SC CWP range test question


AndeyHall

New member
For those of you who have taken the class required for the CWP, what does the range test entail? ie how many shots, distances etc.

Thanks in advance for any info.
You can probably close your eyes each time before you shoot and still easily pass. Passing a CWP range test says absolutely nothing about your marksmanship. That being said, I do not believe training should be mandated by the state at all.
 

AndeyHall

New member
Our instructor counted the number of holes out side the target and subtracted from 50. He did not count all of the holes. :)
I think that's what most do. You could make a decent sized hole in the center with your first 25 at close range and then deliberately missed the target completely with your last 25 and he would have been none the wiser.
 

kerb

pinche gringo
For those of you who have taken the class required for the CWP, what does the range test entail? ie how many shots, distances etc.

Thanks in advance for any info.

The answer is, "it depends". The law just says that you have to demonstrate proficiency. It is up to the instructor's discretion as to what that actually means.
 

kelcarry

New member
I think South Carolina should do away with the live fire requirement in the training course. Let the instructor decide if they want to substitute some other method such as airgun shooting, dryfire exercises, blank fire training, beamhit or other laser simulated training, or airsoft training.

Good to hear from my cigar friend G50AE. I agree with his comment for one main reason---you can "qualify" at the target shooting part of the permit training with ANY firearm, which may not even be your CC firearm of choice. I, quite frankly, qualified with a 22. Not knowing what the target shoot would really be about, I figured I would take my 22 instead of a 38 revolver because I sure knew that the 22 would be a very easy qualifying firearm. Even if I took my 38, I currently CC a totally different firearm. If there is one thing that I felt was the real reason for the target shooting part of this it was the degree to which the instructor watches over you and critiques your handling of the firearm during a "live fire" scenario. The use of airsoft or alternative can also be used to perform that function. The only problem with this reply would be the fact that all those applying would have to purchase an airsoft or equivalent or the instructor would have to have a supply of them that he would have to purchase. There really is no perfect answer and if I had to bet, the target shoot part of the CCWP process will not change, even if it is not perfect.
 

John Canuck

New member
The easy answer is to remove the requirement to "qualify" to exercise a basic, inalienable right. Lot's of states allow the carry of a firearm with no training, permit or nannying and it works for them. Let's get SC with the program.
 

jhodge83

New member
You can probably close your eyes each time before you shoot and still easily pass. Passing a CWP range test says absolutely nothing about your marksmanship. That being said, I do not believe training should be mandated by the state at all.

when i took mine back in '11, there was a woman that failed w/ a .38 revolver.

i went 50/50 on mine, but if i was smarter i would have shot my hi-power 9mm instead of my compact .45.
 

kelcarry

New member
The easy answer is to remove the requirement to "qualify" to exercise a basic, inalienable right. Lot's of states allow the carry of a firearm with no training, permit or nannying and it works for them. Let's get SC with the program.
I am all for 2A but my answer to the above quote is as follows: You say that lots of states do not require any training or nannying etal and "IT WORKS FOR THEM". If you happen to be that person that it DOES NOT WORK FOR and you are injured because of total stupidity and lack of knowledge about firearm practices with a loaded discharging firearm---what then? If you need to take a driving test to obtain a license to be on the road in a car, is it really that ridiculous to expect you to show some degree of competency for a permit to conceal carry a firearm?
I was at a range recently where a couple were having a problem with a semi 380 and came over to me for help. The problem? The cartridges were in the mag backwards. You want people like this to purchase a firearm and not at least have someone watch them discharge a loaded firearm before they can walk around CC? Maybe in the wilds of say Montana, where you learned about firearms from your dad--it works for them, but in more urbanized areas or states where their first firearm is the one they just purchased and are now CC--you dismiss some demonstration of ability or knowledge with a loaded discharging firearm?
 

