Nevada requires that you qualify with the firearm that you carry... often people bring 2 or 3 pistols to the range when qualifing. Clark County (Las Vegas) takes it one step further - they record the serial number of the actual firearm (other counties record only the make/model) that you qual with. Of course, Clark County also requires registration of all firearms in the county.

What about people who use lethal force without posessing a permit?

I've owned guns for a lot longer than I've had a carry permit, and anytime during that pre permit period I could have been involved in a lethal force situation if my home was invaded. That still could happen.
Carry permits aren't required for this purpose. So no qualifying here.

Would the lethal force rules be applied differently to a permit holder -vs- a non permit holder, assuming that possessing the gun in either scenario is legal?

I'm thinking not, but that's just my opinion. So the qualifying thing in our state is a moot point in my opinion.

If they did qualifying, it would be to make sure you can hit the target and not send bullets all over into a crowd (on the street).

Not that you'd be spraying into a crowd.

But, if you can shoot with one gun, you should be able to do half-descent with any gun.

I agree requiring one to qualify with the gun one intends to carry would be pointless, counterproductive beauracracy, but I also think it's a good idea to become proficient in the gun you carry. I carry a Glock 26, and I also use that gun in centerfire pistol league shooting. This allows me to practice in a wide variety of stressful situations. I could probably get higher scores with a good 1911, or even my Glock 21, but to me that's not the point. The point is to be secure in my ability to use the gun upon which my life might one day depend.

Exactly- and that holds true for even those without permits. If you own a gun that you might actually use for whatever reason, you should become familiar with it's operation.
What scares me is those who decide to get a gun for home defense, and tuck it in a drawer in the bedroom and never quite get around to actually taking a few trips to the range.

But I don't even OWN a handgun. Never have. I just might someday.

I took one of Joel's first classes, and I only had one purpose--I wanted to find out whether to post my business or not. I have not been involved in the movement at all, and I had no idea what this was all about.

Honestly, I expected to see a bunch of cowboys and various people compensating for various inadequacies. I found a room full of normal folks, and in Joel I found a guy who did a good job of explaining what NOT to use a gun for.

I qualified with a revolver I borrowed from Joel. It was the first time I had shot a handgun since I was in the service in the late 80s.

If I had to have had a weapon prior to taking the class, I never would have. And I wouldn't have had the experience, and I probably would still have an unfavorable opinion of permit holders.

Long post short--don't create a barrier where there doesn't need to be one. You just don't know who you might exclude.

I bought one of those guns, a Glock 21 that came with three magazines, two of which had never been used. The third appeared to have been used once, and the gun appeared to have had no more than 10 rounds through it in its life. I suspect this was a bedroom gun for someone who's best hope would be that the sight of the gun would scare away the bad guy, because if he had to use it, he'd have probably ventilated his cat.

Half-decent also means half-bad, doesn't it?

I don't think that shooting a .22 target gun quite demonstrates predictable marksmanship with a centerfire caliber in a personal defense loading. It's just not a reasonable comparison -- heavier recoil, typically much shorter barrels, much heavier (DAO) triggers, tons of things that make the shot go way astray where a .22 target gun won't.

I'd buy that sentiment for pretty much anything .380 and up, but "one gun, all guns" doesn't add up when it it includes stuff like .22LR.

Half-descent with guns is still better than the 10% of descent Drivers on the road.

I get what you're saying. Maybe I should revise my statement to include a recoil factor? Well, I would say yes and no. While you can be scared of recoil, you still should have the basics on how to shoot a handgun down.

Can we all agree that gaining proficiency with your "reality" gun is beneficial, but legislating it is not?

I'd agree with that in a heartbeat.

I'd agree with the legislation angle on it, but I'd change "beneficial" to "important" or some other descriptor that made it more than just beneficial.

I only had one handgun at the time and now have several more with more planned.

I used my S&W 40VE and worked great for me but would not be my carry gun. It is my home defense handgun. Joel was good to talk to in the class about some ideas I had and thats how I came up with my always gun a Kel-tec P32 (If my wife gets a permit someday then it will be her's). I use a S&W 39-2 single stack 9mm for fall, winter and spring when I have a cover garmet.

Saintpaulguy: What an excellent post. I can't think of a better person to be writing to currently posted businesses, editorials to the papers, etc. than a person who has the experience you do. I can't help but think if these business owners would take the time like you did to take a class and find out more about us legally carrying folks, the signs would come down right quick. I admire you for doing just that.

It makes no difference to me what my students use in the carry class. If they are using something that I feel may be less than optimal, I do take the time to point out some stereotypical concerns about caliber, ease of carry etc. Heck, I would much rather have someone qualify with a decent reliable .22 than a Lorcin or Jennings

I do not interpret the MCPPA to require any marksmanship skills to get a permit. That may change with the new standards as of 10-1-2005, but the current law as I interpret only requires safe use and handling skills. If it required a specific proficiency/marksmanship/score, the suggested course of fire would be in the statute.

As it currently sits, I suspect that if you asked a dozen instructors what their course of fire entailed, you might get a dozen different answers. I focus on safe handling, loading, unloading, muzzle control etc. I do require all hits to be in the COM of a B27 target, but that is not precision accuracy by any means.

Just as the basic drivers test does not require NASCAR driving elements, the basic MCPPA test, if there is to be one, should be only very basic...enough to demonstrate to the instructor that the applicant, at least at that one date and time, has a reasonable and safe understanding of gun handling, some very basic actual shooting experience, and a fair understanding of the various legal ramifications of carrying, using etc.

Clearly I encourage further training...I think it is a duty to yourself and your loved ones, but there should not be many, if any, disqualifying hoops to jump through to be able to legally carry and protect oneself and family.

Since 2003 I have only told one student that they could not use the gun they brought to the class. It was a gal who brought a Lorcin 9mm that physically looked beat up and did not fire in the first two trigger pulls she tried; I simply stated that she should have it checked out before continuing and then let her use a model from my "arsenal".

I also like the idea of bringing many models to the class. I typically bring 12 different handguns...all potential carry items...and each with something different about them. We look and examine each and if a student wanted to try one ...well, that is why they are there. My students run about 70% very experienced shooters and 30% new. The 30% may or may not have any gun of their own before the class.

YMMV.