HB11 - Would eliminate renewal training for CHPs
- Thread starter Bearco
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
#1. While you think you may have a right to shoot them back, besides being wrong, it does not change the fact that your child has been shot.
#2. In the situation given, it is clearly an accident and you DO NOT have a right to shoot them back, as the person never was and still is not a criminal threat to you. WHat you are talking about is revenge and last time I checked, that is not mentioned anywhere in any statute as a justification for homicide.
#3. EIther you are letting your emotions speak for you, or you have a fundamental misconception about the law as it pertains to self-defense and could benefit from a refresher class.
So human beings have an innate ability from birth to competently handle firearms? Its just born into us?
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
#1. While you think you may have a right to shoot them back, besides being wrong, it does not change the fact that your child has been shot.
#2. In the situation given, it is clearly an accident and you DO NOT have a right to shoot them back, as the person never was and still is not a criminal threat to you. WHat you are talking about is revenge and last time I checked, that is not mentioned anywhere in any statute as a justification for homicide.
#3. EIther you are letting your emotions speak for you, or you have a fundamental misconception about the law as it pertains to self-defense and could benefit from a refresher class.
I think some of the problem is that people are trying to apply current law in their own Utopia. Logically that is a fallacy. The reality is that we live in a world of laws. The goal is to have as few laws as possible and to ensure those laws that do exist are fair, effective, and just.
I do no think in today's time requiring someone to show proficiency to the degree they can safely operate a firearm, motor vehicle, explosives, etc is unreasonable. We live in a society where firearms are not commonplace in the homes and general life.
When I went to high school, I brought a box of various ammunition including a 50cal for show and tell. We took hunters education in PE...those days are no more.
You do not have to like that fact, but unless you are ignorant or simply like to argue, you must accept it as fact. After accepting it as fact, you need to either work to change it or work with that reality. I do not think this society will ever change its perception about firearms to the way it was in the 40's-60's....just won't happen. So, we must work within the framework of current reality.
Firearms are one of those tools which when used inappropriately can very easily cause serious harm to others. Yes, I know so can scissors, cabbage patch kids, and rocks, but guns are more socially stigmatized portable, effective, etc.
Because of that, i am all for someone, and in most cases even to own, a firearm to be able to demonstrate safety and minimal basic proficiency to the same degree we do with driver's license tests. Yes there are still dumbness driving, and yes there will still be dumbness with guns, but we will cull the herd to some degree.
If you would see how many times in class I see that lightbulb click on when I crush some legal myth someone had that ultimately would have resulted in someone's death, probably theirs, you would understand how clueless those who do not have a personal interest in guns are.
WE do have laws. CHP is a privilege. Until all of that changes, we need to establish a minimum proficiency with firearms, and mandatory classes are the only way to do it. besides, classes help to peak interests, dispel rumors and myths, and create brotherhood. I think classes help the gun community as a whole for getting more people "into it" after they feel the personal satisfaction with accomplishment through learning.
I strong support renewal courses because a lot of the initial courses are taught by unqualified instructors. My instructor spoke very indepth about the mechanics of a firearm rather than legal issues. He also spent a little time explaining the difference between revolvers and semi-automatics. The only thing he said about legal issues is, "if you do shoot someone in self defense, you WILL go to jail." 
I think every CHL holder should be REQUIRED to take a renewal class every five years with a different instructor each time.
Another reason I support renewal classes... laws are constantly changing. Its the responsibility of the CHL holder to know this, and such a class would help them understand.
That's my take on it.
I think every CHL holder should be REQUIRED to take a renewal class every five years with a different instructor each time.
Another reason I support renewal classes... laws are constantly changing. Its the responsibility of the CHL holder to know this, and such a class would help them understand.
That's my take on it.
^^^^^this. Nuff said.
I agree with what Nolacop said- in that training is indeed beneficial and will greatly enhance one's ability to handle a firearm.
