Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: How do you feel about more instruction prior to getting permit?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    When I took my CCW class, I was actually very surprised at the fact that a three hour class was all it took to get it.

    I don't know how popular it would be, but what do you think about requiringMORE than just sitting through a class and then having a short quiz after in order to get your carry permit?

    Maybe I'm not thinking right, but it seems that having at least a LITTLE more stringent requirements to obtain the permit might just weed out a few of the less qualified candidates. Sort of a vetting process.

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    That is 3 more hours than what is required in WA. I personally don't think there should be required classes or training like in Alaska. Leave it to the person to do their own studies and training. I understand your argument, but I want less government in my life.

    Just my 2¢

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    I don't think anyone should be required to even have a permit to carry. If you can legally buy a gun, then you should be able to carry it any way you want.

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    I'll take it a step further. There should be no permit required.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    Now how complicated is that?????
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    *Waves to We-The-People*

    You know I put that paragraph in my welcome post just for you, right?

    I was a bit surprised about the 3-hours of classroom instruction being all that was required as well. My class was mostly a 3 hour bitching session. Some of the information wasn't entirely correct, either.

    I'm looking forward to an IPSC class I'll be taking at the Tri-County Gun Club here in a bit. Once you pass the class, it allows access to their "Action Range". This sort of training - actual hands-on with shooting and talking about gun handling is more like what I expected to have needed to get my CHL.

    I mean, if we're carrying to protect ourselves, we need to have the appropriate training for tactical sense as well as what laws protect us. I know some of us have already received that sort of training.

    *Waves to We-The-People Again*

    But for some of us who've been 'out' for a long time, or for our wives and children who may have never received such government-funded training, I think getting an IPSC certification - even if you aren't considering competition - is a great idea.

    If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FREEDOM_FOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    We-the-People wrote:
    I'll take it a step further. There should be no permit required.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    Now how complicated is that?????
    +1

    "weed out a few of the less qualified candidates"???

    Please enlighten usas towhy you think some of the "less qualified candidates" should be weeded.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all constitutionally protected rights apply to everyone? Whats next a state license to pray card,(sorry sir you arenot licensed to pray in public, hands behind your back)or a license to freely speak my mind ect...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Stepping back here for a bit.

    And I understand that my analogy isn't precise - there's no Right to Keep and Bear Cars - but...

    We require people to take a class, pass a written test, and in cases of new drivers, require them to pass a real-world skills proficiency test before we permit them to use an automobile in public.

    Cars are arguably just as dangerous as firearms/handguns (if not more so, despite the training, but that's another discussion).

    It's been said many times on these boards, and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed - carrying a loaded firearm is Serious Businesstm and you need to know what you are doing.

    You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?

    So it seems reasonable to me that some sort of training should be done before allowing a person to bear arms in public. This isn't infringement in my opinion, it's common sense. You take the training and get the card, then get the gun.

    I'm actually surprised that you can buy a handgun in Oregon without proof of any training at all. Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?

    I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?

  8. #8
    Regular Member FREEDOM_FOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    I agree that carrying a firearm is serious business and one should be prepared to safely do so.

    I amNOT against firearm training, hunter safety, personal defence courses, orclasses onhow to write a poem. I just don't thinkany classes/training/licensesforced upon me by the government should be mandatory to exercise myprotected rights.

    "Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?"

    Don't worry you'll get there


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    I am against mandated training in order to carry any way you want. I believe that every person uses a weapon should know how to properly handle it. I also believe that every person who uses a chain saw should know how to handle it. It is up to each person who decides to own a firearm to get the proper training, just as it is up to each person to know how to use any tool they own.

    We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government

  10. #10
    Regular Member FREEDOM_FOREVER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    Alaskan Shooter wrote:
    I am against mandated training in order to carry any way you want. I believe that every person uses a weapon should know how to properly handle it. I also believe that every person who uses a chain saw should know how to handle it. It is up to each person who decides to own a firearm to get the proper training, just as it is up to each person to know how to use any tool they own.

