[hamm]

BCI has a survey about your CFP class/instructor in case you are interested. Here is the link http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFPSurvey.html.

Just a personal note: Please don't write that you want live-fire practice or other added requirements, etc. There are other classes you can take if you want that. The last thing we want is for the legislature to make it more difficult to get a CFP. Just my thoughts...

 

[Strategic Tactical]

Also, on the note of having to shoot for the CFP, classes would drop as trying to get range time would become VERY difficult. If you want to shoot there are some other options out there. We offer some Classes where you shoot and include the CFP with it. Just FYI

 

[nxiv]

There should be a live fire practice. This is why the UT CFP isn't recognized in KS.

 

[knayrb]

There should be a live fire practice. This is why the UT CFP isn't recognized in KS.

I'm torn on this. I can see both sides of the argument. It's good to have more GOOD CITIZENS on the street carrying protection but then again I don't want to be around some bumbling fool that just bought a gun and never fired a round in his/her life.

I wish the State of Utah had an advanced permit that certified you physically know how to safely and accurately use a gun. It would allow for more states to recognize the permit and, in my mind, be a better defense if you ever had to go to court to defend yourself on the use of your gun. I'm sure most here on this forum actually shoot your gun occasionally. I shoot about 50 rounds a week to keep my skills somewhat adequate.

 

[bane]

Personally I don't object to the live fire requirement.

If we are going to argue it from the position that we shouldn't need ANY permit at all to pack (even CC), then that's one thing.

But currently a permit IS required to CC. Since part of that permit requires you take several hours of classroom instruction, I see no ill and only good coming from taking an extra 30-60min. to go from the classroom to the range and shoot off a few. I guess in situations where the classroom isn't in the immediate vicinity of a range, then it would be a bit more cumbersome. But, in the cases where the class is being held AT the range I don't see an extra hour shooting as any more cumbersome than the general requirements already in place. My class, per the instructor's personal choice, had to shoot a number of rounds safely and reasonably well. We entered our class at 8a and finished at 12p... the shooting portion took less than an hour for a class of probably about 30.

 

[divegeek]

Personally I don't object to the live fire requirement.

I object to the live fire requirement, but wholeheartedly encourage the live fire.

 

[althor]

I not only object to a live fire requirement, I also object to the fact that a permit is required in the first place... but now I have 'permission' to do what I believe I already have a right to do.

I also believe that I should be held responsible for my own actions.

 

[Strategic Tactical]

as an instructor and CC'er, I'm in the same boat as Knayrb. From the instructor side, like Iwsaid above, classes would drop significantly as range time would be hard to get. However the numbers in those classes would skyrocket. From a liability aspect, I would like to see the students have to shoot even 25 rounds as it would help certify, at least for me, that they know what they are doing. I am at the range several times a month with classes and thats when I get my trigger time in. We do offer classes without shooting for the CFP and classes WITH shooting for the CFP. We hope that this helps both sides of the students pick the right class for them.

 

[Kemo Sabe]

I prefer to think for myself, so I answered the survey accordingly.

I understand that it's ridiculous that we are required to jump through legal hoops in order to retain our rights. But there's a place for responsibility, too.

 

[lmj301]

Personally I don't object to the live fire requirement.

I object to the live fire requirement, but wholeheartedly encourage the live fire.

+1 i had lived in las vegas for a few years where qualifying is required with each individual firearm you wish to carry. the issue is you must qualify at 25yds. i want to see someone qualify with a beretta tomcat or north american arms guardian at 25. i am sure it is possible, just not likely.

i would like to have gotten a NA mini revolver while in NV, but to qualify with that,...... :lol:

 

[althor]

Personally I don't object to the live fire requirement.

I object to the live fire requirement, but wholeheartedly encourage the live fire.

+1 i had lived in las vegas for a few years where qualifying is required with each individual firearm you wish to carry. the issue is you must qualify at 25yds. i want to see someone qualify with a beretta tomcat or north american arms guardian at 25. i am sure it is possible, just not likely.

i would like to have gotten a NA mini revolver while in NV, but to qualify with that,...... :lol:

I wonder how many justified self-defense shootings there are at 25 yards...

 

[shadeslanding]

You get "arbitrary" standards, a one size fits all if you leave it to the goverment to decide on an exercise, live fire or otherwise.

So you go to the range. So you shoot 25 shots. What does that tell you about what someone will do under stress? Or does it tell you that even a beginning shooter can hit the target if they take their time (something you can't do in a defensive encounter).

And then should we have them shoot at 25 feet? 15 feet? Or a ridiculous 25 yards like Nevada? Sure if someone is 25 yards away and shooting at you, you might have to shoot back as you head for cover, but it gets harder to justify an "immediate fear" at 25 yards if someone is not shooting at you.

So just what would satisfy a bureaucrat? They might come up with some standard that THEY think will satisfy some need THEY have. But it won't be good for us as instructors.

Our Utah courses are fashioned on the Utah minimum training requirements but go much further in terms of conflict resolution, situational awareness, firearm selection (my son is a Gunsmith and has an excellent presentation here) and a discussion of perceptual distortions that can take place under stress. We expect that our students can shoot and will be responsible enough to improve their shooting skills.

