How would you design a CCW qual?

[Gawernator]

Seriously, I am shocked by the level of marksmanship I see in the CCW classes I have taken or at the static range. In one county, one person could not hit the paper, and their best shot was the paper clip holding the paper. I am not making this up. Another was range qual by the vendor, and they worked hard with her prior to the qual. Even then, not even close. My feelings are that if you are going to carry a firearm for self-defense, you need to be a competent shooter at varying distances and be able to shoot rapidly while shooting decent center mass shots. Therefore, you need to pass a rigorous competency test. I think going out to 25 yards is unnecessary because, realistically, how likely are you to have to defend yourself at that distance? Training is your best friend when it comes to self-defense, whether it is advanced training classes or dry-firing practice to build your competence up to and after the range qual.

Was this a bay area class? I was kind of surprised that everyone in my CCW class was at least okay. Some of the shooters were like John wick

 

[Deleted member 16735]

I'm surprised how many people voted "rigorous". This is a Constitutional right, not a privilege. Can't tell you how many old grandmas I sold a firearm to who just wanted something to be able to carry to keep themselves safe. Should an 80 year old lady be denied the right to defend herself because she can't qualify expert marksman with her little 380? At the absolute MOST, I'd say pass a basic criminal history check to get a carry permit. Ideally, a carry permit doesn't even exist because you shouldn't need permission to exercise your rights.

The supreme court was very clear on the limits of the "right" to bear arms, and granny taking training and a practical test is constitutional according to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. I should add though that the practical shooting portion of the test is a joke, a B27 target at 10 yards. A target 23 inches wide. The money factor is an issue and I explained above how I would like to see than changed, but there's no supreme court that has ever said that a "right" guarantees you access to the subject thing.


From Kavanaugh's opinion in Bruen:

Those shall-issue regimes may require a li-
cense applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al.
as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime,
those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discre-
tion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of
some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners
acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitu-
tionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied chal-
lenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in
that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51.
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ ob-
jective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand-
guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec-
tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-
issue States.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

I'm surprised how many people voted "rigorous". This is a Constitutional right, not a privilege. Can't tell you how many old grandmas I sold a firearm to who just wanted something to be able to carry to keep themselves safe. Should an 80 year old lady be denied the right to defend herself because she can't qualify expert marksman with her little 380? At the absolute MOST, I'd say pass a basic criminal history check to get a carry permit. Ideally, a carry permit doesn't even exist because you shouldn't need permission to exercise your rights.

My bigger concern is a lot of these young guys who watched binged the John Wick and series and now want a CCW. Or the people like the "peacekeeper".

Yeah. I don’t like the cost barrier either. I also feel like it’d need to be scaled for some women, elderly, or disabled folks, who are more likely to avoid conflict and draw out of absolute necessity or vulnerability.

J

Post in thread 'How would you design a CCW qual?'

May 10, 2026

Yeah. I don’t like the cost barrier either. I also feel like it’d need to be scaled for some women, elderly, or disabled folks, who are more likely to avoid conflict and draw out of absolute necessity or vulnerability.

I think my general concern is that now so many folks are getting CCW’s and I’m running into a lot of younger guys who have that “eager” energy - and can’t keep keep their groups in the 8 ring at 7 yards.

The folks who I’ve been training with and one of the deputies at the sheriff’s range said they see it as well.

I really don’t want folks to give California any...

• john_marsten_1873

 

[ReaperCustom45]

The supreme court was very clear on the limits of the "right" to bear arms, and granny taking training and a practical test is constitutional according to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. I should add though that the practical shooting portion of the test is a joke, a B27 target at 10 yards. A target 23 inches wide. The money factor is an issue and I explained above how I would like to see than changed, but there's no supreme court that has ever said that a "right" guarantees you access to the subject thing.


From Kavanaugh's opinion in Bruen:

Those shall-issue regimes may require a li-
cense applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al.
as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime,
those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discre-
tion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of
some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners
acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitu-
tionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied chal-
lenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in
that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51.
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ ob-
jective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand-
guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec-
tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-
issue States.

Supreme Court is sometimes wrong and influenced by personal agendas. Any right that requires someone to get a permit to exercise it is no longer a right, it's a privilege. Carrying a gun is a right, no matter what the government or supreme court says.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Supreme Court is sometimes wrong and influenced by personal agendas. Any right that requires someone to get a permit to exercise it is no longer a right, it's a privilege. Carrying a gun is a right, no matter what the government or supreme court says.

Are you for felons out of jail being able to carry and also "mentally defective" having that right? Just wanting to see how far it goes for you personally

 

[ReaperCustom45]

J

Post in thread 'How would you design a CCW qual?'

May 10, 2026

Yeah. I don’t like the cost barrier either. I also feel like it’d need to be scaled for some women, elderly, or disabled folks, who are more likely to avoid conflict and draw out of absolute necessity or vulnerability.

