Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Recertification Suggestions

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MartyG
    replied
    Never afraid to add another 2 cents, here I go. I took it from Patricia's original post that they were reviewing just exactly what is needed for renewal. The law seems to be unclear.
    Once again, I reiterate, whatever we do should be minimal. Two BIG things have changed since the initial law:
    1. The Heller decision reaffirmed this is a RIGHT, not a privilige. Driving a car is a privilige. We need to assert this as much as we can.
    2. We now have almost 4 yrs of history with NO problems to speak of. Let's not try to fix a problem that doesn't exist. (dementia, etc) Nobody is asking to address that. If we feel compelled to do something like that, we should start as small as possible, i.e. a yes/no question on the form. That's it.

    Remember, we have already been checked out. They have been watching us all the while. If we had a police incident we would already have been "flagged."
    Should a little old lady who rides the bus, and carries a derringer in her purse be denied the RIGHT to carry that because she can't qualify on the range? Think about this. We are NOT envisioned to be any kind of marksmen. The boogie-man argument about accuracy is an anti-gun position. Let's fight it, not agree with them.
    In the end, we'll have to do something. That's the way it goes in the legislature. But as a group, we should be pushing for the minimum. Leave the dementia, accuracy, range time, and other "fear factor" arguments for the other side.
    Last edited by MartyG; 05-07-2009, 18:22. Reason: spelling

    Leave a comment:


  • MacDougl
    replied
    Let me drop in my pennies worth here. What I saw when I took my instruction course was several people who had never shot a gun before in their life (including my girlfriend). Now they might have been there for various reasons (wife/girlfriend of a CCL holder, wanting to get their won carry permit for self protection?) but at the time, this is what they wanted. Now people change, they divorce and lose interest as their ?other? was the driving force in them getting their permit, they break up (see previous) or they become uninterested in what they thought was important at one time. A CCL can be seen in this light. It was more important to someone else and not to the person who actually has it.

    Not everyone who gets a permit will carry daily, weekly or monthly. Some will think it is a hassle and just stop. Some will carry, but slow down as time goes on and finally stop carrying. And some won?t carry, period. This works out to people becoming qualified at the range with the CCL course, getting the permit and basically throwing it in a drawer and never using it, or using it rarely. These people might never pick up a gun again in their life, and feel that their ?qualifying time? at the range during the course makes them an expert and they need nothing else. Like a drivers license for an automobile, passing the course once gets them thinking they are masters for life.

    Everyone needs to be at the range, don?t get me wrong. But these part time carriers are the ones who definitely need to re-qualify at the range at least once every 4 years. That requal test might be the only shooting they will ever do again in their lives. And not everyone will re-up the permit, either. So yes, I feel a range test is needed to weed out the ones who are not serious. Let?s face it; there are licensed drivers out there that should not be for one reason or another. I don?t want to see the CCL wind up the same way. Also, a covering of law changes that have affected CCL, court cases or areas of confusion would be good to go back over. Some can be done in a handout, as this is a lot on info to cover in a recertification course.

    Leave a comment:


  • apainstructor
    replied
    I suggest,

    2 hour block of instruction on change in laws and safety
    new retest
    no range certification

    Leave a comment:


  • jhawk412
    replied
    The law already specifies a 2-hour training and $40 fee for renewals so that's a given at this point. I think we need 1 hour on legal updates and 1 hour at the range reshooting the exact same course we qualified on.

    The legal update should cover things like changes in the CCH law since inception. Also, specific cases involving shootings by licensees, if any, as well as difficulties they had such as arrests for carrying past the gun-buster sign. Keep it real. "This is what happened with licensees" kind of thing.

    I also do believe we need to re-shoot qualification again at renewal. Current and retired officers have to re-qualify every year to qualify for state commission or carrying under LEOSA. Having CCH holders requalify once every four years is not an undue burden. It should be the same course as now. The current course is not all that difficult but it shows general competency, safety and a basic ability, which is all that should be required. If you want to shoot tactical courses, do it somewhere else. I think we certainly need to allow licensees who are among the most vulnerable in our society to continue to carry as long as they can.

    However, if we don't require licensees to requalify, I think there could be big problems just like with driver's licenses.There certainly are some licensed drivers out there that have deteriorated physically or mentally to the point where they should no longer be driving but they are still able to get their licenses. I don't think we want to be in a position of having a bad shooting by a CCH licensee who hasn't qualified for 8 or 12 or 16 years and everyone in town knew they had developed dementia, had gone blind or became physically incapable of correctly handling a weapon due to age or infirmity. We need to make sure that doesn't happen.

    Just my $0.02.