    We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government
    +1

    You hit the nail on the head!

  11. #11
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    I agree with the previous posts; there shouldn't be required permits. In a perfect world, people would be wise enough to realize when they need more training before taking on the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Yeah, I knew there would be some disagreements on this.

    And in a perfect world, yes, everyone would use firearms responsibly, get the appropriate level of training they needed, etc.

    In that same perfect world, we'd be using our handguns for target practice and hunting and not self-defense.

    In today's "not my fault" society where nearly everyone is a victim of something or other and never responsible for their own actions, you need something to induce these people to get proper training.

    But the bottom line is this - currently, this is how it's done.

    Don't like the laws? Work to get them changed. Call/write your representative. Suggest new legislation. Convince enough people that these rules are unreasonable and a violation of your 2nd Amendment Rights, and you might get the law changed.

    In this current political climate, I don't think you'd get much traction - yet. But with more work (and OC'ing), we can eventually make a difference.

    Would I support a no-training-required, no-permit-required concealed carry amendment in Oregon? To be honest, I'm not sure...



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Alaskan Shooter wrote:
    We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government
    I know Alaska isn't all snow, tundra, and moose, but to be honest, there aren't a whole lot of people up there - a touch under 700,000 according to Wikipedia, and just under half of those (~300,000) living in the Anchorage metro area.

    Just the Portland, Oregon city limits contain approximately 575,000 people, not counting the considerable outlying metro area. We probably have closer to two million people living within a 30 miles radius of Portland.

    Alaskans, living in a more... frontier-like state than many others in the lower 48 have a much more healthy respect for firearms - they are a necessary tool for living up there. My wife lived up there for many years and has told many stories about the bears and other hazardous wildlife found out in the wild and the absolute necessity for always carrying a powerful, loaded firearm.

    Your typical Metro Portlander has most likely never seen a firearm in real life unless it was attached to the hip of the cop that has stopped him for driving too slow, or for failure to yield to a bicyclist. Seriously.

    I know a few of them, and they are absolutely gobsmacked about this recent "craze" of wearing guns openly, especially TO A RALLY WHERE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE!!!1!!ONE!!

    I'm doing my part, Open Carrying when I can (and where I can). There will need to be a major shift in political winds before anything major is done here. Many of the more rural Oregonians wouldn't mind these changes, but sadly we're heavily outnumbered by the urban anti-gun pacifists.

    Sadly, these aren't the 'pass your firearm skills on to your children' type of people. And unfortunately, they are exceptionally "votey" - and love to vote on things that make them feel safer (whether they actually provide protection or not).

    I'm currently working on Sherwood, where they have a ordinance related to firearms and fireworks in parks that's confusing - the title says one thing while the text says another, and frankly the ordinance should just have the firearms part removed. I have a petition in with the city council that once I make some headway on, I'll do a post about.

    Overall, I'd say we have pretty good laws in Oregon as it stands right now - infinitely better than California. I suppose they could be better, but I'm concerned that too much of the wrong kind of attention could shift our laws closer to California than Alaska.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    Autonym wrote:
    If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.
    It's free for us now since you're allowed to bring a guest, right?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    Hehe... I can bring FIVE (5) guests at once.

    /me looks for five new best friends...

    Seriously, though - I'm looking forward to trying the Action Range once I get my certification. Sadly, only members with certification (or guests with IPSC credentials) can shoot on it. So... join up already!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    I would, but I don't have the extra $. I knew a guy that was a member there and went with him all the time until he moved away a couple years ago.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    I agree it is a whole different life style in Alaska, but people up here are not really that much different from those in the lower 48. Remember that only Alaska natives are true Alaskans, the rest of us came from somewhere down there (me included). We had to adjust to the unexpected lifestyle of being an Alaskan.

