Responsibility of HCP Instructors to evaluate expertise of students?

[Beltaine]

When I took my HCP class this past weekend we had a few students who obviously had never fired a handgun before. There were enough of them on the firing line that the RO didn't notice the trouble I was having with my gun having light strikes.

All of them rented handguns from the range to take their test.

Should someone with no experience firing a handgun, that doesn't own their own handgun, who could not display competency to reliably hit their target at a range be allowed to carry a handgun for self-defense?

Should the instructor have told them they needed to practice more, refund their money and ask them to try a later class?

He did make a general comment, without calling anyone out individually, that we had some people in the class that needed to practice, but everyone in the class was given a certificate. I know there were a handful that took their range test twice to pass.

What's done is done, I just wanted to see what everyone's thoughts were about it.

[Oh Shoot]

...

What's done is done, I just wanted to see what everyone's thoughts were about it.

I would opine that you should be allowed to carry a handgun with no testing at all.

4 other states totally agree with me, and about half of all states agree with me as far as non-concealed carry goes.

As far as specifically addressing the concerns of the instructor's conduct under the current law: did the students actually (eventually) get a 70% score on the shooting test and pass the written test? If so, he did his job. If not, he falsified the records, call TNDOS and drop a dime if you feel strongly about it.

- OS

Edited August 15, 2011 by OhShoot

[Guest TresOsos]

I think all of us would like to be considered competent, I'm sure we would like for everyone appying for their HCP to be competent. If they pass the HCP class and the instructor passes them then the State of Tennessee considers that good enough. Personally that's good enough for me. I hope the individuals will take the advice of the instructor and practice and perhaps even go for more training.

It is the I'm competent but your not, or I'm good enough and your not that got a lot of the restrictive gun laws passed in the first place. Be glad these people took the first steps to being responsible for their own safety and took the class.

[Guest Miracle]

OhShoot.... I need to disagree man. I really don't want someone that at MINIMUM can't hit a target, more or less a possible MOVING target, and under stress as well, needs to have the responsibility of carrying a firearm with the intent of using it. I would surmise someone like the OP described in fact could, and likely would do more harm than good in an active shooter, or a personal self defense situation.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

OhShoot.... I need to disagree man....

Then you disagree with the US Constitution, the Tennessee Constitution, and the actions of at least half the states in the US.

But you are entitled to your opinion -- just don't call yourself a gun rights advocate, is my opinion.

- OS

[Guest Miracle]

I am very much a gun rights advocate. But a gun is a tool. I am very much an advocate of allowing anybody that desire to defend themselves with a firearm. What I am concerned with, is this.

I was in the army, and subsequently deployed. How comfortable would I, or even you, have been with fighting next to someone the doesn't know basic safe firearms handling, firearms safety, target acquisition and neutralizing a thread?

Believe me, you and I are in total agreement that gun laws as a whole, by the federal government are in fact, not in line with the constitution. The states have the right to do as they please in that regard.

But what I am saying my friend is this: if you choose to have a firearm available for usage, train yourself on how to use it properly, safely, and for the benefit of yourself should you have to ever use it. You wouldn't get a car and a drivers license and never educate yourself on it's operation, safety features and how to keep from killing someone out of your own ignorance, would you?

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

...Believe me, you and I are in total agreement that gun laws as a whole, by the federal government are in fact, not in line with the constitution. The states have the right to do as they please in that regard.

1. The states cannot deny a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. The fact they have been able to do so is because the federal government has denied that right as precedent.

2. The TN Constitution says that the state may "regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." That regulation does not prevent crime, actually does the opposite, makes criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens.

.... You wouldn't get a car and a drivers license and never educate yourself on it's operation, safety features and how to keep from killing someone out of your own ignorance, would you?...

No, I myself wouldn't. But if the Constitution had an amendment that said "the right to own and drive automobiles shall not be infringed", then I would advocate for your right to do so.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's no comparison between a car and a gun.

There's also no argument with what OS said on this matter. Couldn't have been

said better.

It's your responsibility to practice, not the Bill of Rights' responsibility

to coddle you into being proficient.

[Mechanic_X]

There's no comparison between a car and a gun.

There's also no argument with what OS said on this matter. Couldn't have been

said better.

