Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: NSCA CCW Training Standards, Revised May 24, 2010

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    The recently updated (May 24, 2010) NSCA "Concealed Handguns Training Standards":

    http://www.stillwaterfirearms.org/ph...name=Downloads

    Very important info for Nevada's CCW permitees and instructors.

    NRS 202.3657 states:

    ... standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    FINALLY It only took 2 yrs for them to change a few questions that were 1 plain flat out wrong and 2 the law had been changed so the answer according to the grading key was wrong.

    This is really screwing up my game as I have the test memorized and now theres new answers.

    I wonder if the instructors will be held to the standards now that everyone has received their updates in the mail. I'm NOT going to hold my breath.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    Could you enlighten me as to what exactly changed? I read that web site quickly and didn't get it right away.

    Thx

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Rather than try to summarize, its probably best to read the new document and compare to the old document (which is still posted in the SFA downloads section.)

    gunrunner: Just wondering what you're referring to when you said "...if the instructors will be held to the standards..."

    The PPOH requirement: Although not clearly stated therein, I THINK most sheriffs will grandfather current instructors and not require them to become PPOH instructor certified. However, I THINK it will be up to each sheriff. However, people applying to become CCW instructors will now have to be NRA PPOH instructor certified.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    They should require ALL instructors to have some type of defensive instruction certification and have continueing education every year plus a recertification class similiar to UT BCI every 3. Too many base there instruction on the NRAs Basic Pistol. To which after going through it I laughed at the thought of teaching a CCW course with the main knowledge of how cartridge works and shooting from benches with sand bags.

    The pool of instructors has grown 2 fold here with so many "weekend" warriors it's pathetic. Most have barely taught there kids how to tie their shoes let along a CCW course or actually ran a range. The last incident I know of involved an instructor firing a live round in the classroom. I know a person who was in that class. It DID happen and it was close to getting someone hurt. I have seen pages written on instructors who failed to meet the training standards IE incomplete numbers of rounds fired for each gun including semi and revolver, "I'll loan you my Glock for qualification and I'll put whatever model you want on the paper", RSOs with thumb inserted into their @$$ while a loaded weapon is removed from a shooting bag and aimed at another student I think I still have the video of that one, Instructors who are not present on the range during qual to witness the firing,due to the range being hot the target wasn't changed out after a qual and another person started their qual on the last persons target.

    Never mind the sheriffs who think you have to be on THEIR list in THEIR countywhen it's supposed to be the STATE permit. They worry about whether a non resident is going to go to Washoe County for a classwhere theres 40 so called instructors and then go to LyonCounty and turn in the paperwork. Butit's a STATE permit.

    Sorry for the rant but the obsurdities just continue.

    For everyone else question 39 refering to NRS 202.320 the "brandishing law" says that you can still be criminally liable for drawing in a threatening manner EVEN when it's in defence. The grade key says TRUE. the law says the drawing is done NOT in necessary selfdefense. 30 and 31 revolve aroundres and non res permits and the old 3yrs for non res which is now 5 pretty minor but still if aprivate political entity like the NVSCA is going to be in charge of us and regulate our rights at LEASTstay on top of it and get it right.

  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Was the first download on that page ("2010 Nevada CCW Training Standards") actually published by the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association?

    If so I dislike their clumsy effort at maintaining purity to the wording of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

    That document is worded saying things such as qualification requirements for a "semiautomatic handgun" and speaks as if Nevada law only allows one to conceal handguns. It refers to "concealed handgun permits (CCW)" when it seems like it would be more correct to say "concealed firearm permit" since that is the actual wording of the law in Nevada. My reading of the NRS tells me that one should be able to qualify to carry a concealed a semi-automatic firearm of any type so long as he qualifies by make, model, and caliber. This would allow a person, for instance, to transport a semi-automatic rifle in a large container that is carried upon the person that is not discernible as a firearm from ordinary observation. I hope the NSCVA does not think they can regulate the types of firearms that may be concealed beyond the scope of the law. I have a feeling that the wording was more a result of laziness however than intentional act. The older versions don't appear to discriminate between handguns and other firearms.

    I suppose if they have really only set standards for training with "handguns" I suppose that means that an instructor could qualify someone with a rifle based upon the standards of the instructor, since the NSCVA failed to provide any standards? Or does the word "handgun," as referred to by the NSCVA refer to all firearms?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Was the first download on that page ("2010 Nevada CCW Training Standards") actually published by the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association?
    Yes. It came to me straight from the NSCA CCW Sub Cmte Chairman.

    I agree it should state "concealed firearm" instead of "handgun." I do not think there was an intent to mandate "only handguns"; rather, I suspect it was simply a poor choice of words. As you pointed out, NRS Ch 202 does say "concealed firearms." Quote:
    “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.
    Perhaps I can recommend a change in the next copy.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    gunrunner1911 wrote:
    They should require ALL instructors to have some type of defensive instruction certification and have continueing education every year plus a recertification class similiar to UT BCI every 3. Too many base there instruction on the NRAs Basic Pistol. To which after going through it I laughed at the thought of teaching a CCW course with the main knowledge of how cartridge works and shooting from benches with sand bags.

