CCW training requirement just might be here soon.

iobidder said:

I thought I was losing my mind, I agree with what you said, but everyone is saying opposite. Pretty sure I was correct, thanks for posting that.

Click to expand...

One of the problems is FL Dept. of Agriculture who reviews apps doesn't tell anyone it is required. Jim Reynolds (proshooter) who owns Proactive Shooters is one of the UT instructors who does know the law and he even tells students who take his UT class he will provide live fire training for those who want to use their UT certificate to get FL. Some instructors who provide training certs for FL students aren't even aware of the statute. They risk liability if they provide a cert that the student got training but omitted live fire.

here is the link to the statute

The whole FL thing should be in a seperate thread. No disespect to anyone intended....

swinokur said:

One of the problems is FL Dept. of Agriculture who reviews apps doesn't tell anyone it is required. Jim Reynolds (proshooter) who owns Proactive Shooters is one of the UT instructors who does know the law and he even tells students who take his UT class he will provide live fire training for those who want to use their UT certificate to get FL. Some instructors who provide training certs for FL students aren't even aware of the statute. They risk liability if they provide a cert that the student got training but omitted live fire.

here is the link to the statute

Click to expand...

baby steps - if training A'la virginia requirements is the new cost of a CCW permit - I'm fine with that. don't really hear people complain about virginia permits do you?

if we want to fight for constitutional carry at a later date then fine, but that will be a lot easier once we've had CCW as a common carry for some time.


this all or nothing attitude that the GOA and others take is really doing more harm than good.

Name Taken said:

If anyone thought they'd get rid of the G&S clause and add NOTHING to prevent CCW in this state they'd be mentally impaired.

MD does not want Joe Blow carrying a gun. So when one door closes to prevent this they will just open another.

I think they will require a live fire course much like Utah...heck they already require a special lock just to buy a gun. They have no qualms about who can and cant afford the class.

Click to expand...

Well said.

csanc123 said:

The whole FL thing should be in a seperate thread. No disespect to anyone intended....

Click to expand...

None taken, but I think it is pertinent to live fire discussions

5.7 said:

Not quite accurate, below is taken from the Fla Application. Proficiency does not always mean "Live Fire" as part of that. I now understand what you mean but many folks have a NRA or other basic firearms safety training certificate that meets the requirement but Live Fire was not part of it, nor does the rules say specifically "Live Fire". Again, not trying to be combative, but no where in the Fla rules does it specifically require live fire. My NRA class did not include live fire, I sent them a copy of that and my DD214 and had no issue and got my permit. In fact, alot of guys with DD214's never touched a gun and would meet the requirement as long as the got out with an honorable.

Anyway, please don't misconstrue my comments, meant to clarify not start a flame--

Click to expand...

I'll quickly answer and then we can get the thread back OT. The application is not the statute. The statute is the authority, not the form. The statute requires live fire

OK finis.

While I can appreciate the role formal training has and I believe everyone should get training if they are to carry, I don't think formalized should be required for exercising a right. I also don't think that qualifying would be a legal requirement in this area as well.
We want the police to be armed 24/7 to protect us. Therefore I understand the purpose of having the best training and strictest qualification regimes applied to the police. It makes sense. If I am alone in the woods and I am charged by a bear, I have a right to protect myself even if I could not pass a police qualification.

I don't see how the state can require a level of proficiency to carry.
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
If there is a person who has some disfiguring injury and is in a wheelchair and has been horribly burned and only has partial use of one of his arms, he could benefit from carrying a pistol even though he couldn't get 75% of his shots on a torso sized target at 25 yards. If he lives in a really crappy neighborhood he might be a victim of a robbery by a crazy crack addict with a knife. In this scenario, he might draw his pistol on the robber when he is attacked. Maybe the robber will see it and back down. In this case carrying a weapon has served its purpose. If the robber under the influence and attacks when he sees the gun presented, he might lunge at the victim and the victim would fire his gun. If this happens there is a chance that the victim can deliver a shot to the attacker and stop the attack even though he would not be able to qualify under the states rules.

I may be able to qualify now, but what happens if I get arthritis and I cannot shoot more than two rounds before I begin to irreversibly damage my hands. I could never qualify, but I would be able to use and carry with no problem.

If a right exists, people should not have to qualify to exercise the right.

I think the state should do something like they did in Section 4-202. http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-4/subtitle-2/4-202/ They should say that people getting a permit should strive to train to a level of proficiency. They should only go over the use of force etc.

I think it would be a good idea to produce a video similar to the ones shown during the handgun training.

mvee said:

I don't see how the state can require a level of proficiency to carry.
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
If there is a person who has some disfiguring injury and is in a wheelchair and has been horribly burned and only has partial use of one of his arms, he could benefit from carrying a pistol even though he couldn't get 75% of his shots on a torso sized target at 25 yards.

Click to expand...

Most engagements will be closer than that.

A 25 yard shot is a bit of a stretch for SD.

Inigoes said:

Most engagements will be closer than that.

A 25 yard shot is a bit of a stretch for SD.

Click to expand...

My annual quals are at 25 yards for my MD permit currently. Must score 70 or better with 50 rounds from strong side, weak side, and kneeling strong side. Wether the MSP requires this or wether its up to the instructor, or my employer Im not sure. I will say ALOT of people fail repeatedly till they pass. I have to qualify for each gun I plan on carrying, if I dont I cant carry it.

