I have been sitting on this information for some time as (a) although it really bothered me; (b) I also needed to verify some information before "going public". I need to know if I am over reacting or if there is some reason to be concerned.

We all know that the permit class process in Minnesota requires a shooting component. The course of fire for that is intentionally (I believe) left vague, meaning that the course of fire that I require may well be different in number of rounds, distance etc. than another instructor may require. Yet, I have had my minimal course of fire approved as part of the business organization certification process, so I am 100% certain that so long as I do at least the minimal that I submitted to the BCA for approval, that I am in full compliance with the statute. Other instructors may argue that I require too much or too little, but that is not my concern, nor should it be any one else's either.

In the Winters, since I instruct in an area that does not have a suitable indoor range, I still nonetheless do have live fire shooting in all my classes because (a) I believe it to be the legal and (b) ethical thing to do. We just dress accordingly and have fun. So far I assume no one disagrees.

About a month ago it came to my attention that an instructor was conducting its shooting portion of the class in a manner that was not actual live fire. I had heard he was using pellet guns (so, not only was it not live fire, it was not even the gun the class participants owned). This bothered me as I felt that it was circumventing the law. However, my information was third or fourth hand, so I wanted to do some more research.

I have now learned that this instructor is conducting the live fire exerise with a .38 revolver loaded with just a primer and a rubber bullet; no powder charge. This means that the participants, particularly those that own and would carry semi-autos, are qualifying with something that is very outside what is a realistic shooting exercise.

Now, I don't fault the instructor for allowing a student to use alternative guns. I have from time to time sugested that a student try a different gun in my classes, but they are always fully functional guns with real rounds.

My first reaction is that this is a perversion of the law, and I believe not ethical, possibly illegal. This is far from a realistic shooting exercise.

The parent certifying organization was notified of this (by someone else that actually talked to some of the students that were involved.) The instructor apparently is stating that this is legal. Now, I had asked Jeff Luther about this and his position was that this is inappropriate, but wanted to get a ruling from Commissioner Campion. I am not aware that a ruling has been issued.

So, am I all bent out of shape about nothing?? Is is ethically proper to not have a live fire exercise? Is it even legal?

As usual: moderator/administrator hat off; I'm speaking here entirely for me, myself, and I, and no other individual or organization.

First of all, I want to recognize Paul for his seriousness, discretion, and ethical behavior in how he's handled this. I'd expect nothing less of him, of course, but it's still worth noting.

Secondly, my own take is that the legislature clearly intended the required shooting demonstration under the MCPPA to be, well, an actual shooting demonstration with a real handgun. While pellet guns certainly can do damage -- and good, for that matter -- that wasn't what the lege intended.

Nor, for that matter, was the use of ammo that doesn't have a powder charge.

Beyond that, while pellet guns, dummy guns, preposterously squbby loads, and other sorts of training aids are perfectly reasonable training aids, using them for the required shooting demonstration is, at the very least, shabby-looking. Not okay.

My own take: while the instructor community has neither the ability nor the authority to police itself, alerting the authorities -- specifically DPS and BCA -- to this sort of behavior is entirely appropriate if done with seriousness and discretion.

This isn't one instructor trying to get one up on another instructor or instructor organization -- this is one instructor (make that two: count me in) arguing as strongly as possible that this instructor and his certifying organization should clean up their act.

As I've said, I'm of the opinion that training should not be mandated by law, but made available. But we live under a law where training -- including a shooting demonstration -- is not only a good idea (which, IMHO, it is everywhere) but is legally required, and even if -- and I think it's unlikely -- that this particular bunch of shortcuts is lawful, it not only is bad, but looks bad.

Let's hope that Paul can soon report that this matter has been handled.

Although I have no "instructor hat" to wear, I have some experience as a weapons instructor/coach in a former life...

That being said, it's this posters opinion that anyone instructing/guiding would-be licensed handgun carriers through the licensing process has an obligation to ensure that every person clearly demonstrates a thorough knowledge of manual of arms (to include safety) and satisfactorily completes a somewhat challenging live fire excercise (with a real firearm loaded with real loads).

