CHP Training Prices

[JTH]

Gary has said, at different times:

I do not want to see cut rate prices harm our industry, or harm the excellent work the established instructors have done for our Great State Of Nebraska.

I am not looking for price fixing, I am hoping for trainers of quality, first. 

If a trainer would read, and follow these teaching ethics, we would have a higher quality program in Nebraska. 

Either you are making assumptions about other programs that you haven't attended, or you have direct information that other instructors are not teaching the required State Patrol curriculum.

If the latter is true, you should report that, including details, to the State Patrol, so that the particular instructor should be investigated, and if necessary, have their certification pulled.

If the former is true---as many people have said, it doesn't really matter, and comments like the above don't help. 

People can charge whatever they like.  If someone decides one day that they are rich enough that they can offer the CCW class for $5, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. 

Nor does it automatically mean that low prices equate to a poor class.  I personally think that the class that I offer is worth the price I have for the class (and I charge $125)---given the duration of the class, the material offered, the practice and help given, and the materials requirements, the price I charge seems reasonable to me.  And yet, someone else can charge something completely different (for example, less than I do) and it makes little difference to me.

If a particular instructor is doing a poor job, eventually that information will become obvious, and people will stop going there.  (Actually, given that people only need to take the CCW class once, it'll probably take awhile for that information to come to light, since people won't ever have to make any direct comparisons, but that is a different conversation.)  And if a particular instructor is doing an excellent job, eventually that information will become obvious also.

The Nebraska State Patrol has a set of requirements for teaching the NE State CCW course.  Unless an instructor is doing something such that they are not fulfilling those requirements, they can teach their class however they like, and charge whatever they like. 

If they aren't fulfilling those requirements, and someone has specific information about said occurrences, then they should be reported so that the State Patrol can do something about it.

If someone doesn't have any specific information, then they probably shouldn't be making written statements that are potentially detrimental or damaging to someone else's reputation or business.  Particularly when said written statements seems to be directly focused on a particular business.

[Gary]

The way I could see Nebraska stepping up the quality of their program..... are these few items:

1) Instructors have to go through a training class taught by NSP on what to teach....... Getting a NRA Instructor certification (all that is required now) IS NOT ADEQUATE in my opinion. This class should be taken by the Instructor and they get re-certified every couple years. (Utah does it)

2) Instructors should be required to demonstrate competency. ie. must take a much more lengthy and challenging test on the CHP rules and regs/state laws and firearms knowledge. AND Instructors should be required to demonstrate competency with a handgun by qualifying every couple years at the very least. Again a much more challenging qualification than what is required of the students.

3) There needs to be ONE standard curriculum that all Instructors follow. Teaching a NRA basic pistol class by the book, and passing out a photocopy of NE laws without any discussion is a major failure on the Instructors part.... And that is happening out there right now folks.

Amen, and Amen Shouts The Choir!

Changes are being made, to repair some of the flaws in the system, I am told.  I hope so, because the system is good, but could be better.

Not only do the Instructors need NSP training, which would be ideal, but the general public needs an 8 hour refresher class every few years.   Just paying a fee, and rolling again for a second, third, forth 5 year period of time, with no additional training, is a very bad public safety policy.

I think every permit holder should have three pieces of ID to carry a concealed handgun. .  State issued ID, CHP ID, and a recent ID card from an NRA or equivalent  certified pistol class.   NRA class should have been in the past 12 months.  Hunter safety, basic pistol, something, yearly.  No exceptions.

Getting a CHP every five years, by only paying a fee, and watching old Starsky & Hutch reruns on TV is not what I call legitimate firearms training.   

[HuskerXDM]

The way I could see Nebraska stepping up the quality of their program..... are these few items:

1) Instructors have to go through a training class taught by NSP on what to teach....... Getting a NRA Instructor certification (all that is required now) IS NOT ADEQUATE in my opinion. This class should be taken by the Instructor and they get re-certified every couple years. (Utah does it)

2) Instructors should be required to demonstrate competency. ie. must take a much more lengthy and challenging test on the CHP rules and regs/state laws and firearms knowledge. AND Instructors should be required to demonstrate competency with a handgun by qualifying every couple years at the very least. Again a much more challenging qualification than what is required of the students.

3) There needs to be ONE standard curriculum that all Instructors follow. Teaching a NRA basic pistol class by the book, and passing out a photocopy of NE laws without any discussion is a major failure on the Instructors part.... And that is happening out there right now folks.