....but I cannot force myself to believe firearms competence training should be mandetory for firearms ownership (I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong on this, B...just my personal opinion.) I am of the belief that could lead to a series of things we do not want to deal with- and the dip$hits we all worry about would simply ignore whatever requirements are imposed, anyway. I for one do not want a scenario, for instance, where the state decides we should all be required to carry "proof of competence" in order to buy ammunition.
I'm sorry for steering off course- I know the sky is not falling.
....but I do believe in "the slippery slope" when it comes to matters like this....That's why I agree with DZ that we should just sit tight and watch things for a while and see what else may develope....
....but I cannot force myself to believe firearms competence training should be mandetory for firearms ownership (I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong on this, B...just my personal opinion.) I am of the belief that could lead to a series of things we do not want to deal with- and the dip$hits we all worry about would simply ignore whatever requirements are imposed, anyway. I for one do not want a scenario, for instance, where the state decides we should all be required to carry "proof of competence" in order to buy ammunition.
I'm sorry for steering off course- I know the sky is not falling.
....but I do believe in "the slippery slope" when it comes to matters like this....That's why I agree with DZ that we should just sit tight and watch things for a while and see what else may develope....
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
I agree with what Nolacop said- in that training is indeed beneficial and will greatly enhance one's ability to handle a firearm.
....but I cannot force myself to believe firearms competence training should be mandetory for firearms ownership (I'm sorry if I'm reading you wrong on this, B...just my personal opinion.) I am of the belief that could lead to a series of things we do not want to deal with- and the dip$hits we all worry about would simply ignore whatever requirements are imposed, anyway. I for one do not want a scenario, for instance, where the state decides we should all be required to carry "proof of competence" in order to buy ammunition.
I'm sorry for steering off course- I know the sky is not falling.
No, I understand. I teeter between the two. The righteous in me says no legislation, but most do not see what i see as an instructor. the story of the guy at academy with the loaded and cocked revolver is about par for the course with roughly 25% of the students I encounter. I do not have the answer, but I just think there =needs to be something to fill the gap that has devloped in the last 20-40 years where the common person has never fired a real gun.
Like I said in post #22. I think of it more like a filter.
I can definitely agree with that.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that things will likely stay as they are- and probably should.
It cannot be argued that we have made tremendous strides in the preservation of the Second Amendment recently. Here's a "what-if": If the current training requirements (which- let's be honest- are already, shall we say, "low impact") are loosened, and a recently renewed CHP holder makes a well-publicized no-no....Well, I'm sure that the other side would relish the opportunity to use that against all of us....
I don't know. Just food for thought....
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
They way I do mine are as follows.
If you have never trained with me, you get your renewal at the renewal rate but must sit through the whole day. This does several things:
1. I get the confidence of knowing you have been to at least one quality class. i do not have to worry or trust what the other guy may or may not have taught you. I know in my conscious that you got a quality class as evidence by my signature on your certificate.
2. You get the benefit of hearing things you probably did not hear before and in a different way. I promise that I will cover important things in my class that you did not get in your initial.
3. If you shoot someone and I am subpoenaed, and I will be the first name on the list, then I can confidently testify to what you knew based on my class curriculum.
4. Coming to my class, you might just avoid the whole shooting scenario in the first place.
If you have trained with me before, I charge you the same renewal rate, but you only come after lunch which is the 1 hour review of the non legal stuff, and the legal portion. Once again, I will not be testifying about wether you know the difference between single and double action., but I can testify that you sat through my legal section with 5 other students and this is what was covered.
Generally, I will do the renewal for my students for free if I already have a class going. At the same time, in every class, I recommend that when they do their renewal, that they try someone different to get a different perspective. However, I tell them to call me first so that I can recommend someone to them instead of them wasting their money on a certificate mill. Just because it is a renewal does not mean it should not be informative.
One thing I am working on is an 8 hour CHP renewal course. 4 hours of advanced legal issues, and 4 hours of scenarios. this will be 5 years after someone has been carrying, so their perspective will be different, their gear issues should be worked out, and the legal climate will most certainly have changed.
But that is just me.