AndeyHall

New member
The easy answer is to remove the requirement to "qualify" to exercise a basic, inalienable right. Lot's of states allow the carry of a firearm with no training, permit or nannying and it works for them. Let's get SC with the program.
I am all for 2A but my answer to the above quote is as follows: You say that lots of states do not require any training or nannying etal and "IT WORKS FOR THEM". If you happen to be that person that it DOES NOT WORK FOR and you are injured because of total stupidity and lack of knowledge about firearm practices with a loaded discharging firearm---what then? If you need to take a driving test to obtain a license to be on the road in a car, is it really that ridiculous to expect you to show some degree of competency for a permit to conceal carry a firearm?
I was at a range recently where a couple were having a problem with a semi 380 and came over to me for help. The problem? The cartridges were in the mag backwards. You want people like this to purchase a firearm and not at least have someone watch them discharge a loaded firearm before they can walk around CC? Maybe in the wilds of say Montana, where you learned about firearms from your dad--it works for them, but in more urbanized areas or states where their first firearm is the one they just purchased and are now CC--you dismiss some demonstration of ability or knowledge with a loaded discharging firearm?
If there was an amendment in the Constitution that said "the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed", them yes I would find licensing drivers ridiculous. Yes there are safety concerns, but that's why rather than REQUIRING people to get training, make it an everyday part of society to educate children and adults about the proper use of firearms. When you give the states the ability to require permitting, you allow them to be able to pick and choose who has the ability to take advantage of their 2nd amendment right. What if you had a single, underclass mom or dad who works 2 jobs and between those jobs he worked 7 days a week. They do not have the time nor the money to take a day off and spend $50 plus the cost of the class to go through that process. The state is then denying them of their right to bear arms based on their current situation. How do you justify that?
 

tcox4freedom

New member
You shouldn't have any problems. I've gotten everybody through; even if they had never shot a firearm before the class.

You get to shoot 50 practice rounds that take you through all the distance & time requirements before you have to qualify. (This is where your coach or instructor can help you further if you need it.)


-
 

John Canuck

New member
I am all for 2A but my answer to the above quote is as follows: You say that lots of states do not require any training or nannying etal and "IT WORKS FOR THEM". If you happen to be that person that it DOES NOT WORK FOR and you are injured because of total stupidity and lack of knowledge about firearm practices with a loaded discharging firearm---what then? If you need to take a driving test to obtain a license to be on the road in a car, is it really that ridiculous to expect you to show some degree of competency for a permit to conceal carry a firearm?
I was at a range recently where a couple were having a problem with a semi 380 and came over to me for help. The problem? The cartridges were in the mag backwards. You want people like this to purchase a firearm and not at least have someone watch them discharge a loaded firearm before they can walk around CC? Maybe in the wilds of say Montana, where you learned about firearms from your dad--it works for them, but in more urbanized areas or states where their first firearm is the one they just purchased and are now CC--you dismiss some demonstration of ability or knowledge with a loaded discharging firearm?

You're entire memo is predicated on the notion that the silly course required for anyone in SC to excercise a fundamental, inalienable right actually does provide value to the public safety. I contest that it does not.

No one else has dared answer these two questions, so maybe you can help. In Virginia (and many other states) a person may enter a gun store, buy a gun, bullets, and a holster, walk out that day, load it, strap it on and walk around openly carrying it without government training, permission or intervention.

Compared to Virginia, South Carolina is Montana.

Virginia Population - 8.1M
Fairfax County - 1.1M
Virginia Beach County - 437K
Prince William County- 402K

South Carolina Population - 4.7M
Greenville County - 451K
Richland County - 384K
Charleston County - 350K

The questions are these:

1. Who trains the people how to use a gun, in parts of the country where the government doesn't do it for them? (Keep in mind that we aren't always talking about remote areas of unpopulated America, but of areas with equal or greater population density)
2. What is the correlation between states where training is required by the state, and ones that don't with regard to negligent discharge? (I pick NDs because that seems to be what you are concerned with, but feel free to select any other relevant factor)


Above edited to add a quotation from the person to whom the questions were directed. I realized I just replied without quoting. My apologies for the late edit.
 

kelcarry

New member
If there was an amendment in the Constitution that said "the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed", them yes I would find licensing drivers ridiculous. Yes there are safety concerns, but that's why rather than REQUIRING people to get training, make it an everyday part of society to educate children and adults about the proper use of firearms. When you give the states the ability to require permitting, you allow them to be able to pick and choose who has the ability to take advantage of their 2nd amendment right. What if you had a single, underclass mom or dad who works 2 jobs and between those jobs he worked 7 days a week. They do not have the time nor the money to take a day off and spend $50 plus the cost of the class to go through that process. The state is then denying them of their right to bear arms based on their current situation. How do you justify that?

