Simulations for HQL

[Straightshooter]

I in no way meant to imply that 3rdRecon is anything less than a dedicated, professional, knowledgeable, caring instructor. I simply said that I disagree with instructors adding "REQUIREMENTS" over and above what is written into law when it comes to certifying citizens who are jumping through government mandated hoops to exercise a right.

I may even know him, I'm not certain at this point. If by chance I do, and he's who I think he may be, then I can attest to him possessing the traits listed above. If he is someone else that could possibly fit the bill.........?

A fight was not intended.

This is making me sorry I asked the initial question......

I know 3rdrcn, have taken one of his courses, and his name has come up in conversation with others. I know him to be an excellent instructor and would recommend his classes to anyone. I didn't read his posts as meaning he would not pass a person for an HQL if they meant the laws requirements but didn't do the extra he offered, I instead read it as him doing extra to make sure the students was comfortable. Believe me, if we just stopped at the minimum in education the world would have probably ended by now.

Straight shooter, I don't think I have the benefit of knowing you. However I appreciate your enthusiasm. I don't think anyone with any experience is ok with the new laws and some of the silliness they have caused.

I asked the question about the simunition pistols in an effort to find a better way to teach the course without the need for a full blown range. I also do not agree with the one shot rule, but it's what Md says. Most I have taught want to shot more than one shot, either to feel more comfortable or because they have that "wow that was cool" look and want more.

I am sure there is a time in 3rdrcn's class when he says "ok, that's what the state requires any questions? Now if you like let me show you some more things I think would help you out" or something to that effect.

TD

 

[Blaster229]

But to answer your question, I would not use SIMS to satisfy the requirement. Like I said earlier, the hql is not for SIMS pistols, but an actual bullet firing pistol. You cannot testify that they did. No need to try to prove a point in court about the requirement not saying you cannot use SIMS.

 

[3rdRcn]

I in no way meant to imply that 3rdRecon is anything less than a dedicated, professional, knowledgeable, caring instructor. I simply said that I disagree with instructors adding "REQUIREMENTS" over and above what is written into law when it comes to certifying citizens who are jumping through government mandated hoops to exercise a right.

I may even know him, I'm not certain at this point. If by chance I do, and he's who I think he may be, then I can attest to him possessing the traits listed above. If he is someone else that could possibly fit the bill.........?

A fight was not intended.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to comprehend that I never said anything about requiring anything, I didn't elaborate on what I did in good conscience to ensure my students understood the basics of shooting, but I never said I require anything.

You know me or know of me straightshooter, our paths have crossed off this board, think about it real hard and you will remember who I am. I support our second amendment rights more than you could ever think to because education is king at this point, not thumping your chest and thinking you accomplished a damned thing because you show up at meetings and give testimony. None of the things any of us did during those hearings amounted to shit, 5000 people show up out of how many gun owners?

To think you were instrumental in anything concerning the ******** FSA is nothing more than a feel good pipe dream. The gun owners of this state are asleep at the wheel and have slowly been watching their rights go away. The only difference we can make is to remember this "EDUCATION IS KING" and if you aren't out there teaching those that want to learn about not only firearms but what the constitution and the framers meant, then you sir are doing nothing.

I require nothing of my students but to think and act responsibly as gun owners or future gun owners, I preach safety and deplore the laws on the books and show my students how utterly ridiculous they really are. By the end of my classes my students are not only prepared to be safe gun owners but most have a better understanding of what their legislators are doing to them.

Miles, you scare me when you say I have come up in conversation, I hope those folks already knew I was an *******.

 

[3rdRcn]

I agree with Blaster, sims don't give recoil like the real thing and as you know, recoil can create things happening to a new shooter that you won't be around to see when they get their real firearm.

 

[protegeV]

I agree with Blaster, sims don't give recoil like the real thing and as you know, recoil can create things happening to a new shooter that you won't be around to see when they get their real firearm.

I'm pretty sure most HQL classes are just using a 22, mine did. Never shot simunitions, but I can't imagine a pistol that recoil less than a 22lr.

 

[3rdRcn]

I'm pretty sure most HQL classes are just using a 22, mine did. Never shot simunitions, but I can't imagine a pistol that recoil less than a 22lr.

I imagine most are and you are correct that they don't recoil much either, simunitions maybe even a little more than a .22. I try to offer my students the opportunity to fire a larger revolver or semi auto, just so they get a feel for what it will be like. .38 or 9mm usually because most are buying a firearm for home protection. That's me though but I can definitely see your point.

