Skip to comments.Gun instructors hope measure is shot down(CO)
Posted on 03/05/2012 4:15:37 AM PST by marktwain
A proposed bill that would allow law-abiding Colorado gun owners to carry a concealed firearm without a concealed carry permit would be dangerous and would shoot down important gun training, two local firearms instructors said Sunday.
Leonard Jimenez, president of the Pueblo Municipal Shooters, and Patrick Watts, a retired Arizona sheriff's deputy and firearms instructor, said education is the only safe way for people to understand concealed weapons laws.
Watts held a four-hour seminar on the subject at the shooter's club Sunday.
The state's current law prohibits carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a weapon on school, college or university grounds with certain exceptions.
HB1092, introduced by Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, on Jan. 17, would allow anyone who may legally possess a handgun and who carries a concealed handgun the same rights and is subject to the same limitations as a concealed handgun permit holder.
Jimenez said about 90 percent of the people who have firearms other than avid hunters and sportsmen know very little about how to handle them safely.
"There is more to shooting a gun than just pointing it and pulling the trigger," Jimenez said.
"I feel that if the Legislature allows everyone to carry a gun without any type of training, it could present a major problem."
Watts also said he was against the proposed bill.
"I was against a similar law that was passed in Arizona a few years ago. Training and education is a necessity," Watts said.
"People need to be educated and just having a gun doesn't necessarily solve problems, but it damn sure creates them if you don't have proper training."
Jimenez, also a firearms instructor, said most of the students he teaches own firearms and have decided to take a class to better prepare themselves should the occasion come that they need to defend themselves.
Jimenez said by removing the education step to allow people to carry firearms, more people may be apt to carry a gun in their car or in their pocket and feel that they are adequately prepared.
"But what would one do in a stressful situation should a need arise to protect themselves and their home or if they are somewhere out in public?" Jimenez asked.
Watts, who has lived in Pueblo for the past five years, said there are several professional and well-educated people who think they know a lot about guns and the law, but don't.
He said the average person who is concerned about crime and wants to carry a concealed weapon have a false mindset.
They think, I got a gun, don't screw with me. I'll show you who's boss, Watts said.
"They don't know what the law says about when you can and can't use a weapon in self-defense."
Watts said people have a very stilted view based on what other people say.
"They believe everything that is on the Internet," Watts said.
"I am the most pro-Second Amendment person you will ever talk to . . . But when it comes to carrying a weapon with the mindset you are going to use it for self-defense, you better make sure you know how to use it properly and by the law."
Both ar firearm instructors and want their pay from the bureaucracy.
So you mean to say they’re talking about every day citizens, not cops, who don’t know how to handle firearms?
One requirement doesn’t necessarily negate the other.
They could always mandate a certain number of hours for training ,at low cost or no cost, to buy a gun, but still have no ‘license’ requirement to own or carry it.
But, I guess that would present a dilemma in and of itself.
Although you wouldn’t need a license, would that require you to provide ‘proof’ that you had training? And would it be enforceable, by law, if you didn’t?
That said, a gun is an amazingly simple and device, and like a fire extinguisher, is quite useful to an intelligent person whether they've received formal training or not.
I put these two clowns in the category of individual who thinks firearms are reserved for “people like them”.
“He said the average person who is concerned about crime and wants to carry a concealed weapon have a false mindset.
They think, I got a gun, don’t screw with me. I’ll show you who’s boss, Watts said.”
That would explain the hundreds of murders done daily in Arizona. Why, just a couple days ago, I emptied my little J-frame by shooting bad drivers as I went down I-10. With only 5 shots, my revolver was empty after 2 miles...
The author of the article needs to learn to write. If Colorado allows unregulated concealed carry, people won’t need to better understand concealed carry laws. Learning to safely handle your gun is a separate issue.
OK now I get it: No permit required, but the laws regarding concealed carry remain. (Read first, then post.)
While I strongly support the idea of un-licensed carry, training is essential. Passing the test for a permit is usually easy enough even though the person passing the exam is far from “qualified” to actually use the firearm. I’m sure you’ve all seen people that you cringe at at the range. If you are skilled in the use of firearms maybe offering a little assistance would be in order. Of course at the range you would ask very politely. LOL! I wish they would pass an Arizona type bill in Nevada. You have to qualify with whatever type of handgun you wish to carry. Automatic pistol or revolver or both and it will be shown on your permit. Thankfully the stopped requiring the listing of each individual weapon and now just generalization of the type.
If you only found 5 bad drivers in a 2 mile stretch you must not have been in Phoenix. LOL! You’d need a lot bigger capacity “tool” there.
That said, I've received several times more instructional hours over the years than any police officer gets, and by better instructors. I just don't want a bureaucrat to dictate to me what instruction I "need".
I totally agree. There would be a lot of people carrying who got their training from watching how guns are handled on TV.
I can train any reasonably intelligent person how to safely operate a double-action revolver in less than 2 minutes, without live firing it. They can read the laws on their own.
CCW is not law enforcement, nor is it precision shooting. for most it is the ability to draw and fire at point blank range.
More training is better, but not essential.
Required training takes on a life of its own (take a look at getting a driver's license in Europe), and fairly soon you are looking at a 40 hr course and thousands of dollars, in order to 'join the club'.
Oh, you mean like sideways shooting? LOL! You’ve seen the training films of the al queda camps? If (BIG IF) I were one of the trainers at those camps and saw one of the “students” shooting that way he/she would get a 9 to the back of the head not questions asked and the rest of the “students” would never again go “gangsta” during the training. Just sayin’.
European drivers license. Yup. My wife has family in Germany and when her cousin told me what was involved, I couldn’t believe the amount of hours involved and the amount of money required. He didn’t have a radio in his car because it would have been taxed additionally too. It truly is a different world there with all the gubmint intrusion in to your everyday life. When her cousin visited us, he could not understand why/how we had 3 cars. Completely baffled him.
Oh, and to stay on topic, gun carry there? Not a chance. EVER!
Don’t be silly!
Guys always read the instructions first!......
Having handled guns off and on over the years, including basic training, I thought the training would be a formality.
I WAS WRONG!
The training is invaluable on all levels!
Knowing the law is NOT the same as understanding how to interact with law enforcement.
I did not know the importance of point shooting, or the best ways to improve control.
I was not aware of key considerations in carrying concealed and home defense.
There is much, much, more, but you owe it to yourself and those around you to take the training.
A training requirement would fall under the “well regulated” part of the second amendment. I think it is fair to argue about whether the training requirement does any good in practice, but it should be a perfectly constitutional law.
Then it should be included as part of compulsory education, not as an infringement of the right.
Do you really believe that our Founders wanted the government to dictate that you couldn't keep or bear arms until the government was satisfied? Such requirements are not in the least Constitutional.
The government should have nothing to do with “well regulated,” as concerns training. I’m sure they consider all the federal firearms laws currently on the books to be the true, modern-day meaning of “well regulated.”
The fewer laws, the better.