One goes through the class, takes the test, prints the certificate and sends it the authorities in VA. What kind of background check do they do, are you fingerprinted? There is not firearms qualification.

Am I correct that when the authorities in VA gets your certificate, they automatically issue a CCW permit? One of you gents who knows, will you please advise how hard it is to get the VA CCW permit? Do the VA authorities contact your home county for background information?

I have no criminal record but NC licenses are hard to get. A full day of classroom and range qualification. Then fingerprinting. Full background check. $100 for the class. $90 for application. Another fee, I believe it is $85 for a 5 years permit.

If VA's is as simple as the ads say, it is a deal.

Someone advise me on this. I have completed the course and got my certificate ($65). I need to send it to the VA State Police or the Clerk of Court in a county. Instructions aren't clear. Help!

https://usconcealedonline.com/?c=12064& ... =214639215

If they had a phone number I could call and get the answer. I am interested in getting the permit but don't know what to do next.

Help!

Don’t you have to reside in the state that issues the permit? How can you choose at will between N.C. and VA?

In TX the range qualification is a joke.

Many stated offer non-resident license. Some folks get several from different states so they wind up with a set of CCW that cover them for a lot of the states in the country.

This should explain the process (although I haven't read it all).

https://www.usacarry.com/virginia_conce ... ation.html

It's hard for me to imagine firearms qualification not being part of the training.

Not saying the OP would benefit from this but there are a lot of people who would.

our firearm training is kind of a joke.

it's been a couple of year since I took it, but I recall it was something like 24 shots and you needed to get 15 on paper. 6 from 1 yard-hold your arm out and you could almost touch the paper, 6 from 3 yards, 6 from 5 and 6 from 7 yards.

you pretty much are guaranteed the first 12 and only need a couple more from "distance"

you didn't draw from concealment, and no real time limit on taking your shots.

I can top that xsshooter! When my wife and I took the CCW class here in Florida after passing the written test following the classroom portion we went to a range close by, at that location we went into the shooting area wearing eye and ear protection, our "instructor" then handed each candidate a revolver preloaded with a single round which we were required to shoot downrange without killing any bystanders, there was NO requirement to hit anything. Happy to have the permit, but anyone familiar with firearms should find that pretty scary, I know I did. It has been several years, can only hope current requirements are more stringent. :-(

We had to take the standard B-27 target test with a total of 50 rounds from 3, 7 and 15 yards. But I think it was 20, 20, and 10, and you only had to score 70% or 175 out of 250. You got 5 points for hitting the 8 ring or better, 4 points for the 7 ring, 3 points for anything else green (on the target). You only got zero for being on the white or missing the target. Pretty easy.

Well, on second thought I withdraw my previous comment. Might as well do nothing if that's all they require.

The threshold for the qualification is pretty low but most defensive gun use scenarios happen at 6’ or less. The background check the NSP does is more stringent than what it takes to be a LEO, so at least CHP holders aren’t generally out looking for trouble as a pattern of behavior.
No one ever seems to bring up the fact that the bad guys don’t have to qualify for sh*t to carry a gun.

The "shooting" part of the Minnesota carry permit is pretty simple, all it is designed to do is have the shooter demonstrate they can safely and properly operate their firearm. Score is pretty much immaterial though individual instructors may have a threshold the student must score to pass. It is typically low.

Instead, the class is geared toward the legalities of self defense shooting rather than skills. Personally, I feel knowing whether it is legal to shoot or not is much more important than how to shoot. You can be the best tactical shooter there is but end up broke and in jail because you applied that skill improperly. Part of the curriculum is drilling into the student's head that they are responsible for where every shot they fire ends up and if an unintended person is hit, then the student will be charged for that crime.

As missing the intended target is a real possibility, a good instructor will hammer this point hard and repeatedly stress that good instruction and regular range time is a necessary part of carrying a firearm for protection. As this concept (plus other related ones) is so important, the time teaching how to shoot only takes away from what I would consider to be the more important concept. While can learn how to shoot from many various sources, there is really is only one place to get good information on the legalities of when a person can use a firearm and that is in the carry class.

In other words, if one is looking for a class on how to shoot or increase their shooting skills, then take a class geared toward that. If taking a class on when it is legal to use a firearm and the legalities of doing so, then one should be best served taking a carry class.

I doubt that anybody expects a concealed carry class would be "shooting instruction."

What I would expect, if I was to be the person signing the certificates, saying the holder is perfectly justified in carrying and using a firearm in public, would be a demonstration of a certain minimum level of marksmanship before turning him loose on the public. I would expect that skill level to be attained prior to attending the class, not during.

I take it you are against Constitutional carry then?

The shooting requirements put into the course curriculum were intended to prevent the state legislature from changing scoring to something unobtainable by the typical citizen. That is why there is a low threshold on score though the student has to demonstrate they can safely handle and operate their chosen firearm. And why strong emphasis is placed on the legal responsibilities of the student in regards to their judgement and skill and that it may behoove them to become properly trained in at least the basics of shooting.

It is kind of patterned on the Hunter Safety course where, like Hunter Safety, one demonstrates safe handling, operation, and proper judgement rather than score. The skill set for shooting is up to the student and they can become as proficient as they want after being taught they are responsible for every bullet that leaves the gun. Maybe that emphasis is why an estimated 80+% of permit holders in this state don't carry.

Fair enough. Good points!

I agree with this.

As a background to MN's carry law:

Originally, a carry permit was issued by the local jurisdiction. 90% of the chiefs or sheriffs would not issue a permit for any reason. Of other 10%, 90% of them were arbitrary and capricious regarding issue. All but one municipal chief I worked under refused to issue carry permits with that exception requiring the taking a carry class that was offered by the department - but the class was offered only once a year. The sheriffs I worked under were a little more lenient but they still generally issued based on "need" so one was seldom granted a permit just because a permit was desired.

In any case, no proficiency testing and no discussion on what constituted a legal use of force was required. The one chief came close to the current requirements but that was due to leaving the matter in the hands of a far thinking officer rather than by design.

In the negotiations to change from a "may issue" to a "shall issue" state, the compromise was to teach carry applicants the civil and legal ramifications of carrying and what their responsibilities are. From taking, observing, and assisting with classes it is very evident the students are pretty confident they possess the skills needed at the start of the class but by the end of the class the vast majority are asking where to get additional training as their confidence plummets as the realities sink in. When gun store gossip does not match court precedent, many re-examin their abilities.

Another part of the reasoning of not requiring prior proficiency was the cost of such and the burden it would place on those of lower incomes. The cost of getting a carry permit can run upwards of $175 for the class and permit application which, when adding in all the applicable training costs, can become onerous. That is why a very strong emphasis on the legalities of carrying is the point of the carry classes - or should be. This leaves the student responsible for deciding how much they wish/can train and if that is sufficient for their piece of mind to carry.

Now, I have to take off for work. First day of retirement from one job is still a work day for another. At least now when I clock out I can leave my work behind.

Too much modern brainwashing involved here.

The 2nd Amendment says I have the RIGHT to bear arms.

It says nothing about permits, classes, money, etc.

It would be nice if everyone carrying at least showed they could load and fire the handgun and hit a target!!!!! Mine was 10 short at 30 feet with two separate magazines. I got 9 in the X and 1 just out.

However, we did have people FLUNK even that easy exercise. Scary.........

Back to the OP........... it depends on your state and sometimes your county......

Neither requiring them nor forbidding them. See, that is where interpretation is necessary.

Let us not get political in this section, those postings that were are removed.