooters learned most of their techniques from watching movies and TVs. Really, REALLY bad movies and TVs. We regularly stop shooters, attempt to show them safe handling of a firearm in order to correct their unsafe acts and then end up asking them to leave because they either could care less for safety or because they just don't have a clue. Illinois has been a vast wasteland for the past fifty years when it comes to safe gun handling,. The only training most people have is what they have seen on television. Illinois isn't like most other States where guns were accepted by the general populance and media. Here, residents have suffered a barrage of hate spewed at them from both politicians and the media. This has the prospect of being like a kid turned loose in a candy shop and i am not talking about unknowledgeable people going out and shooting everything that moves, i am talking about accidental or negligent misfires. I am very mcuh in favor of a training requirement and a qualification requirement in the new CCW law. Twenty years from now it may very well be unnecessary but based on my everyday experience, I really think it is needed. I see some very scary people taking some really heavy firepower out of the trunks of their vehicles everyday and many of them haven't a clue about what they are doing. It's usually just a matter of showing them a safer, better way of doing things by someone that has actually had some training and if done in the right professional way, it is successful. It's great to say "Indiana doesn't require training" but Indiana residents have a long tradition of accepting guns right out in the open. They have had a concealed carryt law since 1935. That has not been the experience in Illinois. Buffalo Range is slowly being put out of business by the officials elected by the residents of Illinois. They are not doing it to promote safety, they are doing it because they hate the idea of anyone allowing normal everyday people to shoot firearms. This is the prevailing attitude of not only Illinois politicians and bereaucrats but also of most of the population. I hope there is a training requirement.
abolt243 Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:11 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:11 PM There will be a training requirement, with range time. Yet to be determined, what will satisfy that requirement. All options are being reviewed.
armadroid Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:13 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:13 PM I think a 4 hour class is enough. I am too excited and hope this goes our way, somehow I feel king madigan will find a way out of this.
Tequila Mockingbird Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:27 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:27 PM I'm not against some basic safety teaching as long as they recognize common training already completed or grandfather based on hunter safety course, former military service, etc. the over 40 years of hunting in multiple states without a single negligent incident should count for something, or my qualifying card in DCM matches, years of competing in PPC, IPSC, highpower, etc...IOW, the threshold should be low.
Yas Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:29 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:29 PM Bud I have no objection to training set up by someone that has actual knowledge and experience on the matter such as yourself. I'll use the "C" word. Common sence. But I'll not standby quietly and accept anything proposed by anti self defense Chicago professional politician that historical voting record of being against the thought that a woman has the right and need for self defense above a tongue depressor and a rape whistle. I think we all suspect and rightly so, from past legislative sessions that the Brady bunch and LCAV paid advisors are once again at those legislators office doors spoon-feeding them every onerous restriction they can come up with. Remember the typical Democratic strategy demand much more over what you want, then later agree to your original secret goal and declare it a fantastic comprimise.
Patriots & Tyrants Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:34 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:34 PM Over the summer while I was at GAT I had guns pointed directly at me from across the range twice that I know about. Once was a loaded wheel gun , I almost walked over and smacked the guy. I am not talking about sweeping someone, the gun was aiming right at me while the dummy was showing the gun off to some friends I think "some" kind of training should be required no doubt. I really don't want to see people showing eachother in public how cool their carry pieces are. I also wish every range in this state was required to have an RSO. That is actually why I like shooting at Article II now because they have an RSO and much "deeper" shooting lanes. I am not going to be the pot calling the kettle black; my firearms training comes from what my father showed me when I was younger and through experience. I am no Mr. super marksman but I can put all the rounds from my P229 or P226 on a pie plate sized target at 15 yards at a rate of 2 rounds a second no problem.