If you have never trained with me, you get your renewal at the renewal rate but must sit through the whole day. This does several things:
1. I get the confidence of knowing you have been to at least one quality class. i do not have to worry or trust what the other guy may or may not have taught you. I know in my conscious that you got a quality class as evidence by my signature on your certificate.
2. You get the benefit of hearing things you probably did not hear before and in a different way. I promise that I will cover important things in my class that you did not get in your initial.
3. If you shoot someone and I am subpoenaed, and I will be the first name on the list, then I can confidently testify to what you knew based on my class curriculum.
4. Coming to my class, you might just avoid the whole shooting scenario in the first place.
If you have trained with me before, I charge you the same renewal rate, but you only come after lunch which is the 1 hour review of the non legal stuff, and the legal portion. Once again, I will not be testifying about wether you know the difference between single and double action., but I can testify that you sat through my legal section with 5 other students and this is what was covered.
Generally, I will do the renewal for my students for free if I already have a class going. At the same time, in every class, I recommend that when they do their renewal, that they try someone different to get a different perspective. However, I tell them to call me first so that I can recommend someone to them instead of them wasting their money on a certificate mill. Just because it is a renewal does not mean it should not be informative.
One thing I am working on is an 8 hour CHP renewal course. 4 hours of advanced legal issues, and 4 hours of scenarios. this will be 5 years after someone has been carrying, so their perspective will be different, their gear issues should be worked out, and the legal climate will most certainly have changed.
But that is just me.
Last edited:
TomTerrific
Well-Known Member
I have been thru three refresher classes. The first one had four of us renewing our CHPs. In the other two, I believe I was the only one of the twelve or so in the class renewing. I got a little ahead of the instructors in the last two, but I was just trying to be helpful.
All three refreshers covered the CHP law, situational awareness, and demonstrating proficiency. IMHO and as a vet, I think new applicants should be required to take the refresher courses I took, minimum.
I'm a little foggy on this, but someone told me to be able to not go thru the training, one's military record has to show qualifying as sharpshooter with the pistol, which would eliminate many. Also, the exemption is good only for 5y after ETS.
I think it was good for me to see the people coming thru the class for the first time. IMHO, there were several who had no business there.
You hit the nail on the head with this one. This is EXACTLY what I was referring to in my earlier post.
In a perfect world, the 2nd amendment would not be abridged, regulated, obfuscated, ignored, whatever. But we don't live in a perfect world, do we?
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
I have been thru three refresher classes. The first one had four of us renewing our CHPs. In the other two, I believe I was the only one of the twelve or so in the class renewing. I got a little ahead of the instructors in the last two, but I was just trying to be helpful.
All three refreshers covered the CHP law, situational awareness, and demonstrating proficiency. IMHO and as a vet, I think new applicants should be required to take the refresher courses I took, minimum.
I'm a little foggy on this, but someone told me to be able to not go thru the training, one's military record has to show qualifying as sharpshooter with the pistol, which would eliminate many. Also, the exemption is good only for 5y after ETS.
I think it was good for me to see the people coming thru the class for the first time. IMHO, there were several who had no business there.
Nope. Must only show proof of "small arms training."
That means if you were a rifleman and never fired a pistol, then you do not have to take the course.
WHile in the USMC, I ran most of the requal details in NOLA for a few years down at Plaquamines Parish SO. i can tell you there are guys who have been on the Marines for several years and cannot even function the decocker on an M9. the only ND I have had to date at a range I was running was a Marine at a pistol recert. Round in the dirt at his feet.
i understand the intent of that ection, and it warms my heart, but my experience tells me it is ill-phrased. It is comperable to saying just because a guy was a cop, he is qualified to fire an M4...not necessarily.
i think LEO/MIL with proof of PISTOL training should be able to take an abbreviated course.
I wish I could say that LEO should be totally exempt, but the reality is that EVERY SINGLE LEO I have ever had in my class has walked up to me after and said very quietly, "Dude, I had no f-cking idea about half of that." Just because they were taught LEO deadly force tactics in the academy does not mean that translates over to civilian carry. And yes, when carrying under HR218, they are essentially a civilian, but we all know they will be judged as a LEO...that is the negative reality of HR218.
