I have concerns. When I got my permit in California there was a shooting component. However, the shooting was not scored. Instead the Sheriff’s department reps were watching for safe weapon handling. That made sense.
In comparison, I was chatting with a retired police officer, at lodge, in Kansas. Somehow the issue of permits came up. He stated that that very few people were able to qualify for permits. Taking him at his word, the shooting was done immediately after the applicant ran an obstacle course and applicants were required to shoot the rounds that the pistol was capable of.
What that last sentence meant was made clear by the anecdote that was shared. Apparently the applicant was “huffing and puffing” from the obstacle course and he had a 44 mag, however, he had never fired 44 mag out of it, ever. To qualify he had to shoot 44 mag because that was what the revolver was capable of. According to the story, he didn’t get his permit.
This would be an absurd test. Further, by passing such a “police” test, it could easily lead the ones that did pass to believe that they were more qualified than they were. Of course, he held that few did get permits.
That takes me to training requirements. First, I believe people should avail themselves of when it is available (locale) and accessible (cost). However, I have seen training being used as a barrier. In the 70s’ we lived in a suburb of Los Angeles, and my father needed a Concealed Permit and went to apply. He discovered that there was a one day class to get the permit, but it had a $2,000 fee (that comes to a bit over $9,000 in today’s dollars).
A few days later he brought it up with the county supervisor that he was having lunch with. The response was that the requirement wasn’t for people “like you.” A few phone calls were made and the training was waived.
I mention these instances to point out that, seemingly sound, restrictions can be used as a discretionary filter rather than a true measure of competence or providing meaningful training.