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:34 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:34 PM I'm not a certified trainer in any way. However I have trained many of my friends on firearms safety. Some just don't get it. I'd hate to say I am for training. Once you give an inch, the anti's will take a mile. I do think though that each person who chooses to own a firearm should seek out some level of professional training, if not in shooting and operations, AT LEAST in safety. I would hate to say though that this should be mandatory as this would then be a form of gun control. However though since CC licensing is in and of its'self a form of gun control, I wouldn't be opposed to a safety training requirement. The FL (or was it Utah, I forget since I took them both at the same time) required 10 minutes of range time. Hardly what I would call training. In the instructor's own words, "All I need to see you do is load your firearm and send 5 rounds down range."
pyre400 Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:45 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:45 PM Some of the words in this topic should help ease the minds of most fence sitters. What do the statistics tell us about other states? Do states with constitutional carry have more incidents that stem from lack of training? IMO - 4 hours or less, with range time. I would further advocate and encourage more training, beyond that - particularly the legal aspects/obligations that coincide with carry and using a firearm in a defensive situation. Being the safest, best shot, in the world will not prepare you for what comes next. Also, it helps people evaluate as to whether carry is right for them, or what judicious use of lethal force really is. Again, JMO
scough Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:54 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:54 PM While I wouldn't mind a 4 hour class, like UT, I think for our own safety, there is merit to requiring a beginner safe firearms class, but their should be some kind of incentive. I will say that if you've taken a course already within the last 5 years, that should suffice, but what concerns me is the mounting costs for those who can afford the CCW fees (hope they will be below $100 that HB148 suggested), and a basic NRA course. At some point it starts adding up and becomes a barrier to those elderly or on fixed incomes. Good topic though, as I I would think there is the potential for instructors offering courses that are subsidized in some manner for those who truly need it.
GWBH Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:55 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 04:55 PM Some of the words in this topic should help ease the minds of most fence sitters. What do the statistics tell us about other states? Do states with constitutional carry have more incidents that stem from lack of training? IMO - 4 hours or less, with range time. I would further advocate and encourage more training, beyond that - particularly the legal aspects/obligations that coincide with carry and using a firearm in a defensive situation. Being the safest, best shot, in the world will not prepare you for what comes next. Also, it helps people evaluate as to whether carry is right for them, or what judicious use of lethal force really is. Again, JMO Agreed!! I think the key is who determines what kind and how much training is needed.There are professionals on this forum that would not benefit at all from any training, and in fact would be better qualified to conduct a class than any state appointed trainer.My thought is that there is a combination of range and classroom - especially lethal use of force and what needs to be done should that even ever occur. I can say that no one on this forum I've ever talked with wants any encounter to go that far. God willing it never will.
05FLHT Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:12 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:12 PM NRA basic pistol has classroom and range time. Although I support individuals choosing to take additional training, it should not be mandatory.
Elderberry Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:15 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:15 PM Before I say what I am about to say, I want to say this -- For what it's worth (and that ain't much) I am a veteran and I also spent 10 years as a LEO during the 70's. I have been a gun owner since I was 9 years old, am a former hunter, a former competitor, and a long term shooter of both long and short guns for just the shear pleasure of it... I also have both Utah and Florida permits and exercise them with some regularity. So said another way, like most folks here I'm not exactly a novice..... Having said that, I would welcome both range and classroom training.... Especially classroom training focused on the "when" of self defense. Training is never a bad idea. Especially when the training language has the input of our guys and gals.... Comment: The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "great marksmen have the right to keep and bear arms" so the range training requirement should bear that in mind....
SFC Stu Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:28 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:28 PM Safety with firearms should be the objective., period! Legal requirements are a plus. There is no states CCW law that will make anyone a overnight deadeye shot. Training should never be discouraged, but anything over 8 hrs is a waste. The human mind will only absorb so much information.
pyre400 Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:31 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:31 PM My thought is that there is a combination of range and classroom - especially lethal use of force and what needs to be done should that even ever occur. I can say that no one on this forum I've ever talked with wants any encounter to go that far. God willing it never will. Comment: The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "great marksmen have the right to keep and bear arms" so the range training requirement should bear that in mind.... I agree with these 100% NRA basic pistol has classroom and range time. Although I support individuals choosing to take additional training, it should not be mandatory. NRA BP is a good class, but that one's 8 hours. For me it would work out because I already have that under my belt, but it took me a couple days to get it. My overall concern is that excessive/expensive training will be used as a tactic to obstruct RTC - more so than a legitimate safety measure. I'm with you 100% on advocating more voluntary training though.Guns are pretty simple in operation, but their proper use is a different matter - IMO. When RTC passes, or FOID defaults, I will volunteer some instruction hours for those who are on fixed income or unable to afford instruction. I know there's a few others here who have such aspirations, and I would be happy to assist them. We can do "free" or "very low cost" clinics when the time comes.
anonymous too Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:44 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:44 PM A 4 hour class covering firearm safety, basic shooting fundamentals, review of IL use of judicious force statutes, an overview on how to carry concealed, and an overview on firearm maintenence, storage, and general transportation laws. The above would take me 3 hrs to present with no questions. No range time. Students should be given ideas for shooting/training opportunities, local ranges, more advanced instruction, etc. I've got a handout with all kinds resources for each class I'm certified to teach.
