Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:55 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 The gun you qualify with - 
Author Message
 Post subject: The gun you qualify with -
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:41 am 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:46 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Lakeville, MN
Ok. Maybe this doesn't belong in "Stupid Stuff", and maybe it just strikes me that way.

A bit over a week ago, I took the CCW course. I have to confess here - I was far and away the worst shot of the six of us during qualification.

That said - there was only one other person on the line for the qualification (besides myself) using a gun they intended to press into service as their carry piece. The best shot in the bunch was using a target .22 with a 7" barrel. Another guy who was a really good shot was using his IPSC piece! (and he readily admitted he had NO intention of actually carrying a 1911. The other two shooters had full size nines that they didn't intend to carry.

I'll admit here I'm a n00b on a lot of issues surrounding CCW, but it seems kind of shortsighted to me to qualify on a target gun, then carry something entirely different. I suppose not such a great big deal if you actually practice the stuff you need to with a carry piece, but if/when you show up in civil court, might it make a difference?

_________________
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagen


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Brought in what I was most comfortable with
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:02 am
Posts: 817
Location: Eagan, MN
When I took the carry course I did not want to leave anything to chance, so I shot with my Glock 34 knowing full well that I'll never carry it. At the time, I was just breaking in my new Kahr p40 and was not confident in my ablilities with it ... and the course is just too expensive to risk flunking.

Range time every weekend soon corrected that, and being an active IPSC shooter (and RO) I shoot three matches every season with my carry piece. These days if I had to "qualify" with my carry piece I could do it with the upmost confidence, but from the beginning it was not so. :wink:

I'm very glad that I didn't have to qualify with my carry gun.

_________________
Clinging to guns and religion.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:54 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
The qualification for my carry course was broad-side-of-a-barn accuracy anyway.

There is nothing in the law that specifies that the gun used to qualify even needs to be recorded.

I've never seen evidence that there are different results between states that require you to qualify on (an license) specific carry guns, and those that have no training or shooting qualification at all.

For some reason, leaving training and marksmanship to people's individual judgement and sense or responsibility has, for all that I can see, worked just fine.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:16 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:46 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Lakeville, MN
Matt Payne wrote:
There is nothing in the law that specifies that the gun used to qualify even needs to be recorded.

I know there's nothing in the law (and I'm glad for that).

I'm thinking a civil liability suit where the law isn't all that's taken into account. We all know that it's perfectly reasonable to test ones self, and prove to ones self that we're good enough with a given particular gun. I was wondering how a jury (possibly made up of largly antis) might veiw me qualifying with a gun I wouldn't carry, and not bothering to qualify with one I would.

I hear of some awfully silly decisions made in civil cases.

I'm not posting to argue any point on this at all. I'm really curious as to how this might be viewed in a civil suit, not in a trial. Anyone here actually know, or are we all guessing?

Matt Payne wrote:
The qualification for my carry course was broad-side-of-a-barn accuracy anyway.

This is one of the reasons I was wondering why the other shooters in my course needed to use a comped IPSC gun and a target .22 to qualify with. I *suck* as a shot (was that a quiet plea for help?), and I used a carry piece to qualify with - and I did ok.

_________________
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagen


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:41 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:39 pm
Posts: 1132
Location: Prior Lake, MN
Nobody on the face of the earth can tell me what gun I used to qualify for my carry permit- it wasn't noted anywhere.
So no way could a lawyer prove it one way or another.
I think we as a group (permit holders) tend to be too analytic with our "What would a lawyer try if....." scenarios.

I have several guns that I could choose to carry if I wanted. I certainly don't expect to have to qualify with every one of them. Plus, I may trade in my current favorite carry gun for another one. Again, I wouldn't want to have to re qualify.

I think that it's important to practice with any gun you intend to carry, before carrying it. But getting a permit and getting experience with your carry gun are only indirectly related, IMHO. If you can merge the two great, go for it.