I have no patience for incorrect/unsafe conditions when firearms are involved and I have no problem (politley) correcting individuals that contribute to unsafe situations. Furthermore, and more relevantly, I believe that people who carry have an obligation to be at least minimally proficient with the tools they have at their disposal. Common sense should dictate that if a person will be carrying a real firearm with real rounds, said person should be 'signed off' with the same, not with some close facsimile thereof.

It's probably a good thing that I am *not* an instructor... I could very well have the highest failure rate around... Followed up with, of course, remedial training so as to avoid a second sub passing score...

The proficiency portion of my carry class was obnoxiously easy, I was not impressed...

My opinions... Flame if you must...

I agree on several of the issues. If a person will be firing a handgun in self-defense, then they should prove that they can fire that same handgun, recoil and all, on a firing line. They should fire a real handgun with real recoil and demonstrate proper safety with a real gun.

I also thought that the course of fire left something to be desired. I thought it was far too easy, personally, but that's just me.

Moderator Hat Firmly On Head

I don't want to see this thread turn into a commentary on the ease or difficulty of any one person's proficiency portion of their MCPPA class. I would simply note that many States have no such requirement at all (our near neighbor ND recently did away with the proficiency portion of thier requirements.) I fully support and agree that it is desirable to be more proficient than what might occur at an MCPPA class, but that is for another day ...another thread.

I would like the focus of this thread to be very narrow: i.e., is the use of a handgun that does not give a realistic experience with recoil, weight, muzzle flash, noise etc. really a legal or ethical thing to do.

I tend to disagree, if self-defense is a right and we believe in the second amendment, why should I have to prove to the state that I am competent before I exercise that right. Should we all have to pass a debate test before we exercise the right to free speech? Before you say it, speech can kill, ask Charles Manson (or many others) about it.

Am I in favor of training yes, should it be mandatory no, and all you have to do is look at the states that require no training like Alaska, Vermont, and North Dakota (etc) to see that it is not all that necessary.

Sorry, I was typing my message while phorvick was typing his.

Again, I am not disagreeing with that sentiment. But the narrow question here is...Since we are required to conduct a shooting component under the MCPPA, is is legal or ethical to do so using anything less than a fully functioning handgun with the associated noise, recoil, weight, muzzle flash etc etc.

Legal - Perhaps (evidently)

Ethical - Not even a little bit (IMHO)

It depends on if you believe the law is a just law. I would argue that the law is not just, as it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution does not state the right to keep and bear arm, only after you have paid the required fees, taken lots of training, and passed a shooting qualification with the firearm you plan to bear, shall not be infringed.

If for instance you were required to pass a State test before you spoke publicly would that law be just and moral? No, and I would think your moral obligation would be to work to change the law, failing that, to resist it as best as you are able.

Bottom line; is it ethical to defy an unjust law? Yes.

I support that -- and I also support discussion the issues around real proficiency demonstrations on the Forum, but in another thread.

I agree with any pro 2A arguements. But, we have to keep in mind, we have laws that we have to deal with first.

Personally, I believe that carrying a gun (CCW) mostly benefits liberals. They created the melting pot of crime we know as urban areas. Everyone will have to keep in mind that these people probably have not seen a gun, let alone touch one.

Maybe there should be more training involved. But have a apptitude test, and allow testing out of the training, for those who have used guns.

As for the original question, I do not believe that anything less then an actual gun was what the lawmakers had in mind. I don't care if it's your gun or the instructor's, but you need to be shooting a gun.

The training is obviously so the person can know what to expect in shooting, dealing with it, and keeping everything as safe as it can be. Taking it a step further, maybe people should shoot without hearing protection. In a real life shooting, there isn't going to be hearing protection. What is a person going to do when they hear how loud their gun really is?

phorvick, you may have accidentally opened a can of worms.

It was no accident

I apologize for commenting off topic in the thread. I didn't mean to stir things up that way.

If you really want “REAL CONDITIONS” perhaps, the instructor should fire their firearm at the student while the student attempts to hit the target? “What is a person going to do when they hear” bullets whizzing past their head?



Agreed!