05FLHT Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM NRA BP is a good class, but that one's 8 hours. For me it would work out because I already have that under my belt, but it took me a couple days to get it. My overall concern is that excessive/expensive training will be used as a tactic to obstruct RTC - more so than a legitimate safety measure. I'm with you 100% on advocating more voluntary training though.Guns are pretty simple in operation, but their proper use is a different matter - IMO. When RTC passes, or FOID defaults, I will volunteer some instruction hours for those who are on fixed income or unable to afford instruction. I know there's a few others here who have such aspirations, and I would be happy to assist them. We can do "free" or "very low cost" clinics when the time comes. What the NRA BP has going for it is that it's a well rounded BASIC course with an extensive network of instructors already in place. HB148 was sketchy on the dependency of the ISP to come up with the requirements to be an instructor and the lag of getting enough instructors to meet demand. Let me put it this way, an NRA BP should be the most restrictive training requirement discussed going forward.
anonymous too Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:52 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:52 PM Oh yeah, proof of prior training should qualify. Military, LEO, NRA, etc. Same for instructor eligibility. Current certification from the above and no state training, instructor licensing, etc.
pyre400 Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:58 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 05:58 PM Let me put it this way, an NRA BP should be the most restrictive training requirement discussed going forward.Ok, sure, I can agree with that. Hopefully it doesnt come to that, but you make a good point about the existing infrastructure - especially considering the time frame.
LYU370 Posted December 12, 2012 at 06:10 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 06:10 PM Add another +1 for training. Was over at Maxon Shooters this summer, in the next lane were a couple of guys renting a few guns. I was happily plinking away, while reloading, I watched as one of the guys was firing at a silhouette target at 21 feet. Missed 5 of 6 shots, didn't even hit the paper. Next guys missed the first 4 and proceeded to hit the carrier. I sure wouldn't want these guys out on the street carrying concealed. At least I wouldn't want to be anywhere near them.
Buzzard Posted December 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM I like somebody's suggestions. My only question is - with no live fire, where would that place us as far as reciprocity goes?
Tequila Mockingbird Posted December 12, 2012 at 06:28 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 06:28 PM I like somebody's suggestions. My only question is - with no live fire, where would that place us as far as reciprocity goes?The Utah non-res permit has no live fire requirement and its good in what? 34 states or so?
GWBH Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:00 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:00 PM NRA BP is a good class, but that one's 8 hours. For me it would work out because I already have that under my belt, but it took me a couple days to get it. My overall concern is that excessive/expensive training will be used as a tactic to obstruct RTC - more so than a legitimate safety measure. I agree - and the court said -The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 21 them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public. Any attempt to violate the underlined in bold above should be put out to pasture. Reasonable limitations should not exceed any training not required by any state that already has a "shall issue" system in place. If it does, it's not consistent and unreasonable!!I'm convinced this forum will "be watching"...
drdoom Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:02 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:02 PM I think the maximum should be 2 hrs, no sense for four. If you can't hit, don't shoot. It's really annoying to see people posting about the possibility of shooting into a crowd at a gang banger, if you can't make the shot, don't. That's all the gun safety that needs to be stressed (along with educating people about ND's being caused by the wrong holster selection).