Good argument, although my example of some of the people out there who have no idea about what they are handling and even less about what they are shooting is very scary. Your idea that every part of society should somehow educate is just a lot of words that dismiss reality of gun ownership, particularly as it relates to this thread, which is dealing with concealed carry. I sure hate to use this argument since I find it salacious when used in the context of dismissing 2A with the "colonial times and long rifles mean nothing these days" crap, but I have serious doubts that our founding fathers, when using the language "shall not be infringed", meant that anyone who is incompetent, ignorant or stupid in firearm usage should be allowed to CC a firearm. Own one on their property--yes. Find it necessary to throw out the garbage we have now in DC--yes. Just walk the streets--no.
 

John Canuck

New member
Good argument, although my example of some of the people out there who have no idea about what they are handling and even less about what they are shooting is very scary. Your idea that every part of society should somehow educate is just a lot of words that dismiss reality of gun ownership, particularly as it relates to this thread, which is dealing with concealed carry. I sure hate to use this argument since I find it salacious when used in the context of dismissing 2A with the "colonial times and long rifles mean nothing these days" crap, but I have serious doubts that our founding fathers, when using the language "shall not be infringed", meant that anyone who is incompetent, ignorant or stupid in firearm usage should be allowed to CC a firearm. Own one on their property--yes. Find it necessary to throw out the garbage we have now in DC--yes. Just walk the streets--no.

What do you think they meant with the second amendment? It seems pretty clear to me, and the gun grabbers seem to interpret it in a completly different way. What do you think it means?

Also, I realized I hadn't quoted your post with my rebuttal above. Apologies if it wasn't clear that my questions were directed at you.
 

kerb

pinche gringo
The easy answer is to remove the requirement to "qualify" to exercise a basic, inalienable right. Lot's of states allow the carry of a firearm with no training, permit or nannying and it works for them. Let's get SC with the program.

I could agree with that. Provided there are stiff penalties for killing or injuring someone due to negligence. If you hurt someone and can't demonstrate proficiency, let there be harsh punishment.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
 

John Canuck

New member
I could agree with that. Provided there are stiff penalties for killing or injuring someone due to negligence. If you hurt someone and can't demonstrate proficiency, let there be harsh punishment.

What should the penalty be for being negligent and killing someone? Should it be the same now even though there is an 8 hour course required to exercise a right, or should you get a pass because you took that course?

Remember Crystal Smith? Link Removed

Apparently, being a teacher of this fantastic course doesn't make you any less negligent.
 

AndeyHall

New member
If there was an amendment in the Constitution that said "the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed", them yes I would find licensing drivers ridiculous. Yes there are safety concerns, but that's why rather than REQUIRING people to get training, make it an everyday part of society to educate children and adults about the proper use of firearms. When you give the states the ability to require permitting, you allow them to be able to pick and choose who has the ability to take advantage of their 2nd amendment right. What if you had a single, underclass mom or dad who works 2 jobs and between those jobs he worked 7 days a week. They do not have the time nor the money to take a day off and spend $50 plus the cost of the class to go through that process. The state is then denying them of their right to bear arms based on their current situation. How do you justify that?

