CHL Training

[DuneHopper]

I was talking and having a long discussion with my oldest son ( 21) he is about to take his CHL class and was asking about it. He has done his research to know what he needs do and was inquiring why that was all?

The concern he has as do I is , owning a gun does not mean you know how to safely use it anymore then owning a car means you know how to drive. However my son owns a 357 SW, and could conceivably get his CHL and go out in the world and have no idea how to use his gun as safety is not really part of getting CHL. Nor is buying gun make require any thing.

I am not popular with my views to some but I think somehow some way a person needs to be signed off for a CHL from a certified training course in safety as well.
My son is trained but many other may not be, kinda scary to a point. Not saying to change the laws but seems safety should be included in the CHL course allot more then it is.:huh:

Read More

 

[oknow]

why should the government be evolved what ever happened to people doing what is needed on there own

 

[drew]

why should the government be evolved what ever happened to people doing what is needed on there own

Exactly. It is a great idea to get some training but it shouldn't be required by the government. I also think that more training/education in the legal ramifications for carrying/using a firearm for self-defense is a good idea along with some training to actually shoot the weapon.

Many things should remain as good ideas and best practices instead of becoming government requirements. I'm also a supporter of Constitutional Carry.

 

[DuneHopper]

Don't get me wrong I do not want more regulations or government involvement, It just seems "since"
the law already requires CHL's to take the class why not simple add safety to it. ????
To a degree the government is already involved in CHL's because you can not get one as a civilian without it.

I disagree to a point that people should have CHL safety training on their own, because they don't and by being ill trained we give liberal gun haters the right to say they are ill trained. If the class included safety it would show CHL owners are responsible gun owners.
A CHL only means you can carry does not mean you are safe and this is what the legislators are trying to prove gun owners are not safe.
By adding one hour of safety to the class would show that people are responsible gun owners.

I know many brothers in the military that know how to lock and load, but have no idea how to safely target shoot around others, because they assume others know what they are doing. In the military yes, in the civilian world many gun owners are careless even some ex-military by not being aware of civilian safety issues.
My thoughts are close the gap after all we once did not have to have drivers licenses either and the roads were very unsafe.

Just a thought and a concern do not expect people to agree !

 

[oknow]

once the gooberment starts getting involved they screw it up more like in blumberges area hundreds of $ and must take classes but not in his area you have to go to another state for training no thank you keep the government out of this area

 

[Mattofsmatt]

I have friends in Florida that got their CHL. Florida requires safe firearms handling as part of the curriculum, as well as some range time. They said that it is BS. Basically, they got more "safe firearm" training from the guy standing behind the counter at the gun shop, who sold them a gun, than they did in the class (and that aint sayin much considering the 'caliber' of the average gun-salesman...not that they are all bad...) It was just an excuse to require that classes be taught at a facility that has a range, ie a MORE EXPENSIVE class. After firing 2-5 rounds safely downrange, they had competed that segment of the course. In most cases students are discouraged from bringing their own gun to the class, since it would be too much of a strain on the instructor to give that kind of individualized training. Instead they just passed around a range toy, in this particular case a walther p-22. If you are purchasing and carrying a firearm, I feel that it is your personal responsibility to know how to use it. I feel that the gubmint has no place getting involved in people's ability to safely carry a firearm.

I feel that a driver's license is a very different circumstance, since most people drive multiple times a day in and around thousands of others doing the same. Most people who have a CHL do NOT use their CCW multiple times a day. Plus the fact that the Gubmint, like it or not, built and maintains the roads that we drive on; so making sure that we the sheeple know how to drive safely seems reasonable, considering the massive amount of damage that one could do with a car if one was not versed in safe-driving practices. I would argue that an unsafe driver (think: RV careening down Burnside at 5:15pm) could cause far more fatalities and property damage than someone with their CCW, even if it is a ghastly high-capacity magazine.

Canada requires a membership to a shooting range as a pre-req for earning the right to own a firearm. Most Canadian shooting ranges require safety classes prior to becoming a member. As an American that is supposed to not have my RIGHT to bear arms infringed by the gubmint, I feel that any barriers to bearing arms is an infringment (and rather Canadian for my tastes... bunch of war-mongerers). And for that matter: do we really need another gubmint agency/job/overseer? The "Ministry of Safe Firearms Training, coming right up! No thank you.

Just my 2 cents, you are all free to disagree at will. Happy turkey day!