 

[Straightshooter]

Sorry but the only one thumping their chest is you. If you think 4,000 gun owners showing up didn't accomplish anything, you are wrong. Its been hashed over many times here and if you don't understand what the cost to our rights would have been if the dems were left to keep many elements in the original bill and the additional bs that was proposed then you're not being realistic, but thanks for marginalizing the efforts of so many on this forum. Maybe 4,000 instructors would have made a difference. I have yet to see laws changed from the classroom. No, I don't help on the certified trainer front but you have no idea many people I have introduced to shooting or what I teach them. I do know that if your name starts with a J, you were more than helpful in our previous meeting but far from being the perfect instructor, you lacked the knowledge of where and how to find the laws you are supposedly teaching and had no idea of what was required in the renewal course of fire, so let's not go off presenting yourself as the guru of firearms instruction. If that wasn't you, then disregard.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[j_h_smith]

You 2 go to your rooms and don't come out until you can make up with each other.

/Dad Mode

 

[Straightshooter]

not going to my room, but will leave.

 

[miles71]

Miles, you scare me when you say I have come up in conversation, I hope those folks already knew I was an *******.

They did don't worry, we were able to get past it though.

Originally Posted by protegeV View Post
I'm pretty sure most HQL classes are just using a 22, mine did. Never shot simunitions, but I can't imagine a pistol that recoil less than a 22lr.
I imagine most are and you are correct that they don't recoil much either, simunitions maybe even a little more than a .22. I try to offer my students the opportunity to fire a larger revolver or semi auto, just so they get a feel for what it will be like. .38 or 9mm usually because most are buying a firearm for home protection. That's me though but I can definitely see your point.

I also agree, 22 is great to get some basic done but I would like to offer students the opportunity to shoot any thing they wanted, also gives me an excuse to have to buy more pistols lol!

I think if the MSP wanted to have a more uniform way of teaching these classes they would make it happen. They could send out an email all QHI asking them to volunteer and meet and set a curriculum per see like some other states have done. I honestly would still like to see a "governing" association for MDQHI to help with not only uniformity in teaching but class costs and materials. Might even give a voice to our fight. I agree that education is the way, but some people just don't want to be educated.

BTW: thanks for the ideas buried in this thread.
TD

 

[Stoveman]

Not to get into the pissing match but one of my employees used an airsoft gun as part of his HQL training. The employee was a FUDD and the FSA 2013 passing prompted him to get a handgun.

Not debating right or wrong, but his HQL is just as valid as anyone else's...

 

[j_h_smith]

Not to get into the pissing match but one of my employees used an airsoft gun as part of his HQL training. The employee was a FUDD and the FSA 2013 passing prompted him to get a handgun.

Not debating right or wrong, but his HQL is just as valid as anyone else's...

Oh no, here we go again....

 

[Mark75H]

No but they don't specify anything for the HQL live shot, other than hitting the target. No specifics a about distance or target designation. The specifics are below that part of the COF document. IMO it was an omission and laziness on their part because MSP inserted the live fire requirement into COMAR while it was specifically omitted from the statute.

Nobody's helping the MSP with anything. I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter to them, so please don't lecture me.

I'm confused. Are you saying the COF document was accidentially not associated with the HQL live fire and the original intent was for the COF to specify targets and scores for the HQL live fire?

 

[swinokur]

No I simply think when they added the HQL to COMAR, they added the short paragraph above the W&C permit COF without specifying what the W&C permit requires. No minimum distance, no target specs as you pointed out. I'm sure QHI's would most likely use B27 targets and the 3 yard line as a minimum as a maximum distance is specified. Some people think it was intentional. Some don't.

what it looks like to me is the HQL portion was an afterthought and added to the COF document after MSP added the one shot requirement to COMAR.

clear as mud.

 

[3rdRcn]

Sorry but the only one thumping their chest is you. If you think 4,000 gun owners showing up didn't accomplish anything, you are wrong. Its been hashed over many times here and if you don't understand what the cost to our rights would have been if the dems were left to keep many elements in the original bill and the additional bs that was proposed then you're not being realistic, but thanks for marginalizing the efforts of so many on this forum. Maybe 4,000 instructors would have made a difference. I have yet to see laws changed from the classroom. No, I don't help on the certified trainer front but you have no idea many people I have introduced to shooting or what I teach them. I do know that if your name starts with a J, you were more than helpful in our previous meeting but far from being the perfect instructor, you lacked the knowledge of where and how to find the laws you are supposedly teaching and had no idea of what was required in the renewal course of fire, so let's not go off presenting yourself as the guru of firearms instruction. If that wasn't you, then disregard.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Wrong guy, name doesn't start with a J and just so you know, I've had a few lawyers that have asked for a copy of my instructor book because it DOES have all the laws necessary to teach any of the required state minimums and then some.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I know 3rdRcn , and his 2A convictions and actions are above and beyond .