I would be on board with this.  I think the current standard of writing your own version of the seven classroom objectives leaves a lot to be desired.  One curriculum would help standardize the information taught by instructors.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a teacher by trade and I'm not a fan of just reading out of a book, but having the same foundational info isn't a bad thing. 

I'd like to offer a counterpoint to one thing Gary said above, though... respectfully.  I believe we have to be careful about requiring a certain amount of training over certain time periods for CHP permit holders lest we turn a right into a privilege.  And before anyone rolls out the drivers' license argument, I haven't had to take the actual test since I turned 16 because I have a good driving record...and that was about 5 licensing periods ago.  All I've ever done is pay the fee, take the vision test, smile for the camera and walk out.  Being an instructor isn't a right...it's a privilege, so we can hold them/us to higher standards.

Just my $.02

[whatsit]

I'm not a firearms trainer. I have met a few of you and have even taken classes from a few of you. I enjoy going to classes and learning. I think every responsible gun owner should take it upon themselves to seek out good training. I'm all for firearms training and certainly see the benefit of it, so ra-ra go team-trainer!

However, I take issue (as I'm sure a majority of you do) with government-mandated training. The way I see it, the whole CHP program is an infringement and a "compromise" of our rights. However, it's the best we (gun owners, the NFOA, etc) can muster in the current social climate. So, I signed my name on the dotted line, took my medicine, and got my permit.

To put an extra, government-mandated burden of additional training on CHP holders would be wrong and a further infringement. I am against that.

To put that extra training requirement on a CHP trainer -- I'm a little more okay with that. They don't have the God-given right to teach CHP classes, so if the NSP requires that they get extra training to administer the NSP's program requirements, I'm okay with that.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw a little constitutionalism into the conversation. Ideally, we could all carry however we wanted without asking for permission. It is after all, our God-given right. So, flame on and let me have it! 

[Gary]

If we want to follow Vermont, and have rights again, I am all for that.   Don't see that happening any time soon.  So, and long as we are going to regulate, I see merit in doing more than just making a tax out of the permit process. 

[whatsit]

If we want to follow Vermont, and have rights again, I am all for that.   Don't see that happening any time soon.  So, and long as we are going to regulate, I see merit in doing more than just making a tax out of the permit process. 

Well, we can agree to disagree then. I'm going to follow the laws, but I'm going to fight to have fewer of them that restrict citizens' rights.

[JTH]

Not only do the Instructors need NSP training, which would be ideal, but the general public needs an 8 hour refresher class every few years.   Just paying a fee, and rolling again for a second, third, forth 5 year period of time, with no additional training, is a very bad public safety policy.

I think every permit holder should have three pieces of ID to carry a concealed handgun. .  State issued ID, CHP ID, and a recent ID card from an NRA or equivalent  certified pistol class.   NRA class should have been in the past 12 months.  Hunter safety, basic pistol, something, yearly.  No exceptions.

Getting a CHP every five years, by only paying a fee, and watching old Starsky & Hutch reruns on TV is not what I call legitimate firearms training.   

I strongly disagree.  Then again, I have a problem with people being forced to have state-mandated training before being able to carry effective tools with which to defend themselves in the first place. 

I'm all for people getting training.  Preferably, continued training over time, along with solid practice both with the tools of self-defense, and use of force rules for the tools of self-defense.  I tell everyone I shoot with to get more training, I work on getting more training myself, and I'm all for everyone training much, much more.

However, at no time do I think that equates to agreeing with or supporting state-mandated requirements for training.  We currently have an initial requirement--okay, fine.  It was needed to get CCW passed in this state.  Whether it was necessary for actual public safety in any way, shape, or form is a completely different thing, and I'll note there is NO data I've ever seen that says an initial state-level training requirement makes a difference.  If anyone has something like that, I'd like to see it. Gary says "Just paying a fee, and rolling again for a second, third, forth 5 year period of time, with no additional training, is a very bad public safety policy."  ----based on what?  Does anyone have ANY information that this IS actually an issue?

Sure, I don't like it when ignorant people handle firearms.  That is completely separate from whether or not this is an issue requiring state-level action.

For the current initial CCW class:  if we have to have requirements for a class, then at least most of those requirements are actually ones that make sense.  As such, instructors giving said classes (and having students pay for them) should indeed spend the time to present that material such that it will be retained by the students.