Maybe police have to qualify with their service gun, but we're not them.

_________________
Brewman


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:56 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Duluth
I also qualified with a .22. The law had just passed and I didn't even own the gun that I had planned to carry. I was worried about not passing the course and I didn't want to drop $600 on a gun that I might not get to carry. I have since run over 700 rounds through it. I wouldn't qualify as a top notch marksman yet but I can usually hit what I aim at. (within reason)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The gun you qualify with -
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:36 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:55 pm
Posts: 986
Janitor wrote:
Ok. Maybe this doesn't belong in "Stupid Stuff", and maybe it just strikes me that way.

A bit over a week ago, I took the CCW course. I have to confess here - I was far and away the worst shot of the six of us during qualification.

That said - there was only one other person on the line for the qualification (besides myself) using a gun they intended to press into service as their carry piece. The best shot in the bunch was using a target .22 with a 7" barrel. Another guy who was a really good shot was using his IPSC piece! (and he readily admitted he had NO intention of actually carrying a 1911. The other two shooters had full size nines that they didn't intend to carry.

I'll admit here I'm a n00b on a lot of issues surrounding CCW, but it seems kind of shortsighted to me to qualify on a target gun, then carry something entirely different. I suppose not such a great big deal if you actually practice the stuff you need to with a carry piece, but if/when you show up in civil court, might it make a difference?


There's nothing in the law that states what kind of gun you have to carry or what kind of gun you have to qualify with. That being said, if I was an instructor I wouldn't allow students to qualify with a gun that they wouldn't reasonably be able to use as a carry gun -- .22 target guns, single-shots, Desert Eagles, IPSC open guns, etc. And as a hypothetical instructor, "reasonable" is my definition of reasonable, not a newsclipping that says some guy from the Olympic pistol team was able to end an armed standoff with a single shot pistol in .22 short.

It can get fuzzier when you deal with situations where you have someone want to qualify with a reasonable handgun -- like a 4" .357 Mag revolver, but then they say they won't ever carry it, and then go on to qualify with lightweight ammo like .38 wadcutters.

It just seems that the practical aspects of qualification should be tied just a hair more to reasonable carry guns chambering reasonable defensive loads so that the student can demonstrate their ability to shoot a carry gun with carry ammo.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:40 pm 
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
I shot with the gun I'm planning on carrying. But, when we got to the range, they were out of the 9mm. So, either drive (seemed like) 10 minutes each way to the store, or shoot with someone else's gun.

*I* would have done alright with any gun. I feel comfortable picking up anything (50/50 on a revolver) and shooting good enough to pass. But, I had friend with me that has really only shot my gun.

I think my instructor was making sure that we hit the target (reasonable group) and watching for safe gun handling. He didn't assign a score (at least for mine). Hold on and I'll look at the target... ... ... Well, it looks like I was completely within the 5 ring on the green man target. The 5 ring is pretty big.

_________________
Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The gun you qualify with -
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:24 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Janitor wrote:
Ok. Maybe this doesn't belong in "Stupid Stuff", and maybe it just strikes me that way.

A bit over a week ago, I took the CCW course. I have to confess here - I was far and away the worst shot of the six of us during qualification.

That said - there was only one other person on the line for the qualification (besides myself) using a gun they intended to press into service as their carry piece. The best shot in the bunch was using a target .22 with a 7" barrel. Another guy who was a really good shot was using his IPSC piece! (and he readily admitted he had NO intention of actually carrying a 1911. The other two shooters had full size nines that they didn't intend to carry.

I'll admit here I'm a n00b on a lot of issues surrounding CCW, but it seems kind of shortsighted to me to qualify on a target gun, then carry something entirely different. I suppose not such a great big deal if you actually practice the stuff you need to with a carry piece, but if/when you show up in civil court, might it make a difference?

Okay, here's why I think requiring it would be a bad idea:

1. If you have to qualify with the gun you carry, then every time you change your mind, you have to requalify and document it.