It's your responsibility to practice, not the Bill of Rights' responsibility

to coddle you into being proficient.

People throw the drivers license around, but I agree, not a good comparison.

+1 to OHShoot

[Guest Miracle]

You guys are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying the state should be able to deny someone for meeting standards. What I am saying however... if there is someone showing a level of ineptitude when handling a firearm, then that person needs to be able to demonstrate a level of knowledge before they are granted their RIGHT to carry a gun with the intent to use it.

Case in point: when I went through my HCP class... I was flagged not once, not twice, but 3 times by two people, with their finger on the trigger at the range. If you cannot demonstrate the simple premise of trigger discipline and muzzle awareness, you do not be able to carry a firearm until you can demonstrate that skill.

My time as an NRA RSO has shown me that more often than one might think, there are a lot of people out there that do not know this stuff. Flagging people, negligent discharges, and being unable to hit a freaking stationary paper target in the black from a mere 10 feet away is something to worry about from someone who is apparently legally licensed to carry a deadly weapon in this country.

And the car analogy works here. States require people to provide evidence of a certain level of ability in order to operate a motor vehicle legally. Which in closing of my argument holds a very tight relation to being licensed to carry a deadly weapon with the intent to use it. I don't want some 23 year old kid, or some 50 something gentleman that had never shot a gun in his life that can't keep his damn finger off the trigger and won't stop flagging people to be able to carry a gun and not increase his abilities.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[Mike.357]

OS is spot on on this entire thing.

There should be no test or tax to pay to be able to defend yourself. Demonstrating gun safety shuld have nothing to do with it.

There was a very respected member of this board once who advocated that the trigger was the proper place for the finger to be.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Mike.357

[Oh Shoot]

....Flagging people, negligent discharges, and being unable to hit a freaking stationary paper target in the black from a mere 10 feet away is something to worry about from someone who is apparently legally licensed to carry a deadly weapon in this country....

There are now four states where you may carry openly or concealed with no permit/training whatsoever. There are about 20 states in all where you may open carry with no permit/training whatsoever. There is no statistical correlation that accidental (or even intentional) gun related injury is higher in those states than any other norm to which to compare them.

But that's just icing on the cake of basic liberty and the attendant demand of personal responsibility.

- OS

[Beltaine]

I think the driver's license analogy is pretty relevant actually.

All someone has to do is demonstrate the most basic of basics to be issued a DL, even though they're getting behind the wheel of a 2 ton bullet traveling at 30-70+ MPH and could possibly endanger the lives of everyone else on the road.

Everyone can't be Mario Andretti, and by the same token, everyone can't be Jerry Miculek.

All the students, eventually, passed the range test and the written test. We don't deny DLs to people who don't pass the first time either.

[JimmyMac483]

I agree that operating a firearm and a vehicle are both potentially dangerous when handled carelessly or ignorantly. However, I think from a rights prospective it would be a better analogy to have to take a class and pass a test before you can vote. Unfortunately history shows that ignorant voting can be very dangerous to the general public as well

[Guest Broomhead]

Most are missing one big thing here, Driving is NOT a right, it is a privilege.

The 2nd Amendment does NOT say, "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless they don't know what they're doing."

[Jonnin]

The class and permit are a source of tax money, nothing more. Same for dirver's ed or the need for a liscense. I am going to say I buy the car analogy. And then I am going to say that for all the regulations, fees, and an active police force to enforce the driving laws, we still have MORE fatal car accidents caused by basic incompetence than we do fatalities from gun accidents. And, we still have a number of fatal gun accidents as well. The rules and regulations do not help at all. Society really has 2 basic choices: 1) ban everything more dangerous than a butter knife or 2) accept that people, in general, are moronic and will always suffer some darwin events regardless of any level of rules and regulations, so do away with these foolish attempts to defeat the natural course of things.

[mav]

I could be way off base here, but I don't see how it is possible to fail the shooting portion of the permit class. When I took my class a couple a years ago, I had never fired a handgun and I received 100%. It was a joke. Does anyone know of a person that has failed the shooting portion?