    I believe it is not the gun that people fear it is the unexpected. I live in a small area with a population of about 70,000. We get thousands of tourists hear every year, and they seem to expect to see people with guns and knives. I don’t understand why those same people are paying good money to visit a place that, by their way of thinking, must be dangerous because of all the weapons.

    My 16-year-old son (he OC’s also) and I have had the opportunity to talk to many people from the lower 48 and they approach us with no fear of either our guns or us. Kids ask parents and the parents tell their kids not to worry, people here carry guns. Adults ask for directions and don’t think twice about the gun in plain view.

    Getting back to training, I agree that training is needed before taking on the responsibility of carrying a gun. I just don’t agree that a government should mandate that training. We the people have already given the government way too much authority, and they continue to prove that they cannot handle it responsibly.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    Is there even a 3 hr requirement? From I recall of the statute, it only specifies that the class must contain a handgun safety component, and that it must be hosted by an approved entity (NRA, police dept., a couple others i can't immediately remember).

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Alaskan Shooter wrote:
    SNIP We the people have already given the government way too much authority, and they continue to prove that they cannot handle it responsibly.
    What an idea for a slogan.

    Just like 'drink responsibly', govern responsibly.

    I'm not too good at these things. I'm sure someone else can improve on it. (hint, hint.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    I don't think there's a time requirement.

    My CHL class was only 2 hours long and as mentioned earlier, was comprised of telling us about all the things we should do to protect ourselves as we inconvenience the police:

    1. Roll down your window only a quarter of an inch - just enough to slip your DOKUMENTUM out the window to the Man. Otherwise, he'll yank you out of your car through the open window.

    2. Refuse to cooperate in any way, even if the officer is being polite and is doing their job correctly.

    I've met a few of you here that I'm sure would've been right at home with him. Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

    My real complaint about the class was the lack of useful information on how to carry concealed or in what circumstances deadly force would be authorized. I've learned a lot since then of course - much of it from this very forum from you fine folks.

    For all the hubbub about this issue - really, it's a joke. There is no syllabus, no formalized course of instruction, no test to take or pass.

    You pay one guy $35 for the class and the county another $65 for the license. If you're not a criminal, you get the permit in a month or two.

    Is it a racket? I'd say yes. Is it the way the law works in this state? For now, yes.

    I'd say either make the class more substantial and standardized, or drop the requirement altogether. Of course, you guys know which way I'm leaning...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    Autonym wrote:
    Stepping back here for a bit.

    And I understand that my analogy isn't precise - there's no Right to Keep and Bear Cars - but...

    We require people to take a class, pass a written test, and in cases of new drivers, require them to pass a real-world skills proficiency test before we permit them to use an automobile in public.

    Cars are arguably just as dangerous as firearms/handguns (if not more so, despite the training, but that's another discussion).

    It's been said many times on these boards, and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed - carrying a loaded firearm is Serious Businesstm and you need to know what you are doing.

    You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?

    So it seems reasonable to me that some sort of training should be done before allowing a person to bear arms in public. This isn't infringement in my opinion, it's common sense. You take the training and get the card, then get the gun.

    I'm actually surprised that you can buy a handgun in Oregon without proof of any training at all. Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?

    I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?
    It is also arguable that cars are at least two orders of magintude more complex to operate than a firearm. I'm entirely on-board with some form of training for drivers licences for access to public roads.

    Guns are simple and straight-forward. A few simple safety rules, perhaps a few laws on usage (yes, I KNOW that's not how it is yet...) and that should cover it.

    Cars have many times more controls, much more mass/energy, more complex physical interaction with their environment, and require a plethora of rules to ensure safe operation in densely packed, highspeed conditions. Someone (Michael Z. Williamson?) once proposed that any governmental vehical restrictions be removed except two: A. You must have insurance, B. The insurance company sets training standards/certifications for acceptance of coverage. They would then have to balance rigorousness of trainingwith profit margins... The free market at work.


