CCW Class Saturation Point

[bs1911]

1 - At what point do you see the CCW training/qualification classes reaching a point of saturation in your local markets? From what I can see about 2.2-2.5% of Ohians are legal to Conceal Carry. This seems a bit above national avergages. I wonder where the ceiling might be.

2 - Also, how aggressively priced and marketed are your classes? In SW Ohio there are flyers everywhere for classes it seems. This indicates to me that there is still more demand than supply of services. Classes have been narrowed to be one day events. I have seen fees as low as $65 and some are now marketing them as providing "a home cooked meal" as part of the deal.

I guess if taking the class puts a "check" in the box as having qualified that is fine. But, the quality has got to be suffering in my opinion. With the demand for 1 day classes, low cost, etc I cannot imagine an instructor can be nearly as effective as he/she would like to be. Instructors that I see as providing quality services also have level 2, 3, 4... classes for those that wish to learn more and develop improved skills. However, most instructors seem to be going for the minimum requirements and a quick cash grab.

[Pistol Fan]

IMHO those folks that want serious training will, as you said, seek it our where available. I also believe that everyone should get at least some training and practice A LOT. Gone are the days when knowledge was passed on from generation to generation and you could go out on the back forty or down the road to practice. But I would never seek to legislate my opinions, especially when they run contrary to the Bill of Rights.

Most "training" and testing required by the govt is pretty minimal at best. Look at all the drivers on the road who should be at home practicing in their driveways.

I'm paying 120.00 for an all day tactical pistol course today where we will shoot 300 to 400 rounds and the instructor to student ratio is 1/5 to 1/6. The guy is more than competent and I will be spending a ton more in gas and ammo than he is getting from me. I need to get off the keyboard and on the road.

[Siklid]

I personally believe that there is only a certain audience that should be allowed to take a one day and be considered as qualified for carry. I went to a class about 2 months ago, not to qualify because I already did, but just to stay fresh on safety and keep it my top priority. It was a one day and there were WAY too many people in this course to be "qualified" for concealed carry that had never even held much less shot a pistol. In my opinion, individuals that have never held or shot a firearm should have to take more of a 2-3 day course with a LOT of classroom and even more range time. Not that I care to infringe on anyone's 2A rights or that I care to discourage them from making use of them, but safety and preparedness need to be number one when making the decision to carry.

[Nytmayr]

About 40 hours.
About 20 hours on the range drawing from concealment, moving and firing.
About 20 hours in the classroom discussing all the things about Concealed Carry. (And to get people to start thinking about what they are about to do)
To get people (some of them anyway) to realize that this isn't just "Get muh gat, strap it on and go where i wants to be, bacuze it's muh constitoohshunul right." There needs to be a change in your way of thinking, followed by a change in the way you dress and in the way you act. Some peple may realize in the end that it isn't for them, and that's fine. But it is better to know, and have the option available if it is needed.

The extra time can be used to correct some bad/unsafe behaviors, and to get rid of those who shouldn't be in the class. (For whatever reason)

All that being said, I support Constitutional Carry. It should be NONE of the governments' damn business if I have a gun, how many, what caliber, what ammo capacity, what kind of ammo I use, how it looks and whether or not I am armed and can protect myself as I go about my daily life. Since we can't do this the "right" way, I guess this way will have to do.
(The right way is that noone "needs" a license, but if you do something illegal or stupid, you pay the price.)

[Siklid]

[QUOTE=Nytmayr;3910961]About 40 hours.
About 20 hours on the range drawing from concealment, moving and firing.
About 20 hours in the classroom discussing all the things about Concealed Carry. (And to get people to start thinking about what they are about to do)
To get people (some of them anyway) to realize that this isn't just "Get muh gat, strap it on and go where i wants to be, bacuze it's muh constitoohshunul right." There needs to be a change in your way of thinking, followed by a change in the way you dress and in the way you act. Some peple may realize in the end that it isn't for them, and that's fine. But it is better to know, and have the option available if it is needed.