You guys are in serious denial if you think the MD Legislature and MSP wont make a strict training requirement.

dlmcbm said:

Just seen on Del. Smigiels facebook page


Michael Smigiel


Looks like we may get a bit of movement on the Shall Issue question. While letting the question run its course in the courts the State wants to have a training requirement in place for when and if the Woollard decision is finally upheld. Remembering what happened when the State allowed the State Police to interpret what a "good and substantial" reason is, I want to be sure that the State Police don't end up with the final say on what constitutes proper firearms training. I think adding a State Police "or successfully completing an NRA approved handgun or pistol firearms safety course" in order to obtain a firearms concealed carry card is the best way to go. We may see movement in the next few days, tacked onto another bill.

Click to expand...

I can agree to training for a handgun permit as long as all politicians are required to actually read the US and Maryland constitution and have a certification to say they have attended a training class to verify the same.
For some that have difficultly following...I do not consent to training requirement.

clandestine said:

You guys are in serious denial if you think the MD Legislature and MSP wont make a strict training requirement.

Click to expand...

They only got a few more days for this year, if it's gonna happen...

esqappellate said:

Training was not at issue in Woollard -- not part of Judge's Legg's order. MD could amend the statute tomorrow to require training without any problem. Indeed, read Judge Legg's opinion closely -- he alludes to training as permissible. IMHO, the state *could* impose a reasonable training requirement under the 2A. Whether they *should* is a question on which reasonable people may disagree. Personally, I have no problem with a reasonable training requirement -- if you want to walk around with a deadly weapon in public, it is not unreasonable for the body public (the State) to insist that you know both 1. how to use it and 2. the law concerning when it is legal to use it. I think it likely that everyone on this forum could satisfy 1. easily enough. I tend to doubt whether *everyone* on this forum who wants to carry knows enough about the law. One of the nice things about the NRA PPOTH and PPITH courses is that they spend hours in class trying to teach the law. Carrying is a *huge* legal step and responsibility. Do yourself and your families a favor. Get some training in the law.

Click to expand...

I personally agree that I would not want to carry concealed or open without training on specifics of the law. I think it would be ludicrous to even attempt it - there is too much risk to do so. However, I believe that it should be up to the individual to make that determination for themselves and should not be mandated by any government. To allow the government to do so would allow them to portion out the fundamental right as provided by the constitution (which is exactly what we are collectively trying to overcome).

pcfixer said:

Amen to this.. Basic training just as requirement to purchase a firearm
or regulated pistol or AR.. Maryland safety video and or military ID.

Click to expand...

An MD hunter safety card should be sufficient

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Where in the Constitution does it say our Second Ammendment Rights were dependent on a training class? or being interviewed by Troopers? or by calling my boss, or friends? or checking with my doctor?

The MSP needs to trash the current CCW application, and adopt an application like Virginia has.

mkbuckingham said:

An MD hunter safety card should be sufficient

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Correct, considering the have you live fire with instruction. (also, I stand corrected about Florida).

Either that, or they should require re-qualifications for Hunters Safety. A rifle is far more deadly and at greater distances than any handgun. (not to mention you can CARRY non regulated firearms)

JMangle said:

The big deal (for me) is that the State was fine with no training requirement when only their friends could get carry permits. Now that they are going shall-issue they feel the need to change?

Simply put: Screw them and the horse they rode in on. To keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. Why not make everyone take a theology class before going to church.

I believe people should get training, but screw the state for trying to mandate it all of a sudden.

The state can get what my girlfriend calls, "An angry handy-Jay."

Click to expand...

dlmcbm said:

Gansler could also use this as his STAY appeal.

We are OK with issuing permits but we only feel safe if they have training with a pistol. With the late ruling we did not have the time to get the requirements together for the law to be voted on. So now we need a stay till we can make some laws on this next year.

Click to expand...

"And, Judge, just forget about all the merchants who were issued permits without any training. Our main concern was the safety of their money."

As much as we all dislike the idea of a training mandate, the fact is that we are at a strong disadvantage in the legislature. Damage will be done, and has been done this session, but mitigating that damage sometimes means accepting or even promoting things we really don't want, because the alternative is that much worse. We've been successful at pressing our case in the Courthouse, but I think we're going to have to hold our noses in the State House for a while yet. Fundamental rights are important, but don't refuse to participate because perfection isn't on the table. Constitutional carry is better than shall-issue permits, but shall-issue permits are a hell of a lot better than no permits. No training is better than a required NRA course, but a required NRA course is a hell of a lot better than three days at a MD-certified residential training facility west of Cumberland.

CHUNKERMD said:

Post #9 & #27 state live fire training for a Utah Permit......When did that become a requirement?

Click to expand...

Utah's requirement has apparently changed. When I got my permit years ago there was a live fire requirement; had to shoot both a revolver and semi-auto. The instructor wasn't interested in bench rest accuracy, but rather safe gun handling.

Glaug-Eldare said:

As much as we all dislike the idea of a training mandate, the fact is that we are at a strong disadvantage in the legislature. Damage will be done, and has been done this session, but mitigating that damage sometimes means accepting or even promoting things we really don't want, because the alternative is that much worse. We've been successful at pressing our case in the Courthouse, but I think we're going to have to hold our noses in the State House for a while yet. Fundamental rights are important, but don't refuse to participate because perfection isn't on the table. Constitutional carry is better than shall-issue permits, but shall-issue permits are a hell of a lot better than no permits. No training is better than a required NRA course, but a required NRA course is a hell of a lot better than three days at a MD-certified residential training facility west of Cumberland.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I agree with all of what you said and given the choice between what we currently have and a shall issue state with the training requirement, I would take the latter all day long.

However, in the second case we are still allowing the government to make decisions on our behalf thinking they know what is best for us. They are portioning out rights provided under the constitution and they shouldn't be able to do so.

Given MD's propensity to take a mile when given an inch, I am very much againt giving them even a millimeter.