  22. #22
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Autonym wrote:
    *Waves to We-The-People*
    Waving back LOL


    Autonym wrote:
    If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.
    OUCH - For those of us in the Medford area, the Medford gun club is only $50.00 a year.

    Also, for those that also fire 308, 30-06, and .22 (maybe some other calibers) the "Civillian Marksmanship Program" (CMP) is a government chartered organization that you can get some decent bulk deals on ammo through. Like 75.00/192 rounds of 30-06 NATO (foreign manufacture) surpluse ammo (+$20 shipping). Membership in many gun clubs makes you an "affiliate member" and elligible to purchase.

    Back to the subject of training.

    There should be absolutely ZERO training required to exercise a Constitutional right. No special training is required to exercise our 1st amendment rights. As for those who would say "but words can't kill" I would remind you of the millions of people killed over the years because one politician or another penned an order saying to do so.

    When it comes to the "training" required to obtain a CHL, none should be REQUIRED by the government and we most definitely shouldn't be subjected to the so called "training" that we do receive from those that are "blessed with the title of instructor". My class here in Oregon was full of miss truths and outright lies with the major emphasis on "don't shoot anyone" and zero emphasis on training anyone how to do it right, just lot's of DON'T's.

    My class in California was a bit more detailed, 16 hours including two courses of fire (1 each day). Again though, lot's of DON'T's and very few "how to's" along with miss truths and lies. On the bright side, MOST of the time when the instructor offered an opinion he would say "just my opinion".

    As for the range time to "qualify" to carry in California...... you have to hit the black (big black) 39 times out of 50 shots and it's a pass fail. The majority are fired at 10 yards or less. My .22 Jennings with a 1 1/2" barrel had no problem. The lady who had never held a pistol in her life and couldn't hit the paper the first day was able to "qualify" on the second day.

    This is NOT TRAINING. Is is simply government mandated propaganda. Neither class had more than a cursory mention of muzzle discipline, safe carry methods, disengagement, etc. In both classes, I bit my tongue on several issues simply to get that stupid piece of paper that "qualified" me for my license.

    I think it might be a good idea among the OC and CC movement to arrange to ""audit" training classes. The goal not to be the adversary of the instructor but rather to correct any incorrect statements on law, perhaps provide "real life" stories of some of the concerns encounterd daily while carrying, etc.

    For instance, from what I've read, many instructors here in Oregon, including my own, tell those in the class that getting your CHL means you lose your right to open carry. That's just flat out wrong and too simple of a legal mater for it to be confused. So are those instructors lying, ignorant, or?

    Another issue is with those instructors who say "sometimes you just need to say I've got a gun or just show them your gun" (when carrying concealled). WRONG WRONG WRONG. If you are carrying concealled surprise is your greatest advantage but if it's important enough to escalate to a firearm, it better be important enough to draw and fire. Should your assailant(s) turn tail and run or submit immediately then great. I'd much rather explain to the police what happened and that I defended myself without firing a shot that to have to do all that paperwork and probably go to jail for shooting someone to protect myself. But flashing your concealled piece or drawing to scare them away is BAD TRAINING.

    Now, should people VOLUNTARILLY go out an get training? It depends on the individual. Being a retired Marine and having carried quite often because of my duties, I don't think I NEEDa more training but GOOD TRAINING is always a good thing. Others, particularly those who don't know muich about firearms definitely should make themselves as informed and competent as possible.

    But...... it is not the function of government to dictate training, licensing, etc. The second amendment is quite clear. The words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are about as broad of a statement you can make against any form of government intrusion.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Post imported post

    Autonym wrote:
    You wouldn't hand someone with no training a loaded gun, tell them, "Here, it's your right to have this, go have fun..." and let them walk out the door, right?Granted, it may be that I'm not quite de-Californicated yet, who knows?
    Happens every day in gun stores across the state as well as in private sales with no documentation whatsoever. Don't worry, you'll "decompress" from the Taxifornia/Kalifornia brainwashing over time. For those of us who are political refugees from there it's nicer here but there is still too much intrusion.