But in no way will I ever agree with continuing requirements for citizens to be able to carry effective tools for self-defense.  And in no way do I think it makes any sense for people to have to "prove" to the state that they have continued to take classes.

(As a simple support for that one, ignoring the obvious arguments based on the 2nd amendment plus any rule of law we have that allows self-defense: I shoot with a number of people every month whose shooting abilities far outstrips the majority of gun owners, quite frankly, they shoot better than a number of CCW instructors I know.  And yet, most of those people have not taken a firearms class in years.  The idea of making them spend money and time on an NRA basic pistol course just to "keep current" their CCW is ludicrous.)

[Chris Z]

Just to clarify what I was saying.... I think there should be higher standards and more training required for CHP Instructors

As for permit holders..... There are two options.... Get a permit and carry.... Or carry without a permit under the Affirmative Defense of 28-1202, no training required. I'm fine with this. If NE passed constitutional carry with no more permit required, I would be happy with that too.

I wish everyone would get training and continue training before carrying.......... I don't think it should be required by law.

[Gary]

Once upon a time, people did prudent things, because they were raised to be mindful. respectful, and upright.

Today, with green hair, underwear sticking out over the pants, pants down around the knees, and disrespect the motto of the day, I think a few laws governing a few things are a necessary addition. 

I think the laws that allowed Nikko Jenkins and family to reek havoc on Omaha over the decades, need to be increased, and the law in order folks, maybe rain their laws back somewhat, but across the board, I think the system seems to be working.   

[Gary]

The thread is about what price is fair, for Concealed Carry classes.  Lets bring it back to that.

I know quite a few instructors keep their prices around the 125 neighborhood, and I must tell you, I respect that.   That price seems pretty fair.

However (there is always a however, it seems), a few folks around the capitol city have lowered their prices to 100 bucks and even below.   While I think the free market system, is most always a good thing (God bless Nixon for freezing prices when I was a kid, made my Mother hate him even more) I must compete in this marketplace.

In order to compete, I will be lowering my price, to $100 for the rest of the winter, to bring people out in the cold, (even though I have an indoor heated range) and to compete with other instructors.

In the spring, I will reevaluate the marketplace, and count my students, and weigh what I took in, versus what I spent providing my services, and adjust as necessary. 

This price is good through 3-1-2014.  Knowing that others may lower their prices as well, seems to me, the only real winners in this, is the marketplace, because they will be saving money.  As good instructors, we will be providing the same quality service, and taking in a few less dollars per student. 

The economy is not doing well, in some areas.  Budgets are tight for many of us.  I hope we all see a bright and glowing future as we race into 2014. 

[FarmerRick]

Just for comparison's sake:

There are instructors in Central/Western Nebraska that have had their regular prices at $100 or lower for quite a while, and I've seen quite a few advertising that have lowered them to $75 as far back as last fall.

[bullit]

"The thread is about what price is fair....."


And Obama and Marx smiled ......

[depserv]

I took a class and tests to be an NRA certified pistol instructor awhile back just because I wanted the certification, but I didn't go into it professionally because I didn't think I'd make much money at it with all the competition in such a small market, so it wouldn't be worth the effort to set it up.  I teach friends informally and that's about it.

As far as the CHP classes, I consider them being a requirement to be an illegal infringement on a Constitutional right.  I think they're a good idea and I would recommend them to anyone, but I don't think it's legal for the government to mandate them.  I also consider having to pay for the permit to be illegal, since one should not need to pay to exercise a Constitutional right.

Maybe those who disagree think having to take a class and buying a license to vote or read the Bible would be OK.  Actually, making it illegal for stupid people to vote does seem tempting...  But the same people who want us to have to pay to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights don't even want us to have to show an ID to vote.

So that's where my opinion on this issue of what is a fair price is coming from.  The class you are required to take means money you are required to spend to exercise a Constitutional right.  If I have to pay money to exercise a right, I'd just as soon not have to pay any more than necessary.  I personally don't mind paying for quality instruction; I just don't like being forced to do it in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

The first class I took was expensive; I don't remember but it seems like it was in the $180 range, because early on there weren't a lot of options.  That class was marginal; the teacher was opinionated and I didn't like having to pay to hear the opinions of a blowhard.  But it was money I had to pay to be able to exercise my right.

Years later I took a class offered by Chris Zeeb to get my Utah permit.  That class didn't cost very much and I thought Chris did a very excellent job. 