    The pool of instructors has grown 2 fold here with so many "weekend" warriors it's pathetic. Most have barely taught there kids how to tie their shoes let along a CCW course or actually ran a range. The last incident I know of involved an instructor firing a live round in the classroom. I know a person who was in that class. It DID happen and it was close to getting someone hurt. I have seen pages written on instructors who failed to meet the training standards IE incomplete numbers of rounds fired for each gun including semi and revolver, "I'll loan you my Glock for qualification and I'll put whatever model you want on the paper", RSOs with thumb inserted into their @$$ while a loaded weapon is removed from a shooting bag and aimed at another student I think I still have the video of that one, Instructors who are not present on the range during qual to witness the firing,due to the range being hot the target wasn't changed out after a qual and another person started their qual on the last persons target.

    Never mind the sheriffs who think you have to be on THEIR list in THEIR countywhen it's supposed to be the STATE permit. They worry about whether a non resident is going to go to Washoe County for a classwhere theres 40 so called instructors and then go to LyonCounty and turn in the paperwork. Butit's a STATE permit.

    Sorry for the rant but the obsurdities just continue.

    For everyone else question 39 refering to NRS 202.320 the "brandishing law" says that you can still be criminally liable for drawing in a threatening manner EVEN when it's in defence. The grade key says TRUE. the law says the drawing is done NOT in necessary selfdefense. 30 and 31 revolve aroundres and non res permits and the old 3yrs for non res which is now 5 pretty minor but still if aprivate political entity like the NVSCA is going to be in charge of us and regulate our rights at LEASTstay on top of it and get it right.
    I'll have to respectfully disagree - at least in part.

    I don't seea need to make it more difficult. In fact, I believe Constitutional Carry should be our long term goal.

    As for instructor and/or safety issues, there is already a procedure in place for instructor disqualification.

    I suspect you're looking at the old test. In the current test (03/16/2010) question #39 says:
    As a CCW holder, you can still be held criminally liable for violating NRS 202.320, drawing a firearm in a threatening manner, when the drawing of the firearm is not in necessary self defense.


    True or False
    And, of course, the answer key says "True" as it should!

    Questions 30 and 31 say:

    30 Unless suspended or revoked by the issuing sheriff, a permit for a Nevada resident will expire:

    A. On the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance or renewal.

    B. On the fifth anniversary of the permittee’s birthday nearest the date of issuance.

    C. On the third anniversary of the date of issuance or renewal.

    D. On the third anniversary of the permittee’s birthday nearest the date of issuance or renewal.


    31 Unless suspended or revoked by the issuing sheriff, a permit for a non-Nevada resident, (out-of-state) will expire:

    A. On the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance or renewal.

    B. On the third anniversary of the date of issuance or renewal.

    C. On the fifth anniversary of the permittee’s birthday nearest the date of issuance.

    On the third anniversary of the permittee’s birthday nearest the date of issuance or renewal.
    And, of course, the answer key says "A" is correct (as it should) for both 30 and 31.

    As for "... the sheriffs who think you have to be on THEIR list in THEIR county..." - well, I am pretty confident this issue has been resolved. All sheriffs must honor the CCW training certificates from instructors in all other sheriffs' counties. If this is not happening, I would be interested in knowing about it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    NRS202.253(3). “Firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” applies to and includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
    This would probably keep you from being able to qualify with a rifle.

    I would argue that this means that they should not be able to charge you with concealing a rifle with a barrel longer than 12", since legally it isn't capable of being concealed. Capable meaning "possible", not "allowed".

    So if you have an AK47 w/ 14" BBL and an underfolder stock, you should be ok to toss it in a backpack for your next coffee run. At least, in my opinion. Which is worth jack squat, unless I'm on the jury.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927

    Post imported post

    AnakinsKid wrote:
    NRS202.253(3). “Firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” applies to and includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
    This would probably keep you from being able to qualify with a rifle.

    I would argue that this means that they should not be able to charge you with concealing a rifle with a barrel longer than 12", since legally it isn't capable of being concealed. Capable meaning "possible", not "allowed".

    So if you have an AK47 w/ 14" BBL and an underfolder stock, you should be ok to toss it in a backpack for your next coffee run. At least, in my opinion. Which is worth jack squat, unless I'm on the jury.
    Good point, but I don't think applicable.

    The definition you quoted applies to NRS 202.253 to 202.369:
    Dangerous Weapons and Firearms
    NRS 202.253 to 202.369, inclusive:

    3. “Firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” applies to and includes all firearms having a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
    And the Concealed Firearms section says:
    Concealed Firearms
    NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

    1. “Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded pistol, revolver or other firearm which is carried upon a person in such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation.

    Interesting debate, for sure.



Posting Permissions

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