    Leave a comment:


  • apmech
    replied
    what about also instead of 4 yrs maybe a 6 year like you can get for the DL? I think in the long run would be cheaper. I got my 6 yr dl a few yrs ago and it was little bit more but in the long run was cheaper. I not sure right now what the 6 year DL runs right now. but I think I gave like $20 IIRC, back when I gotten mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eagle
    replied
    Originally posted by ryanmac45 View Post
    I think the renewal should involve some type of instruction / qualification. We need more than an open book test. (look at the drivers in this state, people should be held to a higher standard!) We take our original class with a certified instructor to insure that the law and KPFPA are properly explained and covered.
    Much can change over the years, including a persons competency. (Instructors have no obligation to pass someone through their class, it provides a safety net.) A four hour class including a re-qual should not be all that inconvenient.
    I don't think the 2nd amendment had those qualifiers in there at all. Agree or not, it says.. "the right to bear arms".

    Leave a comment:


  • ryanmac45
    replied
    I think the renewal should involve some type of instruction / qualification. We need more than an open book test. (look at the drivers in this state, people should be held to a higher standard!) We take our original class with a certified instructor to insure that the law and KPFPA are properly explained and covered.
    Much can change over the years, including a persons competency. (Instructors have no obligation to pass someone through their class, it provides a safety net.) A four hour class including a re-qual should not be all that inconvenient.

    Leave a comment:


  • Eagle
    replied
    Originally posted by MartyG View Post
    ISimple, at-home open book law review/test.
    Lowered fees.

    Remind the legislators and the AG that some Sherriff's offices have trouble with the demand as it is, without renewals. Remind them too, that we do not need to find a solution for a problem that does not exist. Push to make this as minimal, painless, and low-cost not only for us, but for all the agencies involved.
    Agree wholeheartedly. If we've done something wrong, the licenses would have been revoked or suspended in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • MartyG
    replied
    Originally posted by searcher View Post
    JMO, but it would be a show of the improvement of the skills of the individual who is renewing the license. If we have to change it in the basic, then do so.
    I disagree. There really shouldn't be a qualification test to exercise a 2A RIGHT. If a person wants to own and carry a gun without being educated or qualified, that might be stupid, but it should still be his/her RIGHT. The current 25-shot qual is a minimal test designed to appease the worrisome, and was needed to get this through the legislature. Nobody is asking for increased proficiency. We are not building an armed force, one that needs to maintain combat accuracy.
    Skip any background check, they've been watching us since we got our card.
    Simple, at-home open book law review/test.
    Lowered fees.

    Remind the legislators and the AG that some Sherriff's offices have trouble with the demand as it is, without renewals. Remind them too, that we do not need to find a solution for a problem that does not exist. Push to make this as minimal, painless, and low-cost not only for us, but for all the agencies involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Macklin
    replied
    Originally posted by searcher View Post
    JMO, but it would be a show of the improvement of the skills of the individual who is renewing the license. If we have to change it in the basic, then do so.
    That sort of a change is counter to the original intent which was to create a shooting qualification baseline that would only exclude the incompetent and dangerous. If you want to shoot 100 rounds or 50, if you want a time limit and maybe require that everybody uses a carry gun and shoot 2" groups with a compact 9 or 45, 90% of the 15,000 CCHL would have never gotten a license.

    Showing improvement in skill is a great idea, just do it at an IDPA or IPSC match, not on a CCHL qualification. Improvement isn't needed and to claim it is plays into the hands of the anti-gunners who say it is too dangerous to allow civilians to carry weapons.

    The record is that the current system is very safe, even those few states that don't require actual shooting qualification, I am not aware of any real problems from lack of shooting skills.

    Leave a comment:


  • searcher
    replied
    Originally posted by Jim Macklin View Post
    To what end? The point is to reduce cost and simplify the renewal process.
    If there is any change in the basic qualification or renewal, it would create a call for smaller targets, time limits, and a host of other restrictive opportunities to reject people who should be qualified.

    JMO, but it would be a show of the improvement of the skills of the individual who is renewing the license. If we have to change it in the basic, then do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoker
    replied
    My cdl costs $65.00 to renew, the guy took the paper never even looked at it, took the $$ & sent me to the next station. Simple enough, just about the $$ here in Kansas.

    Leave a comment:


  • RexDart
    replied
    Originally posted by MartyG View Post
    DL renewals are no longer on-site tests. They are open book. They send you the test and the book, you do it at home, and bring it in for grading. I just did mine this week.
    I second this notion. It should be as similar (and as inexpensive) as renewing a driver's license.

    I don't think there's a need for range time for CCH requalification, any more than there's a need for a driver's exam at every DL renewal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve48
    replied
    Something simple and current!! I and many others don't want to pay and drive long distances especially out here in western Kansas. I think a short test on current regulations would be sufficient.

    Leave a comment:


  • MartyG
    replied
    Originally posted by Goodtime Charlie View Post
    I think it should be like you renew a DL. Get a copy of the laws in the mail from the AG's office like 30 days in advance, study them, then go into the DL office, take a multiple choice test like for a DL, get a new photo taken, pay no more than for a DL renewal, get the temporary license printout, and have the renewal license sent out in the mail just like a new DL.
    DL renewals are no longer on-site tests. They are open book. They send you the test and the book, you do it at home, and bring it in for grading. I just did mine this week.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X