Some of us though are capable and willing to learn things on our own.  So if the state wants to make sure those who exercise the right to bear arms know the law and know how to use their weapon (oh woops, I guess we're not supposed to use the w word), I think they should just give a test like the driver's test.  Far more people are killed by bad drivers than by those who lawfully bear arms, and driving isn't even a right. 

So if someone wants to offer a course for $5 I'm ok with it.  I've paid quite a bit of money studying various martial arts and I'm sure I'll be paying for more.  But that's my choice.  When politicians force us to buy our right to bear arms, it isn't always a matter of what the quality of instruction is.   

[Chris Z]

Years later I took a class offered by Chris Zeeb to get my Utah permit.  That class didn't cost very much and I thought Chris did a very excellent job. 
 

THANK YOU!!!

[Bucket]

"The thread is about what price is fair....."


And Obama and Marx smiled ......

^^^^^Post of the day right there!

[TwoSwords]

For those thinking I'd never do it for $XX, better not move to the Kansas City area then.

https://shesapistol.com/cgi/cart.pl?m=classes  $75  High because they have to pay for a retail store front.

http://centerfiress.com/view-events/event/437/Concealed-Carry-Firearms-Course-2/22/2014/0   $95 - because they have to pay for the range that you can eat off the floor and pay for their leather chairs and Crate and Barrel decor.  Not bashing, they are high end.  I got my picture taken with Emily Miller and book signed, so there.

Charge whatever want and write your NE representative.  Time is better spent on making the NE carry laws better.

Ernie Chambers just ranted for 7 hours about amber lights today or some such nonsense. 

I don't want to watch the NE Leg. live stream and see them make the laws worse.  I already watched the CO Leg. live stream fiasco.  So long #magpul

[DaveB]

Here is a sad fact Gary, your posts here on more mandating just to force people to spend more money with you is enough to turn me to any of the other trainers. We have more than enough laws on the books now. If only they were enforced.

[Gary]

Dave, what did I say to make you think, I am pushing for good people to have more restrictive laws?  Your impression of me is about as accurate as you knowing you are going to win the lottery. 

Good luck with that. 

Nikko Jenkins, and his evil kin, need to be on chain gangs, and we need laws in place to keep them in chains, till their limbs rot off.  Nose clean citizens, do not need laws to get us to behave ourselves, in most cases.

Put me in charge of the county, and our country might have guns laws like Switzerland of 30 years ago. 

Homeowners, all have automatic rifles.  All of them.  mandatory.

[Dan W]

Dave, what did I say to make you think, I am pushing for good people to have more restrictive laws?  Your impression of me is about as accurate as you knowing you are going to win the lottery.

Good luck with that. 

Not only do the Instructors need NSP training, which would be ideal, but the general public needs an 8 hour refresher class every few years.   Just paying a fee, and rolling again for a second, third, forth 5 year period of time, with no additional training, is a very bad public safety policy.

I think every permit holder should have three pieces of ID to carry a concealed handgun. .  State issued ID, CHP ID, and a recent ID card from an NRA or equivalent  certified pistol class.   NRA class should have been in the past 12 months.  Hunter safety, basic pistol, something, yearly.  No exceptions.

Getting a CHP every five years, by only paying a fee, and watching old Starsky & Hutch reruns on TV is not what I call legitimate firearms training.   

[SS_N_NE]

I think every permit holder should have three pieces of ID to carry a concealed handgun. .  State issued ID, CHP ID, and a recent ID card from an NRA or equivalent  certified pistol class.   NRA class should have been in the past 12 months.  Hunter safety, basic pistol, something, yearly.  No exceptions.

I think a few laws governing a few things are a necessary addition. 

Each time I see "I think", there is an opposite essence of freedom. How can we have a right limited by law? Should a person 'choose' to educate or train for an obviously serious method of self defense it should be an individual decision.

I always see people agree that our right to self defense and right to bear arms should not be infringed...only to see "I think" step in and tear into those rights. Which way is it going to be?

As to the topic: Let the market decide should people choose to follow the law.

As has been my stance: Let our Constitutional Rights rule, declare CCW permits against those rights. Let people seek training skills by their own decided needs and not by laws that penalize our Rights, burden people with fees and process, tie up resources to process and enforcement and force law-abiding people take on extra burden of time and money to simply ensure their own safety against a system that can not ensure that safety.