The extra time can be used to correct some bad/unsafe behaviors, and to get rid of those who shouldn't be in the class. (For whatever reason)

All that being said, I support Constitutional Carry. It should be NONE of the governments' damn business if I have a gun, how many, what caliber, what ammo capacity, what kind of ammo I use, how it looks and whether or not I am armed and can protect myself as I go about my daily life. Since we can't do this the "right" way, I guess this way will have to do.
(The right way is that noone "needs" a license, but if you do something illegal or stupid, you pay the price.)[/QUOTE]

Completely AGREE with everything here but especially this!!

[Cknugget]

Originally Posted by Nytmayr

About 40 hours.
About 20 hours on the range drawing from concealment, moving and firing.

I selected my instructers carefully since they are the best in the area. The week after my course they had a class that was eight folks in wheel chairs. Requiring moving and firing wasn't gonna happen for them.

The initial course should cover the basics. If your getting a permit to carry 24/7 added training is a good idea. On the otherhand, if your getting a weapons permit just to carry a shotgun in your car and not your trunk during pheasant season you should be good to go.

[sousana]

I find it interesting that armed security guards are required in Virginia to take not only the 40 hour un armed class, but also an additional 40 hour armed class, where's you can get a concealed carry permit here simply by providing a copy of your DD214 or, if you don't have one, attending a class at a LGS on Thursday night from 1800 through 2200.

[harrygunner]

On your question #1, it's obviously dependent on a state's culture. The 2.2-2.5% seems to be typical, but California has counties with percentages above 3%.

Sorry for not having ownership or reference for this data. Top percentages of CCW holders, circa 2009:

7.45% South Dakota
6.79% Indiana
6.76% Pennsylvania
5.23% Connecticut
5.12% Washington
4.34% Idaho
4.10% Utah
3.86% Oregon
3.45% Tennessee
3.15% Alabama
2.72% Florida
2.71% Kentucky
2.67% Wyoming
2.41% Maine
2.18% Arkansas
2.11% Virginia

So, there could be room for growth in Ohio.

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Siklid

I personally believe that there is only a certain audience that should be allowed to take a one day and be considered as qualified for carry. I went to a class about 2 months ago, not to qualify because I already did, but just to stay fresh on safety and keep it my top priority. It was a one day and there were WAY too many people in this course to be "qualified" for concealed carry that had never even held much less shot a pistol. In my opinion, individuals that have never held or shot a firearm should have to take more of a 2-3 day course with a LOT of classroom and even more range time. Not that I care to infringe on anyone's 2A rights or that I care to discourage them from making use of them, but safety and preparedness need to be number one when making the decision to carry.

But can you give statistics? You've given us your opinion, and we respect it, but can you show that these people who you consider not qualified have caused some sort of problem?

[Siklid]

Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey

But can you give statistics? You've given us your opinion, and we respect it, but can you show that these people who you consider not qualified have caused some sort of problem?

Not exactly that they have caused a problem per se, but the fact that one could obviously tell that, and I'm only estimating here, ~80% of the people in the course that were inexperienced were also extremely uncomfortable during the range session of the course. It seems to me that to be as uncomfortable as some of them seemed in a controlled unstressed situation, that it would pose even more of a challenge for them to be able handle the firearm of their choosing in a high stress self defense situation in a safe manner. That being said, I would consider this to be my reasoning for saying that I would deem it necessary for the need for these persons to undergo a more extensive training to be able to be qualified for a concealed carry permit. Again, I am simply voicing my opinion on the matter and some may agree/disagree with what I have to say, but this is just one of my concerns with knowing that someone that has relatively no comfort level with a sidearm could potentially be carrying soon.

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's the point: The main excuse for gun control is "People can't be trusted with guns."

Well, over 30 years of experience with CCW in many states has shown they can be trusted with guns. And as state after state has adopted "shall issue" CCW, as more and more ordinary people have started carrying guns, firearms accidents have gone down, and violent crime has gone down.

So what may look to some of us like an uncomfortable situation has not proven to have caused any harm at all.

[Ditto_95]

Why is it that someone seems to think that they know more than the huddled masses. I want or I don't feel comfortable seem to prelude the demands for infringing on someone elses rights.

