Posted: 6/2/2009 3:29:02 PM EDT
|
Anyone know of a good online CCW course for my wife? I think the law allowing them started in June right? (I already have my permit and have been taking her shooting recently). |
|
http://www.concealed-carry.net/
Ideally, a Vermont-style carry system with no permits required is the way to go, IMHO. And this online course may be an easy/quick way for your wife to get her permit. BUT, I wouldn't want my wife (or myself) out there without REAL training by experienced and qualified instructors. These folks have received great reviews / AAR from members here: http://www.fpftraining.com/ http://www.dt-concepts.com/ http://www.commonwealthcriminaljusticeacademy.com/index.htm ETA: I just saw this thread, too: $300 for Pistol Training Class near NOVA |
|
FWIW: Vermont style = "if you are allowed to own the handgun, you are allowed to carry it (NO permit required)."
We have a fundamental RIGHT to not only keep arms, but to bear them. Why then, should any law-abiding U.S. citizen have to first ask for permission to exercise our right? Obtaining a CCW = asking permission first. Obviously, I agree that Virginia should adopt Vermont's approach and ABOLISH the CCW altogether. Since we are stuck with the permit requirement for now, we should support the most MINIMAL requirements by supporting MINIMALIST "courses" - such as the online course posted above. HOWEVER, I am 100% FOR extensive, constant practice, training, learning, etc. so long as one carries a handgun for defense. It is not possible to over-train or to know too much about the laws and rules covering CCW in Virginia. I simply believe it should not be up to Tim Kaine or our other leaders to decide for us what THEY think is "enough" training. As far as training, I shoot & design combat pistol competitions. The techniques are increasingly adopted by police and the military. New challenges are constantly added, including shooting for COM hits at distances from 40 yards to point-blank (arms-length or less), shooting prone, drawing & shooting at speed, shooting while retreating or moving, shooting from behind cover, etc. I do this at least once per month. Everyone should. But, it is not my place to tell YOU how much you need to train. Likewise, do you want to be told by the state what level of training is sufficient? If you oppose the online course because you think it is "not sufficient training" (and I personally agree with that the course alone is not enough) - then aren't YOU deciding for others how they should be allowed to exercise their rights? In sum: abolish the permit, adopt Vermont style carry and train constantly. Quoted:
http://www.concealed-carry.net/ Ideally, a Vermont-style carry system with no permits required is the way to go, IMHO. And this online course may be an easy/quick way for your wife to get her permit. BUT, I wouldn't want my wife (or myself) out there without REAL training by experienced and qualified instructors. These folks have received great reviews / AAR from members here: http://www.fpftraining.com/ http://www.dt-concepts.com/ http://www.commonwealthcriminaljusticeacademy.com/index.htm ETA: I just saw this thread, too: $300 for Pistol Training Class near NOVA |
|
Quoted:
This topic has been mulled over before. Many of us feel that a one hour online course is a poor substitute - but to each his own. I think it is a HORRIBLE idea as well. Horrible in that damn near anything counts as the training. A hunter safety course is deemed acceptable by the state, and those courses sure as heck don't cover concealed carry law or tactics. The purpose built courses I have seen at a wide variety of local ranges are laughable, and no better than the CCI course. I highly recommend doing the Concealed Carry Institute class to get the minimum requirement for the license, and then seek out useful training that probably wouldn't count towards the license application (defensive tactics, shooting while moving, weapon retention....). |
|
I would reconsider this. You get a lot from a in person class. I audited the CCW class my girlfriend took a month ago, I already have my permit.
