I qualified my handgun, yesterday, and found htat the qualifying has changed.
Now you have to:
Shoot 6 round strong hand at 9ft.
Shoot 12 round strong hand at 15ft.
Shoot 12 rounds strong hand at 21ft
You must score at least a 70% on a B27 target.
If you hit the target outside the 7 area you have to attempt to requalify at some other time.
I qualified my handgun, yesterday, and found htat the qualifying has changed.
Now you have to:
Shoot 6 round strong hand at 9ft.
Shoot 12 round strong hand at 15ft.
Shoot 12 rounds strong hand at 21ft
You must score at least a 70% on a B27 target.
If you hit the target outside the 7 area you have to attempt to requalify at some other time.
The Nevada make great sense to me whereas the dumb California has a 15 yard qualification which brings to bear the question of what situation is a CCW permittee expecting to shooting at 15 yards? Other than a target of course...
NV ccw instructors can set their own requirements, as long as they meet the minimum. Consequently, some have made it more difficult, while making you buy their overpriced ammo, so you have to keep buying ammo until you pass (imo).
Not saying that is the motive behind your instructor using those guidelines. But they can do it for whatever reason they want. I used my own ammo and shot two handed with no special requirements
The Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NVSCA) establishes the minimum training
standards required for the issue and renewal of carry concealed handgun permits (CCW)
...
All of these standards are a minimum requirement, nothing precludes an instructor from providing additional training.
Could an instructor use a 3" bullseye target at, lets say, 50 yards and require a 70% or greater score? No, I think not.A humanoid style target such as the B27, B21 or FBI Q shall be used.
NV ccw instructors can set their own requirements, as long as they meet the minimum. Consequently, some have made it more difficult, while making you buy their overpriced ammo, so you have to keep buying ammo until you pass (imo).
Not saying that is the motive behind your instructor using those guidelines. But they can do it for whatever reason they want. I used my own ammo and shot two handed with no special requirements
For part of our training we shot 5 yards with eyes closed, and I am not ikidding. Everybody hit the target. :biggrin:
Uh, you might want to review the NEVADA CONCEALED HANDGUN TRAINING STANDARDS, Revised May 24, 2010 by the NVSCA. See http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Docs/CCW/Training_and_Instructor_Standards_2010.pdf
It does say:
Note it says instructors can provide "additional TRAINING." It doesn't say instructors can make additional requirements.
For example, it says: Could an instructor use a 3" bullseye target at, lets say, 50 yards and require a 70% or greater score? No, I think not.
Another example, could an instructor add 100 questions to the written exam and virtually require a law degree to pass it? No, I think not.
Bottom line: If your instructor is adding some goofy requirement, I recommend notifying the NSCA and finding another, more reasonable, instructor.
And/or, notify me. I am the first civilian to be appointed to the NSCA Sub Committee (appointed last year) - and I could bring it to the committee's attention.
Exactly. These are minimum standards. An instructor can have tougher standards, and many do as we see.
You stated that it says an instructor could not use a 3" bullseye, etc. Where in the doc you attached does it say that? I missed it.
If your instructor is adding some goofy requirement, don't be a child and complain. Just go somewhere else. I called about 6 different people to make sure I took my class from someone who was competent. Many wanted me to qualify using higher than minimum standards. I could have passed anyway, but skipped on principle (plus, they were usually more expensive).
It may not say you can add additional requirements, but no law gives me the right to open carry in NV either.
A humanoid style target such as the B27, B21 or FBI Q shall be used.
Buddy,
Methinks you're missing the point. And you certainly did miss where it says that! Simply look on page two of the NSCA Training Standards:
By the way, you can read the entire document here: http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/Docs/CCW/Training_and_Instructor_Standards_2010.pdf
It does NOT say an instructor can impose tougher standards.
It DOES say instructors can provide additional training.
There is a big difference between the two statements (above.)
In accordance with the law and the training standards, a person should be certified/qualified if he/she passes the minimum standards.
Additional training is a great thing, but you must bear in mind that some folks simply cannot - and have NO need to - undergo more rigorous training.
Would you deny certification to an elderly person simply because he/she cannot qualify to your higher standarrds? Using the "3" bullseye @ 50 yds" example (extreme example to clarify a point), who cares if a student can hit a 3" bullseye at 50 yds? We are concerned with competency and proficiency at closer "defensive" ranges.
And that makes perfectly good sense. Have you not read of the untold numbers of law abiding citizens (most without the benefit of CCW permits or extensive training) that have used firearms to thwart crime and save lives? Virtually none of them needed "minute of rabbit head" accuracy at 50 yds.
Additional training, over and above the minimum standards, is a good thing - but instructors should not make it mandatory because that (at a minimum) is contrary to the intent of Nevada's "shall issue" law/system.
If a student meets the minimum requirement outlined by law/NSCA standards, and/or
If an instructor requires a higher standard of accuracy than required by law/NSCA, and/or
If an instructor imposes a time limit, and/or
If an instructor uses a target significantly different than the required target, and
If the instructor refuses to certify the student,
THEN I would recommend the student notify the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte that the instructor is not complying with the law and/or NSCA standards.
Nevada is a shall issue state - meaning if a person meets the requirements outlined by law and the NSCA, said person shall be issued a permit.
Again, it does NOT say a person must meet the requirements of the law/NSCA AND the requirements added by an individual instructor.
It is not "childish" to complain when you've paid your fee and expect to comply with the law and standards, only to be told/denied because an instructor has added unlawful requirements. Again, additional training (beyond minimums) is good - but additional requirements are bad.
This is my personal opinion.
However, I am also a member of the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte (the first civilian member ever appointed) .
Additionally, I think you misunderstand open carry in Nevada. You do NOT need a law to give you the right to open carry in Nevada. There is no law prohibiting open carry, therefore you can open carry. There is a difference.
Everyone is encouraged to get additional/advanced training - and practice!
Do you live in Nevada? I urge you to study the law, training standards, etc. Get facts!
The other ranges were more intererested in safety than in accuracy.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for having a good blaster at your side.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?