People do not need to be combat ready to carry a gun. They don't even need to be proficient. They only need to have the desire to protect themselves.

[custom2]

Nytmyer, you would have people spend 40 hours in a class before they can be issued a CCW permit? Did I read that right?

So as an instructor, am I to charge 400 per student vs the 100 dollars I charge for a 8-10 hour class? Who has 40 hours to devote to anything besides work?

But then you say you are for Constitutional Carry. I don't get it.

Hopefully I'm taking your post out of context.

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Ditto_95

Why is it that someone seems to think that they know more than the huddled masses. I want or I don't feel comfortable seem to prelude the demands for infringing on someone elses rights.

People do not need to be combat ready to carry a gun. They don't even need to be proficient. They only need to have the desire to protect themselves.

You summarized it exactly. There is no "training problem" with regard to CCW.

Some states require no training at all -- and there is no statistical difference between accidents, etc. in those states and those with more stringent training requirements.

[Pistol Fan]

Originally Posted by custom2

Nytmyer, you would have people spend 40 hours in a class before they can be issued a CCW permit? Did I read that right?

So as an instructor, am I to charge 400 per student vs the 100 dollars I charge for a 8-10 hour class? Who has 40 hours to devote to anything besides work?

But then you say you are for Constitutional Carry. I don't get it.

Hopefully I'm taking your post out of context.

I have to agree that requiring that much training is prohibitive for all but a few for numerous reasons, not the least of which being cost. Owning a weapon for self defense is is a right, not a govt sanctioned privilege, for the elite that can afford it. I mean the total cost in training, ammo, gas, and the gun itself would sink the average person before they ever had a chance. I know we are talking about daily carry here, but there are plenty of stories where someone was able to defend themselves with a revolver that they purchased, loaded and put in a nightstand drawer. Again, I'm not saying that's the ideal situation, but it happens.

For those that are going into a business where the likelihood of them drawing a gun in crowded situation as part of their job is greatly increased, proper training is an investment. In both safety and future monetary gain that they will recover over time. Even so I think it's excessive. A simple written test and demonstration of safe and effective handling skills should be sufficient for securing a business license from our benevolent overseers.

[Ranger 230]

Originally Posted by bs1911

1 - At what point do you see the CCW training/qualification classes reaching a point of saturation in your local markets? From what I can see about 2.2-2.5% of Ohians are legal to Conceal Carry. This seems a bit above national avergages. I wonder where the ceiling might be.

2 - Also, how aggressively priced and marketed are your classes? In SW Ohio there are flyers everywhere for classes it seems. This indicates to me that there is still more demand than supply of services. Classes have been narrowed to be one day events. I have seen fees as low as $65 and some are now marketing them as providing "a home cooked meal" as part of the deal.

I guess if taking the class puts a "check" in the box as having qualified that is fine. But, the quality has got to be suffering in my opinion. With the demand for 1 day classes, low cost, etc I cannot imagine an instructor can be nearly as effective as he/she would like to be. Instructors that I see as providing quality services also have level 2, 3, 4... classes for those that wish to learn more and develop improved skills. However, most instructors seem to be going for the minimum requirements and a quick cash grab.

OP as an Ohio CHL instructor Ohio is way behind the curve as far as percentage of population. You are correct that 2.5% of Ohioans have a CHL, national average was around 4% if I remember correctly. For Ohio to just hit the national average around 300,000 still need to get a license.

Ohio law sayes a class must be 10 hours class room and 2 hours on the range minimum. Is that adiquate? Some say yes others say no, I won't argue that point. I personally charge 100.00 for a class, and will do a 12hour one day class or will split it up into a 2 day class. I also never have more then 5 students in a class. In my area it's about 60-40% on what they, the students want. I also understand that this class teaches nothing about concealment and how to draw a firearm, so I offer Personal Protection in the home and outside the home. If you are serious about carrying for your safety and the safety of loved ones you (the average person) need more training. Whether its those classes or a high speed type class a person that chooses to carry a firearm should train on a regular bases.

I teach these classes to help people get into shooting and learn firearm safety, it's not a full time job thank god because I would be starving.