 

[childishthing]

I grew up in Montana where exposure to firearms is inherent. My father taught me how to safely handle rifles and handguns at a young age. "Always point in a safe direction", "Know your target and beyond", "Treat every gun as if it were loaded", etc. At the age of 12 I was enrolled in a hunter safety program for added knowledge. I received further training while I was in the military, but that's another subject altogether. When I was a child it was my fathers responsibility to teach me the importance of gun safety, and he did.

I understand that a lot of people in more urban areas have never been exposed to firearms, and therefore require either research or specialized training to acquire such knowledge. As a gun-owner or potential gun-owner it is your responsibility to seek out the information you need to be a safe operator. The Second Amendment is a freedom we have as Americans, but like all freedoms it comes with responsibility.

Allowing the government to require such classes is passing our responsibility on to someone else.

 

[MarkAd]

I find it interesting that you have identified weakness and have not yet taken steps to correct them.
Safety is concisely taught is the

4 Commandments of Firearms Safety

Anything beyond that is just expounding on the 4 COMMANDMENTS. not suggestions, not good ideals COMMANDMENTS.

You and your son follow the 4 COMMANDMENTS of firearm safety and I can guarantee you will be totally safe gun owners.

 

[DuneHopper]

I find it interesting that you have identified weakness and have not yet taken steps to correct them.
Safety is concisely taught is the

4 Commandments of Firearms Safety

Anything beyond that is just expounding on the 4 COMMANDMENTS. not suggestions, not good ideals COMMANDMENTS.

You and your son follow the 4 COMMANDMENTS of firearm safety and I can guarantee you will be totally safe gun owners.

To what were you referring ???

 

[Allfat]

I disagree to a point that people should have CHL safety training on their own, because they don't and by being ill trained we give liberal gun haters the right to say they are ill trained. If the class included safety it would show CHL owners are responsible gun owners.
A CHL only means you can carry does not mean you are safe and this is what the legislators are trying to prove gun owners are not safe.
By adding one hour of safety to the class would show that people are responsible gun owners.

So you are saying that having the government require a safety class would make us responsible gun owners?

Personally, it would seem that gun owners are more responsible if they are left to make their own decisions about firearm training and concealed carry vs. having another entity decide for them. I don't get how having a required class makes you more responsible.

I train with my carry weapon (both paid training and practice), and am confident that if the need arises, I can mitigate a threat to me or my family. I don't see how sitting in the classroom another hour would have changed that.

 

[Boomerang]

To what were you referring ???

Cooper's 4 rules of gun safety.

• All guns are always loaded (treat them as if they were)
• Never point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy (always point in a safe direction)
• Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until your sights are on target and you're ready to shoot
• Know your target and what is beyond your target (where your projectile may go)

Follow these and a gun will never discharge unless you're expecting it to. And if it does discharge (due to mechanical failure) then it won't do harm.

 

[Harrytop]

Cooper's 4 rules of gun safety.

• All guns are always loaded (treat them as if they were)
• Never point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy (always point in a safe direction)
  
  
• Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until your sights are on target and you're ready to shoot
• Know your target and what is beyond your target (where your projectile may go)

Follow these and a gun will never discharge unless you're expecting it to. And if it does discharge (due to mechanical failure) then it won't do harm.

So true, follow these rules and life is good.
Wa state only requires a back ground check and you can open carry in Or.
It's my belief that concealed carry is like racing a car as to just driving a car to the store. You need a lot of practice if your going to win a race or even finish one. Getting trained with a concealed carry gun and holster is your responsibility but should not be a Federal/State requirement.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

The word "right", as in 2nd Amendment "right" or freedom of speech "right", has a distinct meaning. It means you don't "ask" to exercise it, because it is yours to exercise naturally and it is "unalienable". The only condition attached to it, is that you exercise it responsibly. If you over-indulge your right to a point that you injure or wantonly endanger the safety or rights of others, the law says your lack of responsibility is punishable...criminally or through tort law.

The acts of the bad apples of our society are exceptions to the rule of how members of our society generally exercise their rights. But because we are not taught many of the basic principles of law or Constitutional governance, we are made vulnerable to having our emotions used as pry bars to sell us on the "merits" of incrementally surrendering those things that are unalienable and most necessary for us to enjoy life under the "rule of law".