That said the controversial sentence is ambiguous.

The FSA2013 inherently puts ethical instructors in a dilemma and a catch-22 .

A conscientious Instructor asumes that the training the student recieves from them at that time , is potentially the top most training they will ever receive, and they feel a moral obligation to make the student at least minimally competent. This includes a higher level of competence that the minium required to hit one round into the black area of a B-27 @ 1 foot distance.

From a pure Constitutional Rights viewpoint REQUIRING even one round at 1 foot distance is odious and unacceptable. Going beyond pure Constitutional issues , not everyone who owns/ seeks to own a firearm is concerned with shooting it out in self defense. Some some are pure collectors interested in history , or engineering , of specific firearms. Some are fulfilling family or cultural traditions. Some people are philosophical Libertarians, for whom exercising a RIGHT as a matter of principle is more important than any practical use of said object or principle. All of these people have the same RIGHTs.

So what is an ethical person w/ Instrtuctor credintals to do ? ( I'm going hypothetical, because I have certain Instructor training, and have taught, introduced , and coached various people over the decades, but do NOT currently have MD official papers.)

Give the state mandated classroom instruction. Give the state mandated one round at contact distance. At that point speak a sentence to student along the lines of : " You have met the State requirements for an HQL card, and you will receive such regardless. If you feel the need , or wish , I will offer you some additional Instruction to gain a modicum of actual competence for no additional charge." At some point the student assumes moral responsibilty for their own decisions. If this scenarios has inherent gaps ( which it does ) , the erstwhile Instructor must be able to say to him/herself that the inherent discotomy is owned by the Maryland State Police with the acquicense of Cathrine Dumas , not them personally. (Yeah I was there for both the initial debates and votes, and the subsequent review hearings. Further ranting available with adult beverages.)

Every potential Instructor with ethics and morals can not neccesarily suspend disbelief to that extent. There is NO easy answer.

 

[Blaster229]

Well, I think teaching a little more than firing the 1 mandatory shot could give the students a "tease" into further training with that instructor. I would look at it as sowing your own students to grow with you later on after getting their pistols.

My plan for myself is to keep as many of those students as possible training with me in the future. Sure, they could get the HQL from anyone, but looky here where my expertise and experience is. Whet that whistle to further their training.

There are a few people out there teaching whatever they teach. People going to these classes don't have unlimited funds (Except for Hogarth) to drop $150-$300 for several classes a year (locally), let alone 1 class. I'd be damned sure I would keep their attention because the competition is tight.
What is it they say about 1st impressions? That's my .02

 

[Biggfoot44]

Hey! Blaster hits the sublect on it's head.

If the bottom line is to maxmize revenues to a particular Instructor ( and granting said further Instruction is indeed beneficial to the instructee) , the model is obvious. Not the same flow chart as that to maximize Liberty. IS Liberty more important that rational acquisition of a particular set of skills ? ( Yeah you can debate each way, but it is a legit question).

 

[j_h_smith]

But if an instructor mandates addition firing of the handgun, isn't he in the same line as the MD State Police, for requiring something that is not required by law? I know the MDSP thing has been added, but the law that was passed didn't include live fire.

There seems to be a very fine line between responsible training and doing as the interpretive law is mandated.

If the law said one thing and the government demanded more than that, wouldn't everyone be upset? How is this any different than an HQI demanding more than the law as it is written?

 

[3rdRcn]

But if an instructor mandates addition firing of the handgun, isn't he in the same line as the MD State Police, for requiring something that is not required by law? I know the MDSP thing has been added, but the law that was passed didn't include live fire.

There seems to be a very fine line between responsible training and doing as the interpretive law is mandated.

If the law said one thing and the government demanded more than that, wouldn't everyone be upset? How is this any different than an HQI demanding more than the law as it is written?

If an instructor mandates/requires or in any other way tells them they must do more than the minimum to get their HQL then they would be wrong.

Would you take one of your never shot a gun before friends out to the range and let them shoot one shot from your firearm and then tell them to go buy one? Kinda the same thing, except that we as firearms instructors kinda have to have a bit more of a conscience and maker sure that they are as comfortable as possibly with the firearms as we can possibly make them.