I think my general concern is that now so many folks are getting CCW’s and I’m running into a lot of younger guys who have that “eager” energy - and can’t keep keep their groups in the 8 ring at 7 yards.

The folks who I’ve been training with and one of the deputies at the sheriff’s range said they see it as well.

I really don’t want folks to give California any...

• john_marsten_1873

Then you run into the problem of it not being equal/fair, same issue we have in the military with the standards being lowered for women just so they can pass. That ain't a good solution. As with any right, there are going to be some people who probably "shouldn't" be allowed to exercise it, but that's the price we pay for freedom. Not everyone is going to be expertly trained, just like not everyone is going to refrain from saying horrible things to other people. You get the good with the bad, freedom is about trusting people to exercise their rights responsibly. Not everyone will do so, but that's up to them, and if they screw up, that's on them too. Either everyone gets to enjoy rights, or no one does. We can't pick and choose based on who we think is responsible/educated enough.

Are you for felons out of jail being able to carry and also "mentally defective" having that right? Just wanting to see how far it goes for you personally

If a felon is out of jail, it should mean they have paid their debt and can be trusted in society again. If that's the case, then yes, they should have all their rights restored. Mentally defective is tricky, because as we have seen with many "red flag" states, that is something that can very easily be abused. Who decides someone is genuinely severely mentally defective vs angry ex-wife says he is mentally unstable. That's a whole other issue.

 

[Gawernator]

My bigger concern is a lot of these young guys who watched binged the John Wick and series and now want a CCW. Or the people like the "peacekeeper".

J

Post in thread 'How would you design a CCW qual?'

May 10, 2026

Yeah. I don’t like the cost barrier either. I also feel like it’d need to be scaled for some women, elderly, or disabled folks, who are more likely to avoid conflict and draw out of absolute necessity or vulnerability.

I think my general concern is that now so many folks are getting CCW’s and I’m running into a lot of younger guys who have that “eager” energy - and can’t keep keep their groups in the 8 ring at 7 yards.

The folks who I’ve been training with and one of the deputies at the sheriff’s range said they see it as well.

I really don’t want folks to give California any...

• john_marsten_1873

"We need to restrict free speech because every now and then a person makes a mistake or does something dumb"
That's his argument

A CCW qual would have 0 impact on what happened in the OP. Let's think critically for 5 seconds

 

[Gawernator]

The supreme court was very clear on the limits of the "right" to bear arms, and granny taking training and a practical test is constitutional according to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. I should add though that the practical shooting portion of the test is a joke, a B27 target at 10 yards. A target 23 inches wide. The money factor is an issue and I explained above how I would like to see than changed, but there's no supreme court that has ever said that a "right" guarantees you access to the subject thing.


From Kavanaugh's opinion in Bruen:

Those shall-issue regimes may require a li-
cense applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements. Brief for Arizona et al.
as Amici Curiae 7. Unlike New York’s may-issue regime,
those shall-issue regimes do not grant open-ended discre-
tion to licensing officials and do not require a showing of
some special need apart from self-defense. As petitioners
acknowledge, shall-issue licensing regimes are constitu-
tionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied chal-
lenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in
that manner in practice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51.
Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ ob-
jective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6
States including New York potentially affected by today’s
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand-
guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec-
tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-
issue States.

Simultaneously we are seeing CA will possibly be forced to allow open carry permitless. The only way CCW as a privilege instead of a right makes sense is if you can openly carry as right.

 

[grandpapeepap]

If a felon is out of jail, it should mean they have paid their debt and can be trusted in society again. If that's the case, then yes, they should have all their rights restored. Mentally defective is tricky, because as we have seen with many "red flag" states, that is something that can very easily be abused. Who decides someone is genuinely severely mentally defective vs angry ex-wife says he is mentally unstable. That's a whole other issue.

 

[grandpapeepap]

"We need to restrict free speech because every now and then a person makes a mistake or does something dumb"
That's his argument

A CCW qual would have 0 impact on what happened in the OP. Let's think critically for 5 seconds

google true threat and see if its protected speech

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Supreme Court is sometimes wrong and influenced by personal agendas. Any right that requires someone to get a permit to exercise it is no longer a right, it's a privilege. Carrying a gun is a right, no matter what the government or supreme court says.

A right is only as good as the State that protects it and the State makes the rules. If the entire State up to the SC says that your rights are limited, then you literally don't have that right. It's all fake and made up, people love to pretend, including the SC justices in those very opinions cited above, that "rights" are god given and existed before the State, but then go on to expressly permit the regulations that you are arguing against.

I'm not saying this because I love gun rules and want to defend them, I honestly don't give a F- about public safety to be honest, but I feel like it really works against gun owners to repeat the same factually incorrect buzz words all the time. Misrepresenting the legal construction of rights doesn't actually change our legal landscape. Having common sense and legally defensible solutions to public safety concerns is the only way we can move forward. As much as I hate all this I do actually think that having training will lead to less people doing dumb with guns and therefore we will be left alone just a little bit more. Each weird event, regardless of how rare, will just lead to even more regulations and tap dancing on top of dollar bills.