[Guest Miracle]

One of the ladies that flagged me twice that I mentioned before... she failed 3 times before she passed. Had the hardest time understanding sight picture and sight alignment.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[Erik88]

Does anyone know of a person that has failed the shooting portion?

sadly, yes. Was at CCA one time and there was a young woman there. I overheard her tell the employee that she was there for 1 on 1 training because she failed the shooting portion of her test. Said she got nervous.

[Mechanic_X]

...granted their RIGHT to carry a gun...

What rights does the bill of rights "grant us"? NONE!!! They are ours already. Including the right to keep and bear arms.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I could be way off base here, but I don't see how it is possible to fail the shooting portion of the permit class. When I took my class a couple a years ago, I had never fired a handgun and I received 100%. It was a joke. Does anyone know of a person that has failed the shooting portion?

Yep!....My first thought when reading the OP was that it seemed like it was the first time I had heard anyone else mention seeing someone fail the class for any reason.

In my class that was 13 people two failed the first shoot and then one of them passed the second shoot only to fail the written part of the test so two of 13 did not get a certificate that day. I was also under the impression that a person was only supposed to be given one extra chance to shoot again but I sure could be wrong about that.

While I can understand where you are coming from Miracle and the same things do worry me, Oh Shoot is still 100% correct and I agree fully with him and the others. Yes it is a fine line that we walk, but walk it we must, least we give up even more of our rights.

As per our Constitution even the background checks are an infringement, but do we want those with violent pasts carrying guns?.... why of course we dont.

But the Constitution does not say "unless you have ever done this or that" ...It says "shall not be infringed"....period. So IMO even the BG check is UN-Constitutional as scary as the ramifications may seem to be.

As has been noted driving isnt a "Right" so the comparison pretty much stops there as far as that goes.

Drinking can also be dangerous and may hurt someone other than the person drinking but it is legal as is the same with cigarettes. Both are dangerous and could hurt others but neither is a Constitutional right like our guns are. So if we wanted to regulate dangerous things those two would be a good place to start with more regulations and laws, just as they do with our cars.

Now just how they would do more than they already do, I have no idea but they do need to leave us and our guns and our right to have them alone.

We have allowed the Anti's ideas of "it is what is best for all of us" to get us the gun laws that we currently have and everyone of them is an infringement on our inalienable right and not a one of them does a bit of good. BG's simply dont care about no laws or rules so the ones that they do make only effect those who already follow the laws.

A lot of things are dangerous in this world and a lot of people are stupid, when those two things come together it just thins the herd, and that is how that it should be.

I also understand what you say about having to be in combat with those who were not so competent, there were a very few in my company that if I found myself on missions with that I watched like a hawk, they were indeed as dangerous as the enemy maybe even more so, but the Army needs troops and the more so that they do, the lower the standards become. We took one soldier with us who failed to qualify SIX times, it was only when he went to the range and it was only him and the range officer/instructor that he finally passed....I very highly doubt that he actually did qualify that evening but there was no one else around to say either way except that one person.

In all of this I am most curious about how many chances a person is legally allowed to have to pass the shooting part of the test? We are only given one chance at the written part as far as I understand and really did think that ONE re-shoot was all that was allowed.

[Fallguy]

As some others have said, I don't think you should have to get a permit to be able to carry in the first place, that said...

If they hit there 70% that should be good enough. If it was just barely the instructor may want to suggest they practice more, but that should be a give for anyone actually. As far as refunding money if they didn't hit the 70% that would be up to the terms agreed upon before taking the class.

[monkeylizard]

The states have the right to do as they please in that regard.

If this is your opinion on gun rights, then I think you'll find that you're not in fact "in total agreement" on gun laws as a whole with many members here.

before they are granted their RIGHT to carry a gun with the intent to use it.

Since when was a right "granted"? Something is either a right or it isn't. If it is then it's not granted by law, it's protected by law.

[sigmtnman]

The state cannot manage it's own affairs. Why should any of us need to ask permission from an entity that cannot take care of itself?

[dunndw]

As a instructor, I am of two minds on the permit thing. I believe in the 2nd admendment..but I've seen people who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a tac nuke. I have failed people on the shooting portion...never had anyone fail what is basically a open book test...yet.

If someone was so bad they were dangerous to other students or myself...they would be asked to leave.