[Nytmayr]

For those who didn't understand, let me try again.
(Although I thought I kept it pretty simple the first time)

For those who have taken ANY sort of class geared towards CCW, I think we can ALL agree that it isn't as simple as attending a few hours of class, get your permit, strap on your gun and you are "Good to Go." There is so much more than learning the legalities.

I would LIKE TO SEE about a total of 40 hours spent taking a class.
There I said it!

What I would like to see, and how far we should allow the government to stick it's nose into something is two very different subjects. Since we can't keep the government out of this completely, the best we can do is keep their power to an absolute minimum.

WI DOJ made a CCW course, and it is 4 hours long, all on the law and the legalities. This is necessary, but it isn't enough. (Hence my "Get muh gat ... becuzh ah can" comment) There are a myriad of little things that need to be thought about if you are going to CCW, and the additional time can be used to go over many of them, and to get the people taking the class to start thinking about what changes they need to make in their lives. (Where to go/not go, how they need to adjust how they dress, do they need a different gun, holster, or both? What about going to the bathroom when out in public, say at a restaurant, if you have a belt holster? Plus lots more)
This is about saving your life, and the lives of those you love. (And staying out of prison) How much time is that worth?

Also, we all know (or have at least seen) people who think they are masters of the pistol, but have made us pack up and leave. I would LIKE TO SEE additional range time available for those who need it, and for those who would like to spend more time learning. (I will happily spend more time learning on the range, especially in practicing those skills I already have)
Plus I am more than happy to help anyone who wants it.

As far as a person who is in a wheelchair, I actually never thought about it.
But I think that at least one Instructor should be familiar with the problems those persons may have and stick with them throughout and help them figure out what they need to do. (I'm going to suggest that to our club Training Officer the next time I talk to him. He is an NRA Training Counselor) They especially need the time to figure out what they need to/are capable of doing because it seems like anyone who is disabled/handicapped is becoming more of a target for the "goblins."

WARNING: Tricky part coming!!!

I believe in people getting the training they need. However, giving the government (aka the politicians) the power to decide what is appropriate training, how long is enough, what it should cost, who is qualified, and who can do the training is the worst possible idea.
(They make and enforce laws to benefit themselves)
Too often the .gov is actually hostile to private citizens owning a gun, never mind actually owning one for the express purpose of protecting themselves.
(Chicago and Washington, DC anyone?)
How many stories have we heard about some politician or Sherriff telling someone applying for a CCW permit that they don't "NEED" one?
TOO MANY!!

The best way is for Constitutional Carry.

THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY!!!
THIS IS WHAT I PREFER!!
(But it also has to be tied to the fact the law-abiding citizens have an absolute right to own a gun (any gun, even full auto and suppressed, though I wouldn't use them for protection) and use it to protect themselves. PERIOD! All that is allowed by the police and the DA's office is to determine if your actions were justified. If Yes, end of story. If No, on to the courts.)

It should be NONE of the governments' damn business if I have a gun, how many, what caliber, what ammo capacity, what kind of ammo I use, how it looks and whether or not I am armed and can protect myself as I go about my daily life.
In fact, it is none of the governments' damn business, especially since I am a law-abiding citizen.

That's the best I can do.

[Pistol Fan]

Originally Posted by Nytmayr

For those who didn't understand, let me try again.
(Although I thought I kept it pretty simple the first time)

For those who have taken ANY sort of class geared towards CCW, I think we can ALL agree that it isn't as simple as attending a few hours of class, get your permit, strap on your gun and you are "Good to Go." There is so much more than learning the legalities.

I would LIKE TO SEE about a total of 40 hours spent taking a class.
There I said it!

What I would like to see, and how far we should allow the government to stick it's nose into something is two very different subjects. Since we can't keep the government out of this completely, the best we can do is keep their power to an absolute minimum.