 

[10RoundLimit]

Was this a bay area class? I was kind of surprised that everyone in my CCW class was at least okay. Some of the shooters were like John wick

One was riverside. One was contra costa.

 

[Gawernator]

google true threat and see if its protected speech

I don't need to google criminal threats, I literally do criminal defense for a living lol.

Nobody said all rights are unlimited. I said a CCW qual would not change the outcome of this protest shooting. The guy thought he was stopping a mass shooter.

 

[john_marsten_1873]

Then you run into the problem of it not being equal/fair, same issue we have in the military with the standards being lowered for women just so they can pass. That ain't a good solution.

I mean we have age restrictions on firearms ownership when 2A says "the right of the people" not "adults".

A lot of folks like to compare guns to cars; to drive a car you have to pass a licensing test. There's additional requirements for those 70+. [required] insurance has a tiered pricing based on age and gender.

You get the good with the bad, freedom is about trusting people to exercise their rights responsibly. Not everyone will do so, but that's up to them, and if they screw up, that's on them too.

I often echo what you're saying when discussing firearms with friends and family. But in reality, I can't think of anything that I'm an absolutist on.

And I can yell all day about freedom's and rights but I just don't trust people to exercise responsibly and especially when it risks the safety and rights of my family, myself and other responsible gun owners. I far more value practicality over virtue signaling because I believe that's what will best protect innocent bystanders and the rights of responsible gun owners.

 

[Bobalover209]

Simultaneously we are seeing CA will possibly be forced to allow open carry permitless. The only way CCW as a privilege instead of a right makes sense is if you can openly carry as right.

What is the court case regarding this? I thought the latest CA open carry dispute was regarding open carry permitting restricted by areas under a certain population. If that is correct and overruled, open carry would still require a permit but everyone in CA would be able to apply regardless of the population size of the city/county you live in.

 

[Gawernator]

What is the court case regarding this? I thought the latest CA open carry dispute was regarding open carry permitting restricted by areas under a certain population. If that is correct and overruled, open carry would still require a permit but everyone in CA would be able to apply regardless of the population size of the city/county you live in.

Maybe?

"On January 2, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Baird v. Bonta that California’s near-statewide ban on openly carrying firearms in counties with populations over 200,000 is unconstitutional. The court found that prohibiting open carry in areas covering 95% of Californians violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court's Bruen standard, which requires historical justification for gun restrictions."

 

[grandpapeepap]

A lot of folks like to compare guns to cars; to drive a car you have to pass a licensing test. There's additional requirements for those 70+. [required] insurance has a tiered pricing based on age and gender.

You dont need to pass any test to buy and own and drive a car unless you want to go on public roadways. The same cant really be said about firearms tho, Try saying you just want to buy a firearm to shoot on your own private land and see what they say. Homemade is an option though

 

[Bobalover209]

Maybe?

"On January 2, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Baird v. Bonta that California’s near-statewide ban on openly carrying firearms in counties with populations over 200,000 is unconstitutional. The court found that prohibiting open carry in areas covering 95% of Californians violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court's Bruen standard, which requires historical justification for gun restrictions."

Yes that's the one I was referring to. If it rules in our favor, it does not force CA to allow permitless open carry. It would only force all CA counties to accept permits for open carry (before only available to counties <200,000).

 

[Gawernator]

Yes that's the one I was referring to. If it rules in our favor, it does not force CA to allow permitless open carry. It would only force all CA counties to accept permits for open carry (before only available to counties <200,000).

Incorrect.

Ninth Circuit Invalidates California’s Urban Open-Carry Ban in Baird v. Bonta - Law Offices of Snell & Wilmer

By V.R. Bohman, Derek Flint, and Cameron J. Schlagel On January 2, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that California’s near-statewide prohibition on open carry — applicable in counties with populations over 200,000 and covering roughly 95% of Californians — violates the Second Amendment under the...

www.swlaw.com

The Ninth Circuit held that the open carry of firearms is clearly protected by the Second Amendment. According to the panel, the protection of open carry is supported by Founding-era and Reconstruction-era history distinguishing the permissibility of open carry from occasional bans on concealed carry. Applying Bruen, the panel concluded this is a “straightforward” case (using Bruen’s terminology): California’s categorical ban on open carry in populous counties lacks any “distinctly similar” historical analogue addressing a comparable societal problem, thus defeating the State’s defense under the default historical inquiry without resort to a “nuanced” analogical approach.

 

[Gawernator]

You dont need to pass any test to buy and own and drive a car unless you want to go on public roadways. The same cant really be said about firearms tho, Try saying you just want to buy a firearm to shoot on your own private land and see what they say. Homemade is an option though

Many motorcycle racers I've raced with have never had a M1 license or ridden on a public street, yep. My best friend started racing at 4 years old and is now like 29, never had a street bike. lol