This thread is titled "CHL Training". CHL "training" indeed. We rotely believe these days that the premise of "licensing" a "right" is valid without thinking much about it. Many people even openly embrace and advocate it amidst testimonials in this thread that demonstrate that "licensing" programs do little to address the safety and competence issues of carrying a gun, even though the fundamental purpose of laws is to protect We The People. So if these so-called laws that we are told we have to comply with are not providing for safety, what are they providing for? Well, they cost money don't they. They force us to surrender our personal information to a government database. But most of all, this process "trains" us to accept and assimilate the premise that it is proper for government to reduce our "unalienable" rights to pay-as-you-go "privileges" that they can simply reduce or deny altogether simply through administrative processes.

Is this what we want to celebrate on the 4th of July? Is this how we honor the sacrifices our military services have historically made in defense of and preservation of our rights? Rights come with responsibilities, and in a landscape that is frought with uncivilized perils due to lack of law and order, our pioneer ancestors deemed that carrying guns as a regular daily means of ensuring their security, was the responsible thing to do. That was more than a hundred years ago, but isn't it fair to say that our society is returning to a more uncivilized state? If we can agree on that, then it follows that we are again facing a reality of life that forces us to exercise our self-defense rights like our ancestors did. If it became commonplace knowledge that a significant percentage of everyday people carried guns under their clothes or in their purses, would that be a disincentive for criminal shooters to attempt their crimes, whether against individuals or groups? Of course it would. Therefore, is it logical to submit this "right" of ours to a robotic, bureaucratic permission system that we already concede is unfit for promoting gun-use safety?

This doesn't even touch on what the law actually says about how we are being manipulated by gun "policy" architects. Our nation is based on the "rule of law", not the "rule of policy". "Policy" is NOT "law". "Law is law". "Policy" is what executive branch agencies adopt as the detail-oriented game plan on how to carry out their duties of administering or enforcing the legislative intent of the "law". And as we all know, it is common "policy" for executive branch agencies to apply "licensing" laws to Citizens' rights. But maybe that's because Americans are routinely discouraged from reading the law for themselves to make sure they're not being lied to...for example, laws like ORS (Oregon Revised Statutes) 183.310(5). In Oregon's laws, chapter 183 is called the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Every State has and uses an Administrative Procedures Act to govern how executive branch agencies carry out their administrative or enforcement duties. The APA in Oregon, chapter 183, has a definitions section that provides a "lawful" definition of "license" for administrative and enforcement purposes. See ORS 183.310(5) below:

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) "License" includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

Notice how the "law" restricts the context of "license" to "commercial" purposes? Has this definition of "license" ever been conspicuously disclosed on "application" forms that pertain to those things we think of as "rights"? I can't say that I've ever seen it. So, if the..."law".... says..."license"... is only applicable to...."commercial"... purposes or issues, then it logically follows that any impression we Citizens get from agency officials or forms that our rights are also subject to "licensing", is an impression that can only exist as a result of "training" through "policy". So can we really be taken advantage of to that degree? Sure we can.

We all know that "knowledge is power". We also know that our nation is founded on the "rule of law". We are constantly complaining about the futility of fixing the problems our country is going through, which is another way of saying that we lack the ability to control the things that affect our lives. You have to have power in order to exert control, which means you have to have knowledge to have power to exert control. The Constitutions' and laws' primary purpose is to serve and protect Citizens. So, it stands to reason that if Citizens are going to succeed in preserving their rights and self-determination, they must be educated on the Constitutions and the law. After all, when we graduate high school, we learn pretty quickly that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", right?

It turns out that Oregon gives us a very clear demonstration of engineered popular ignorance, i.e. intellectual defenselessness. Oregon law (ORS 336.057 & 067), since 1923 has required public schools to provide a class ("course of instruction") devoted to studying the US Constitution......for a minimum of five years. ORS 336.067 requires public schools to provide "special emphasis" on, among other things, the Oregon Constitution and obedience to the laws. Knowing what I know now, as a Citizen who got all of his education (up to a Bachelors Degree) from Oregon's public schools, and considering that people can spend their whole lives studying Constitutional law, I know that I "graduated" with a Constitution and law education experience in high school that ranged from window dressing to non-existent. I never got to study the Oregon Constitution, nor did I ever get to learn the basics of how to read and understand the legislative intent of the law in order to make informed decisions about "obedience to the law". But don't take my word for it, read ORS 336.057 & 067 below for yourself:

"336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:

(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.