They gave the students time to look over and handle a variety of weapons. They got to see how they work and pull the triggers to see the different pull weights. Also, with the online class you may or may not be able to ask questions and get answers. The class my girlfriend was in was taught by an active police officer who works at the gun shop part time and is NRA certified. He added a lot of good stuff that was not in the material. What to expect if you get pulled over, what to expect and do if you pull your weapon and what to do and expect if you use your weapon. None of that is in the mandated course material. He was also able to talk to us about questions other students from other class's he has taught asked. I just think a solid in person class will always trump an online class. |
|
Quoted:
We have a fundamental RIGHT to not only keep arms, but to bear them. Why then, should any law-abiding U.S. citizen have to first ask for permission to exercise our right? Obtaining a CCW = asking permission first. Are you referring to the US BoR? If so, the second doesn't apply to the states. What does the Virginia Constitution say? Here, let me help: "Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." The way I read it, is the people need to be trained. Therefore, you have to provide proof of training. However, it doesn't say in what manner the people are to be trained. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have a fundamental RIGHT to not only keep arms, but to bear them. Why then, should any law-abiding U.S. citizen have to first ask for permission to exercise our right? Obtaining a CCW = asking permission first. Are you referring to the US BoR? If so, the second doesn't apply to the states. What does the Virginia Constitution say? Here, let me help: "Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." The way I read it, is the people need to be trained. Therefore, you have to provide proof of training. However, it doesn't say in what manner the people are to be trained. "Are you referring to the US BoR? If so, the second doesn't apply to the states. " Incorrect. Heller left the issue of incorporation unanswered. So far, the 9th Circuit has ruled that the 2nd IS incorporated. The 2nd Cir. (thanks in part to the newest nominee to the SCOTUS) and yesterday, the 7th Cir. have found to the contrary. Thus, there is a split among circuits. The SCOTUS often bases its grants of cert on circuit splits. The 4 th Cir. has yet to issue a desision on incorporation since Heller. Moreover, the other folks here are missing the point. Q. Should a CCW holder be trained. A. Of course. Q. Who shoud decide the appropriate training: A) The citizen or B) The increasingly liberal government? Sorry, I side with the interpretation of the CATO Institute, Robert Levy (of Heller fame), and others. I trust the citizen over the politician when it comes to a citizen's RIGHTS. |
|
"it does not apply to us here"
Sorry - wrong. As I stated, the question is left open. You seem to believe you have the answer? Courts do not "grant" incorporation of rights; the right either is or is not incorporated. That question has not been answered. It is up to the courts to discover whether or not the 2nd is incorporated as to the 4th Circuit (or all of the 50 states). Quoted:
Quoted:
The 4 th Cir. has yet to issue a desision on incorporation since Heller. Which means that until our 4th circuit court or SCOTUS opines in favor of incorporation, it does not apply to us here. Randy |
|
Quoted:
Sorry - wrong. As I stated, the question is left open. You seem to believe you have the answer? Courts do not "grant" incorporation of rights; the right either is or is not incorporated. That question has not been answered. It is up to the courts to discover whether or not the 2nd is incorporated as to the 4th Circuit (or all of the 50 states). I guess I am missing something then... The way I understand it: When the BoR were ratified in 1791, they were only restrictions upon the federal government, not the states. It wasn't until after ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 (and a few later decisions) that the restrictions of government contained in a few of the other amendments were applied to the states. The restrictions in the second amendment weren't among the ones selected to apply to the states. What point in history did we go from the second amendment not applying to the states to not knowing whether or not the second amendment applied to the states? Back on topic - I don't care for the on-line training. Teaching physical type skills requires a knowledgeable person to provide corrective feedback as the skills are being learned. I also do not think that the state should impose a mandatory training requirement. I agree wholeheartedly that, given the current "permit" and reciprocity system, VA stands to lose reciprocity with those states that impose a greater level of training. NC and SC immediately come to mind. Randy |
|
Quoted:
Back on topic - I don't care for the on-line training. Teaching physical type skills requires a knowledgeable person to provide corrective feedback as the skills are being learned. Randy Except that the state requirement is NOT for physical skills. Never has been, otherwise the hunter safety course wouldn't count... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry - wrong. As I stated, the question is left open. You seem to believe you have the answer? Courts do not "grant" incorporation of rights; the right either is or is not incorporated. That question has not been answered. It is up to the courts to discover whether or not the 2nd is incorporated as to the 4th Circuit (or all of the 50 states). I guess I am missing something then... The way I understand it: When the BoR were ratified in 1791, they were only restrictions upon the federal government, not the states. It wasn't until after ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 (and a few later decisions) that the restrictions of government contained in a few of the other amendments were applied to the states. The restrictions in the second amendment weren't among the ones selected to apply to the states. What point in history did we go from the second amendment not applying to the states to not knowing whether or not the second amendment applied to the states? Back on topic - I don't care for the on-line training. Teaching physical type skills requires a knowledgeable person to provide corrective feedback as the skills are being learned. I also do not think that the state should impose a mandatory training requirement. I agree wholeheartedly that, given the current "permit" and reciprocity system, VA stands to lose reciprocity with those states that impose a greater level of training. NC and SC immediately come to mind. Randy And away we go: National Rifle Association v. Chicago, 08-1497. |
|
Quoted:
Except that the state requirement is NOT for physical skills. Never has been, otherwise the hunter safety course wouldn't count... I understand that there is no gun handling required by the state. The point was that learning physical skills of this type is not something people can do well, or at all, without a "live" instructor. For the purpose of getting your "ticket punched" an online course will suffice. If you want to learn how to shoot you're going to have to work with a real person. Quoted:
And away we go: National Rifle Association v. Chicago, 08-1497. Added to the docket June 4th. Nope, I hadn't heard of this yet. So the question has been asked; how does that change status quo until an answer has been given? Randy |