2. Many people taking their first carry course haven't worked out what's going to work for them -- I advise my students not to go shopping until after they've taken the class, so that they can at least hear me out.

3. The qualification is just a basic demonstration of proficiency; it's not intended to be more than that.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The gun you qualify with -
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:40 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:55 pm
Posts: 986
joelr wrote:
Okay, here's why I think requiring it would be a bad idea:

1. If you have to qualify with the gun you carry, then every time you change your mind, you have to requalify and document it.

I can't disagree with this, especially given our law's current structure.

Quote:
2. Many people taking their first carry course haven't worked out what's going to work for them -- I advise my students not to go shopping until after they've taken the class, so that they can at least hear me out.
Makes sense, but it could be argued that they wouldn't be required to commit to a gun before hearing you out -- it could be possible to structure the classroom/qualifying such that there was time for people to commit, if they had to commit.

Quote:
3. The qualification is just a basic demonstration of proficiency; it's not intended to be more than that.

But proficiency in what?

I'm guessing that Joel's basic philosophy is give people the right, explain to them the very narrow situations in which they can use it, make sure they can handle a gun safely. Beyond that's not necessary, since it's not clear that more training will matter when it matters. (Sorry to put words in your mouth, but I did take the class, so I'm just speculating).


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:36 pm 
Journeyman Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:46 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Lakeville, MN
joelr wrote:
Okay, here's why I think requiring it would be a bad idea

Actually, I think it would be a horrible idea to require it.

I was wondering more about prudence. I was wondering if it would help to cover your a$$ in a law suit -I know little to nothing about the sillyness that can go on in in a suit other than it doesn't have to have anything at all to do with what's happened in criminal procedings (*cough*oj*cough*)

Popular opinion 'round here seems to be it won't matter.

_________________
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagen


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Carry/Qualify Firearm
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:54 pm 
Delicate Flower

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 3311
Location: St. Paul, MN.
I agree with Joel across the board....... My partner and myself bring a variety of handguns to the range for our students to try. We also require that they shoot both revolver and semi regardless of what they own or intend to carry. Typically we have a least one 22',9', 40',38,38+p, 357, 44. Helps the "soon to purchase" student make a decision.

_________________
http://is.gd/37LKr


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:33 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 pm
Posts: 965
Location: North Minneapolis
Some one in my class asked this very question. Our instructor stated that it did not matter as no one would record what gun we shot with. That was a real relief to one gal as she was borrowing her husbands Makarov because she was not sure she actually wanted to carry a gun. Funny thing was, she had never shot many guns before and ended up scoring the 2nd highest in the class. Her husband was less than amused as he now had to go and buy her a gun and endure her bragging for the next 5 years.

_________________
It is about Liberty!

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chris


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:23 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:16 am
Posts: 364
Location: Minneapolis, MN
The statute states "training in the safe use of a pistol." and that's what the qualification test is for - demonstrating safe use of a pistol. Nothing more.

I will let students qualify with whatever handgun they bring (within reason) and the rental I use for new shooters is a Walther P-22. This is more than adequate for demonstrating the "safe use of a pistol."

Now, for more advanced tactical training - that's another story. But my CCW classes are not about "how to shoot". More like "How to avoid shooting, when to shoot, and what to do if you have to shoot."


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:05 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Janitor wrote:
joelr wrote:
Okay, here's why I think requiring it would be a bad idea

Actually, I think it would be a horrible idea to require it.

I was wondering more about prudence. I was wondering if it would help to cover your a$$ in a law suit -I know little to nothing about the sillyness that can go on in in a suit other than it doesn't have to have anything at all to do with what's happened in criminal procedings (*cough*oj*cough*)

Popular opinion 'round here seems to be it won't matter.
That's my own opinion -- and, as far as I can tell (and I've done some searching on the subject) -- it's never been an issue in court.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group