Good argument, although my example of some of the people out there who have no idea about what they are handling and even less about what they are shooting is very scary. Your idea that every part of society should somehow educate is just a lot of words that dismiss reality of gun ownership, particularly as it relates to this thread, which is dealing with concealed carry. I sure hate to use this argument since I find it salacious when used in the context of dismissing 2A with the "colonial times and long rifles mean nothing these days" crap, but I have serious doubts that our founding fathers, when using the language "shall not be infringed", meant that anyone who is incompetent, ignorant or stupid in firearm usage should be allowed to CC a firearm. Own one on their property--yes. Find it necessary to throw out the garbage we have now in DC--yes. Just walk the streets--no.
Well the fact of the matter is the founding fathers aren't here to defend or explain "what they meant". So we can sit here and "I think they meant this" and "I think they meant that"-"" day long, but in my opinion it should be "interpreted" just as it reads. Because when you start interpreting, everyone is going to have a different interpretation. Who's right? I say me, and you say you, and everyone else is going to say they are.

But my fiancé had pretty much the same concerns you do. She didn't think just anyone should be able to carry a gun. She's not very fluent on how to use a lot of guns and she's not near as involved in the recreational or political aspect that I am. So I asked her "would you carry a gun around with you right now?" She said no, and when I asked why, she said because she would not feel comfortable since she probably wouldn't even know how to use it. So then I just explained to her why she just proved my point that there would not be any more danger in letting people carry without training than with. Because the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who want to take on that type of responsibility are interested in learning as much as they can about it. And most people who are not comfortable or competent in using a gun will most likely choose not to carry one.

A lot of people have this notion that we are trying to "force" guns on people by passing this type of law. All I want is for people to have the CHOICE...the right to choose self defense over vulnerability. I still have respect for anyone who does not want to carry a gun or does not want to own one. However I have zero respect for anyone that does not want me to carry or own a gun of any type.
 

kelcarry

New member
Because the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who want to take on that type of responsibility are interested in learning as much as they can about it. And most people who are not comfortable or competent in using a gun will most likely choose not to carry one.

I disagree. That is not "the fact of the matter". You are making a very big assumption that you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. Look I agree with you on 2A, but there has got to be some way to (and I hate to use the word control just like you) to control the ability of the totally irresponsible and mentally incompetent from just walking around among us with concealed weapons under a CCWP. I see what is happening in NY, where this "CONTROL" is, in and of itself, out of control and I guess I am agreeing with you in the end--there may never be a way to have some control that does not involve those very people 2A is trying to eliminate from our lives. It just scares me to see some people out there and have thoughts that they are a mini-second away from killing me because "they heard a voice" or did not know their was a cartridge in the chamber when they pulled it out to show someone.
 

John Canuck

New member
The open list of question with regard to flawed premises continues to grow.

How are the people controlled in states where the government doesn't do it?
 

AndeyHall

New member
Because the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who want to take on that type of responsibility are interested in learning as much as they can about it. And most people who are not comfortable or competent in using a gun will most likely choose not to carry one.

I disagree. That is not "the fact of the matter". You are making a very big assumption that you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. Look I agree with you on 2A, but there has got to be some way to (and I hate to use the word control just like you) to control the ability of the totally irresponsible and mentally incompetent from just walking around among us with concealed weapons under a CCWP. I see what is happening in NY, where this "CONTROL" is, in and of itself, out of control and I guess I am agreeing with you in the end--there may never be a way to have some control that does not involve those very people 2A is trying to eliminate from our lives. It just scares me to see some people out there and have thoughts that they are a mini-second away from killing me because "they heard a voice" or did not know their was a cartridge in the chamber when they pulled it out to show someone.
The answer to that is you will never control the irresponsible and mentally unstable. But does that mean that if you can't come up with an effective method to do so you should restrict the people who are responsible and mentally stable? And I think you missed my point about people wanting to educate themselves on gun safety. In my opinion it is a sense of responsibility that drives the majority of people people who carry a gun to do so. A responsibility to do what is necessary to defend myself, my family, my friends, and others who may not be able to defend themselves. I think the people who lack the responsibility to educate and train themselves on proficient and safe gun use probably also lack the responsibility to carry in the first place. We need to lose this concept that the people who carry do so because they have this fantasy of getting in some sort of "wild west shootout". Rather than putting so much effort into trying to "control" who can get a gun, put that effort into prosecuting and burying those who misuse them.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,693
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top