WI DOJ made a CCW course, and it is 4 hours long, all on the law and the legalities. This is necessary, but it isn't enough. (Hence my "Get muh gat ... becuzh ah can" comment) There are a myriad of little things that need to be thought about if you are going to CCW, and the additional time can be used to go over many of them, and to get the people taking the class to start thinking about what changes they need to make in their lives. (Where to go/not go, how they need to adjust how they dress, do they need a different gun, holster, or both? What about going to the bathroom when out in public, say at a restaurant, if you have a belt holster? Plus lots more)
This is about saving your life, and the lives of those you love. (And staying out of prison) How much time is that worth?

Also, we all know (or have at least seen) people who think they are masters of the pistol, but have made us pack up and leave. I would LIKE TO SEE additional range time available for those who need it, and for those who would like to spend more time learning. (I will happily spend more time learning on the range, especially in practicing those skills I already have)
Plus I am more than happy to help anyone who wants it.

As far as a person who is in a wheelchair, I actually never thought about it.
But I think that at least one Instructor should be familiar with the problems those persons may have and stick with them throughout and help them figure out what they need to do. (I'm going to suggest that to our club Training Officer the next time I talk to him. He is an NRA Training Counselor) They especially need the time to figure out what they need to/are capable of doing because it seems like anyone who is disabled/handicapped is becoming more of a target for the "goblins."

WARNING: Tricky part coming!!!

I believe in people getting the training they need. However, giving the government (aka the politicians) the power to decide what is appropriate training, how long is enough, what it should cost, who is qualified, and who can do the training is the worst possible idea.
(They make and enforce laws to benefit themselves)
Too often the .gov is actually hostile to private citizens owning a gun, never mind actually owning one for the express purpose of protecting themselves.
(Chicago and Washington, DC anyone?)
How many stories have we heard about some politician or Sherriff telling someone applying for a CCW permit that they don't "NEED" one?
TOO MANY!!

The best way is for Constitutional Carry.

THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY!!!
THIS IS WHAT I PREFER!!
(But it also has to be tied to the fact the law-abiding citizens have an absolute right to own a gun (any gun, even full auto and suppressed, though I wouldn't use them for protection) and use it to protect themselves. PERIOD! All that is allowed by the police and the DA's office is to determine if your actions were justified. If Yes, end of story. If No, on to the courts.)

It should be NONE of the governments' damn business if I have a gun, how many, what caliber, what ammo capacity, what kind of ammo I use, how it looks and whether or not I am armed and can protect myself as I go about my daily life.
In fact, it is none of the governments' damn business, especially since I am a law-abiding citizen.

That's the best I can do.

I completely agree with everything you posted here. I would like to see that too. I also know you did not say anything about a requirement. But we are talking IDEAL here. In PRACTICE it is prohibitive for many, if not most. It's fun to talk about what we each think is the minimum amount of training to become proficient and safe, in a comparative way. The only problem with postulating what is the ideal is that there will always be those that take it to the next level and say, "why not make it a requirement?" Since we both agree there are already too many requirements I think that's why so many oppose talking about training minimums.

Your question, as I read it, was just an inquiry as to other's opinions about what to them was the ideal amount of training. That's it. No harm. By way of comparison the all day training session/class I took yesterday was $120. Add another 160 in ammo, 50 in gas, the cost of a decent gun belt, holster, mag carriers, the gun itself, FFl fees etc and the average person that lives in a neighborhood where they really need protection are left defenseless. I'm not sure if all that applies to your OP. I will add that I think quality of training rather than quantity is the key, although it takes a lot of reps to ingrain new skills.

[Siklid]

Well, it seems that I've gotten myself mixed up in an argument that is at this point deeper than I wanted to go... My statements were not made to question the legality of one owning or being denied a firearm for carry. I was simply stating that I thought the need for some extra training for individuals with little or no firearm experience would be in the best interest for those individuals. Maybe I didn't convey my thoughts well... who knows? The few instances that I saw during the last class that I mentioned that I can recall are as follows:

1)The young lady in the lane next to me not only jumped every time a shot was fired, but also NEVER put a round on target because of her nervousness... the gun she was shooting was a very accurate 9mm that another individual test fired for accuracy.