If our students want to take a shooting class, we offer a 1 day defensive handgun class where they can burn up 250 rounds in an IPSC style range setting and under timed conditions.

In Minnesota, our carry law does not actually call for live fire. It calls for an "actual shooting qualification exercise". Some MN instructors were creative and had been using air guns, pellet guns etc. to perform a shooting exercise where no ranges existed. This enabled people in areas without ranges or public land to qualify and get their permits.

But our MN BCA clarified their position that they wanted to see "real firearms" used in shooting qualification exercises, when they issued a December 2006 letter sent to certified organizations. If those instructors kept using pellet guns, then the organizations which certified those instructors, would loose their state certification.

Even with the MN BCA clarification, MN law does not call for a prescribed course of fire. An instructor could have a student shoot one shot and meet the MN BCA requirement and satisfy the law.

Our MN course has our Minnesota students shoot 10 rounds at 15 feet and they need to exhibit safe gun handling and loading and reloading while doing so and they of course must hit the target. This is NOT a shooting course. For to do so and to do so correctly in our opinion would take at least another four hours and 250 rounds per shooter (that's our Defensive Handgun Course).

The bottom line is that we choose the course of fire and it is our "qualification exercise and not the Governments. With the utmost respect for the fine people at the Utah BCI, I am still of the opinion that there is not one societal need that the government has ever satisfied better than the private sector. I suspect many of those folks at the BCI would actually agree with that statement.

Be careful of what you ask for. You might get it and more.

Regards,
GS

 

[Strategic Tactical]

Shades, GREAT POST. We do get a LOT of our CFP students attending our other classes. We have two students that come to EVERY CLASS we put on and is still asking for more. We push additional training HEAVILY at our CFP classes. We also go into the law more indepth than what the state says. We give them examples and try to clarify it better for them. We also have a criminal defense attorney that comes to some of our classes to help answer any questions that we aren't sure of. Its great to have him there and speak from his Legal and LEO standpoint.

 

[davyut]

I have had my permit for almost 8 years now.
My instructor had us bring and auto and wheel gun to the class at the shooting range in Cache Valley. He had each of us shoot with both types of fire arms. It was a good class and I would do it again.

 

[rdoggsilva]

When I went to my cc class last sat., we had men and one woman who did not know how to load a wheel gun. I just hope they go through more class and at lest go for basic firearm training. I have been using firearm's since I was a kid but I am going for more training. This cc is new for me and I guess the more I know the better for me.

 

[Yoda]

I do not think that there should be live fire practice because andone can pull a triger and hit something the gun is shooting at but i think that the purpose of the cfp class is to learn the rules of owning a gun the practice shooting it is a continual process that can take years in some situations

 

[bane]

I do not think that there should be live fire practice because andone can pull a triger and hit something the gun is shooting at

However, demonstrating that one understands how to line up the sights, how to click off the safety, and how to pull the trigger smoothly enough to place a round on the paper is NOT something "anyone" can do (without a little training) but IS something that can be taught relatively quickly and easily. When considering this question I think about my wife the first time I took her shooting. The first time up she didn't have a clue about what to do. But she learned it reasonably well in just 1 hour. And after just a few trips to the range I know in a stressful situation she could at least draw down and fire -- of course, whether or not she hits at a distance is another question, as you correctly pointed out.

 

[GeneticsDave]

But all that can be done with dry practice. There should not be a required live fire. The CFP class is just a starting point from which every student should continue their training.

 

[UtahRSO]

I agree there's no way a CFP class can cover everything for everyone. You're right, Dave, it's a starting point. It's not meant to be a firearms training program. I think discussing the Utah laws is most important. But I think it's good if there's some basic tactical info and actual firearms handling and shooting.

I'm probably a little biased because of the first class I took. That instructor went over the laws fairly extensively, he discussed some basic tactics (but also circumstances when we should just be a good witness), and he had us shoot both a semi-auto and a revolver (which he provided if the people in the class didn't have one or the other).

I also got to sit through a class when my wife was getting her CFP. That time the instructors were Clark Aposhian and Mitch "Pancho" Vilos, and it was basically for Utah legislators. That was an awfully good class too, somewhat longer, and we got the laws in depth as you might imagine.

On the other hand, my son's CFP class was devoted almost entirely to the instructor's tactical stories, no actual shooting or firearms handling, less than 3 hours long. But what frosted my son is that the discussion of the laws was VERY abbreviated, hardly more than "Here's the web site if you want to know the laws." My son felt like he really didn't get his money's worth, and I encouraged him to fill out the BCI survey. The class has to be more than that!

 

[Car Knocker]

I think that if a live fire requirement were added, it would then be a simple matter for the state to implement a standard target, a standard distance and a standard score that would have to be met to get a CFP. Since many lawmakers are non-shooters, it's not out of the realm of possibility that a score of 95 out of 100 at a distance of 100 feet were mandated - should be a piece of cake with that 2" snubby. After all, shouldn't CFP holders have to meet high standards of accuracy to protect the innocent (children) in the even they unwisely decide to take the law into their own hands and exact vigilante justice on some poor, misunderstood young man who was merely exhibiting the exuberance of youth? :nilly:

I'm already unconfortable with getting the state's permission to exercise a Right; increasing the hoops I have to jump through to get that permission has no appeal at all!