(2) Be required in all public universities listed in ORS 352.002, except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction."

"336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special emphasis shall be given to instruction in:

(a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.

(b) Respect for all humans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex or disability.

(c) Acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of individuals and groups and their participative roles in society.

(d) Humane treatment of animals.

(e) The effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and controlled substances upon the human system.

(2) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare an outline with suggestions that will best accomplish the purpose of this section, and shall incorporate the outline in the courses of study for all public schools."

So if the plainly-worded legislative intent in 336.067 above, in part, is to "promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry", then what message are we Citizens to take from the fact that curriculum "policies" effectively "suppress" the legislative intent of these laws in their purpose of producing functional Citizens? Without a doubt, the legislative intent of these laws is being suppressed and if we HAD been given the opportunity to study the Oregon Constitution, we may have learned what it has to say about such misconduct in any area of law. See Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 22:

"Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly."

 

[novamind]

I was talking and having a long discussion with my oldest son ( 21) he is about to take his CHL class and was asking about it. He has done his research to know what he needs do and was inquiring why that was all?

The concern he has as do I is , owning a gun does not mean you know how to safely use it anymore then owning a car means you know how to drive. However my son owns a 357 SW, and could conceivably get his CHL and go out in the world and have no idea how to use his gun as safety is not really part of getting CHL. Nor is buying gun make require any thing.

I am not popular with my views to some but I think somehow some way a person needs to be signed off for a CHL from a certified training course in safety as well.
My son is trained but many other may not be, kinda scary to a point. Not saying to change the laws but seems safety should be included in the CHL course allot more then it is.:huh:

I agree and support your position on this issue of training for a CHL. I believe a live fire compentensie test is needed for the welfair of all concerned.

 

[DuneHopper]

I find it interesting that you have identified weakness and have not yet taken steps to correct them.
Safety is concisely taught is the

4 Commandments of Firearms Safety

Anything beyond that is just expounding on the 4 COMMANDMENTS. not suggestions, not good ideals COMMANDMENTS.

You and your son follow the 4 COMMANDMENTS of firearm safety and I can guarantee you will be totally safe gun owners.

I appreciate the response and the concern was not directly for us, I was professionally trained nearly 25 years ago, the concern is that the classes assume some one has knowledge and even the question of knowing how to operate a firearm safely is not ask to those inquiring for a concealed a logical question is why is it assumed. I know lots of people who have cars and can not drive worth a damn, I know ex-military people that have no idea what save is, assumption is dangerous. Given the recent shootings I think the more responsible forearm owners can show they are indeed so, will go along ways. Self regulation is ideal, but I think is not logical in a society that does not know its own limits of smoking , drinking or drugs are all taught are dangerous and we should assume they are safe with guns ???

 

[twoclones]

My son is trained but many other may not be, kinda scary to a point.

No where is this more evident than when working as RSO at the range. However, I was under the impression that a safety class is exactly what Oregon requires with a CHL application.

 

[PiratePast40]

No where is this more evident than when working as RSO at the range. However, I was under the impression that a safety class is exactly what Oregon requires with a CHL application.

Yes, that is the requirement. This whole argument seems very confusng to me. Perhaps those advocating classes and testing in order to exercise your rights would also advocate morality classes before people are allowed outside their homes or are allowed to interact with other citizens.

That doesn't mean that I'm against more training. I've taken several courses in order to improve on my shooting skills and safety awareness. Not because it's a requirement of the law but I feel it's important for me.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Your northwest firearms Handle is Shootfirst.
And your challenging your son on how to handle a gun?
Lol!
Your sounding like my dad. Always wanting to challenge his kids, even though he probably doesn't disagree.

 

[OREGON FALER]

Yeah, I get what your saying, It'd be nice if folks did the right thing and got themselves up to speed with not only the safety aspects of carrying in public but also the martial art of learning to fight with a personal weapon. Most won't do either but I definitely don't want the government involved any more than they are, and less would be better. I recommend the school in brownsville to most folks who are getting their concealed carry, I'll give them a little synopsis of what they are going to learn. I've probably recommended them a 100 or more times but I know of only 2 for sure that went and did any training there.
And I hope when/if I have to shoot, it will be first.

 

[yumarick]

Says that one needs to have had a course that included safety before applying for such a license.
See ORS 166.291

Rick
CCW instructor
Olympia, WA