2)Another gentleman spent the whole range session shooting a target that was not even his. (ie he was in lane 8 shooting the target in lane 7 just as an example)

Again, in my opinion, these two instances give me the idea that these individuals are not ready for daily carry and would benefit from more training before attempting to do so. Even though the class we attended "qualified" all of us for concealed carry in the state of Wyoming, does that mean these individuals are ready? I say no. Fortunately, my opinion on the issue doesn't even matter and no, it is not my right/responsibility to tell anyone that is legally able to carry that they are/aren't ready or whether they should/shouldn't carry.

[custom2]

I don't see an argument here. I just wanted clarification. I got it, even though the reply was, i feel, a little condescending.

There are other classes one can take after the basic pistol course. There are classes for personal protection inside and outside of the home that are more hands on. After I feel more confident teaching my basic pistol class, I fully intend on becoming an instructor for one of these courses so I can offer my students additional training.

Also, any one of my students can request personal training or extra range time from me. All they have to do is pay for the ammo for the day. I like to shoot so I don't charge them if they have taken my class and wanna hang out with me for a few hours and shoot. Also, private instruction is available for an additional fee if they want to take my course without others around.

Also, in the 2 cases you pointed out, the instructor has the right to fail them if he feels they are dangerous. I haven't had to fail anyone yet but if I do, I will let them take the course again if I have any seats available for no charge.

[Tenringx2]

I never viewed a CCW class as training, more like an introduction to applicable laws with the purpose being to get the person thinking about the responsibility they are taking on.

[rebelxd1224]

Originally Posted by Tenringx2

I never viewed a CCW class as training, more like an introduction to applicable laws with the purpose being to get the person thinking about the responsibility they are taking on.

This is an interesting point that you raise. Is a CCW course designed to teach a person how to carry/use a firearm or is it designed to teach a person the legal requirements to carry leagally?? Should we have pre-requisite tactical courses before being allowed to take a CCW course??

This topic has been discussed immensely on this site and others. You can read posts until your eyes are bloodshot about people in CCW classes doing some very wrong and unsafe actions with a firearm. However, as has been stated, there is no statistical data to suggest that these individuals pose a danger to the general public.

So, the dilemma is this. Do we try and implement some sort of a standard that a person must meet before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon to prevent an incident from taking place, the potential for which has not yet been shown to exisit?? I think this is dangerous territory to set out on.

I agree that each and every person who wants to carry should get as much training as they can and practice regularly. The old saying that "A person will not rise to the occassion but fall back on their training" is correct. But who knows where to set the bar for this? Should physical limitations be considered? How about experience level? Previous training?

I'll be honset, I'm undecided on this topic. I think more classes should be more in-depth, but at the same time, I don't know to what extent. The one thing I'm sure of is that the debate will continue.

[Tenringx2]

I do not believe any requirement should exist, in any way shape or form, as in Arizona now. There has not been blood running in the streets since the CCW class requirement has been done away with, and open carry has not changed either. Every person should be responsible for what they choose to do.

[Ditto_95]

Personal responsibility is the only real requirement.
If you are unfamiliar with your carry gun, seek additional training on your own. There should be no additional requirements of any type from local, state or federal governments.

[45'r]

Originally Posted by custom2

I don't see an argument here. I just wanted clarification. I got it, even though the reply was, i feel, a little condescending.

There are other classes one can take after the basic pistol course. There are classes for personal protection inside and outside of the home that are more hands on. After I feel more confident teaching my basic pistol class, I fully intend on becoming an instructor for one of these courses so I can offer my students additional training.

Also, any one of my students can request personal training or extra range time from me. All they have to do is pay for the ammo for the day. I like to shoot so I don't charge them if they have taken my class and wanna hang out with me for a few hours and shoot. Also, private instruction is available for an additional fee if they want to take my course without others around.

Also, in the 2 cases you pointed out, the instructor has the right to fail them if he feels they are dangerous. I haven't had to fail anyone yet but if I do, I will let them take the course again if I have any seats available for no charge.

I think the answer to the basic "how much training" lies in the exceptional manner you conduct your courses. Without a question, new CCW applicants would be a great deal more likely to follow up with the recurring training if introduced to the responsibility of carrying on your personal basis to gently advise them of what they don't know. My compliments on your view of the basic curriculum.