John Wisch Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:04 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:04 PM Safety with firearms should be the objective., period! Legal requirements are a plus. There is no states CCW law that will make anyone a overnight deadeye shot. Training should never be discouraged, but anything over 8 hrs is a waste. The human mind will only absorb so much information.Really, your'e the expert on this?Are you aware that the NRA Basic pistol class with range time is a 16 hour class??? Is the NRA that big of an idiot?Do you recognize that people who have never touched a gun prior to this are going be applying for their CCWP also?Also with a divorce rate of above 50%, not everyone has had a father to teach them proper gun handling skills throughout their life.Can you see the VALUE of safety & liability education? I can...So to say everybody is going to be well informed and TRAINED in 4 hours and ready to carry, I think your lost.I train regularly throughout the year. I have yet to take a class that I havnt learned something valuable, or have had a previous skill or tactic reinforced.It is a matter of PRIORITY'sI'm sure it wont happen,Personally, I would have zero problem with NRA Firearms inside the Home course, and NRA Firearms Outside the Home Course as a requirement.However I am sure that isnt going to happen.All I am saying is dont be freakin out if IL comes out with an 8 or 12 hour Training Requirement. There is nothing wrong with that. More training is better than less training. Lastly, have you ever heard of Continuing Education? or CE? I would'nt have a problem with that either.Really, I realize that many people on Illinois Carry feel that no to little training should be required. I am not in your camp. Here is why.I have been a member of several Gun Clubs. I am well trained to say the least. However at the Rifle and Pistol Clubs and Competitions that I have attended over the last 20 years. That said, I am seriously disturbed at the LACK OF SAFETY displayed by members and guests at my ranges.I have been witness to Negligent Discharges ND's, People Sweeping other People with their Finger on the Trigger. Nice Right! Holes in our benches, Holes in our Roof and Ceilings. Nice again! Now this occurs on a Static Rectangle Range. That is with NO STRESS, NO MOVEMENT, and with NO HUMANS DOWN RANGE.Oh, I failed to mention that these folks have been thru a Range Orientation Class, and Passed the written Test...Now put them OUT in Public Carrying? Do their Weapon Handling Skills Change for the better, or stay the same, or get worse, once the Pistol is drawn in a Public place while under THE Great Stress of a lethal force encounter?You tell me...
John Wisch Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:09 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:09 PM I think the maximum should be 2 hrs, no sense for four. If you can't hit, don't shoot. It's really annoying to see people posting about the possibility of shooting into a crowd at a gang banger, if you can't make the shot, don't. That's all the gun safety that needs to be stressed (along with educating people about ND's being caused by the wrong holster selection).Sorry, youre wrong. Lethal Force Encounters are Dynamic. Liability is incredibly high. Tunnel Vision sets in. Gross motor Skills are hard to accomplish for most. You must be aware of your setting and what is behind your target at any given time.You are welcome to your thoughts, but you are very miss guided, and inexperienced at shooting live thinking moving targets that can shoot back or stab you.
RECarry Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:12 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:12 PM Should the training requirement allow each citizen to choose where they go for training...any county, any town? If some legitimate training taken in another state counts, that would be sweet also. Just don't want to see bureaucrats limit peoples' training options to their own county, zip code, or some other arbitrary rule. Likewise, training should be available within Chicago to avoid a hardship on people who take public transportation.
Bud Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:18 PM Author Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:18 PM I also think that the IL State Police should have absolutely nothing to do with the training in any aspect. Just to clear up any questions about my stance on this; none, nada, zero, zilch, absolutely not I also don't think they should write the course or qualify instructors and actually, i don't think they should have anything to do with licensing either. It's not like they are doing even a halfway decent job on the FOID, right? I also don't think any of the Sheriff's departments need to be involved in the process either. The NRA has several courses that should be sufficient for licensing. Why change what ain't broken, eh? The less involvement of the bureacracy the better. But, I do believe some form of minimal training is necessary.
Elderberry Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:34 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:34 PM I agree -- this isn't the right role for our state police. There are other groups better suited for training... I like a lot of what both Bud and someone have said with the possible exception of I'm not convinced my DD214 should give me a pass on the use of judicious force statutes -- my military training was pretty clear on the use of judicious force -- those above us said SHOOT and by golly we shot. That's probably not quite what I need for concealed carry....
John Wisch Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:35 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:35 PM I also think that the IL State Police should have absolutely nothing to do with the training in any aspect. Just to clear up any questions about my stance on this; none, nada, zero, zilch, absolutely not I also don't think they should write the course or qualify instructors and actually, i don't think they should have anything to do with licensing either. It's not like they are doing even a halfway decent job on the FOID, right? I also don't think any of the Sheriff's departments need to be involved in the process either. The NRA has several courses that should be sufficient for licensing. Why change what ain't broken, eh? The less involvement of the bureacracy the better. But, I do believe some form of minimal training is necessary.Right on Bud... Dang you are on a roll lately... I couldn't agree more.
Skorpius Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:38 PM Posted December 12, 2012 at 07:38 PM Competent training as a requirement in exchange for revocation of all local ordinances currently on the books pertaining to firearms.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.