    Autonym wrote:
    I'm curious - do you oppose hunter safety classes?
    Government mandated - YES, I oppose that. Voluntary courses offered as a public service by private organizations - No problem at all. Good training is always good.

    Alaskan Shooter wrote:
    We have no permit needed for either concealed or open carry here. It is not a problem. The tradition of carrying a firearm is taught and handed down from parents to children, not from the government
    +1,000,000,000 - as the Constitution intended.



    My wife has very limited firearms TRAINING. She signed up for a training course at a Kalifornia gun shop that had a great looking syllabus and a lot of range time. How did that work out? We'd show up and they'd hand her a target, a pistol, and a box of ammo then say "go shoot this". If she didn't ask, they didn't teach her how a particular gun worked and I refused to show her because she was paying for this "training" so she'd ask. There was no training involved at all, just a lot of unsupervised range time with increasingly powerful rounds.

    She cancelled that and I snuck in her training on the range.... spouses weren't allowed to teach for some strange reason even though they didn't. If you'veever watched NCIS and seen Gibbs smack Denozo on the head, you can visualize my reinforcement method for negative actions. She did great on everything but keeping her trigger finger off the trigger until ready so each time she violated that rule I'd give her a light smack on the earcup of her hearing protection.

    To this day, her finger looks like a steel rod pointing down the weapon until she's ready to fire and she chuckles every time I mention it.

    So when I handed her a brand spanking new Smith and Wesson MandP 15 on Sunday, the muzzle was downrange, the finger was rock solid and straight. Even with inside the house breakdown and nomenclature training and a few drills on operation, on the range she was nervous and unable to properly operate the weapon. BUT and this is THE MAIN POINT.... she was 100% safe the entire time because she KNEW WITHOUT THINKING to keep that finger off the trigger and the muzzle downrange.

    It's not as bad as that sounds. Her problems were with trying to charge the weapon when it already was, letting the charging handle forward slowly instead of releasing it to sharply chamber a round, and hitting the magazine release several times with that rock solid, off the trigger, finger. Actually, I learned to avoid that same issue because of her mistakes. I'd never had it happen but also never realized just how close to that release my finger was. That would be a problem in an SD situation.

    By the way, for anyone with an AR, look up "bump fire" on you tube and give it a try. WOW THAT WAS FUN. 31 rounds in less than5 seconds!!!!!!! Spendy, but FUN.





    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Autonym wrote:
    If you're close enough to the Metro area (or at least Sherwood), I do highly recommend the Tri-County Gun Club - http://www.tcgc.org/ - It's $175 per year, plus $120 for new members, pre-paid, so it's running $295 to sign up right now. I just signed up and I'm really enjoying it.
    Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but I think you got this backwards.

    The one-time registration fee is $175 and the yearly membership is $120. Renewals are in June/July, so depending on when you become a member you can make the initial hit less than $295.00. Just remember, dues are still due in July. The new member page explains it in more detail.

    Also, as someone mentioned - yes, it is expensive. However, they do have a pretty nice set up and a strong focus on safety. It is pretty centrally located which makes it convenient as well. The club is growing and they are doing constant work to improve existing facilities as well as expand.

    I've been a member for a bit over two years now. Haven't used it as much as one would like (work and life gets in the way of shooting) but I would recommend the club for anyone in the area.

    Downfalls, no .50 caliber and I'm pretty sure no full-auto. However, it's a LOT closer than Albany.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    No toes hurt here.

    My bad - I could've easily got them mixed up. All I know is, it's a bit spendy to join, but bearable after that.

    And I do agree - it's a very nice facility, and very safe. Much safer than shooting on some back-40 where you're not 100% certain what's down range.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •