NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Firearms Training and Education => Topic started by: Gary on December 24, 2013, 12:58:30 AM
-
I want to dialogue about something we have all been thinking about, but does not seem to get much banter in public forums.
Prices for CHP and other handgun and long gun safety training classes.
I offer a program I think is pretty good. Classroom, and range time is about 10 hours. Sometimes longer.
I have a business relationship in Nebraska that goes back 30 years, hold a A+ rating at the BBB and my insurance companies.
As I look around the established leaders in Concealed Carry trainers in our state, I see a consistent pricing of around $125, sometimes a little more.
$125 is what I charge, though I do knock off 10% if you do it with a friend or spouse.
My training is mostly NRA. Basic pistol instructor. Personal protection inside the home instructor. Personal protection outside the home instructor. Refuse to be a victim instructor. Range safety officer instructor. Chief range safety officer.
I am also a Glock certified armorer. I retired my FFL class 2 in 2000
Getting back into the gun business this year, has given me a pretty full plate, as far as my personal studies are concerned, but my dedicated NRA classroom, that I lease in a shopping strip mall, is not real busy, because of the few instructors that have decided to offer cut rate prices for their CHP classes. $80, $75, and who knows how low it can go? Is $39.95 going to be the next post we read here on our forums?
I do not want to play the cut rate game, offering lower and lower prices, to under cut established well defined, good programs, by experienced instructors.
Other instructors here, chime in with me, in stating your feelings about quality programs offered for CHP in our state.
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.
-
#1 The only cut rate pricing (using $100-125 as the standard) has been by one instructor new to this Nebraska gig who will remain nameless. #2 Only you can decide what your time is worth (talked to a lawyer lately? ). #3 Keep in mind there are less than 2 million residents in the entire state thus small market. #4 You're 7 years late to the instructor game here yourself (unfortunately this is not "build it and they will come" #5 One gets what they pay for i. e. Caveat emptor. #6 I teach more for enjoyment than money. Best wishes for success.
-
#1 The only cut rate pricing (using $100-125 as the standard) has been by one instructor new to this Nebraska gig who will remain nameless. #2 Only you can decide what your time is worth (talked to a lawyer lately? ). #3 Keep in mind there are less than 2 million residents in the entire state thus small market. #4 You're 7 years late to the instructor game here yourself (unfortunately this is not "build it and they will come" #5 One gets what they pay for i. e. Caveat emptor. #6 I teach more for enjoyment than money. Best wishes for success.
This. And if I may add, the classes I have taken are worth the money I paid, i.e., you get what you pay for. I myself would be extremely cautious of any CHP class costing less than $100.
-
Like bullit, I do it for the enjoyment. There is little profit in this. With the cost of advertising, printing, handouts and insurance there is no way to do a cut rate without cutting quality. Quality in this case can effect the rest of some ones life, finances and maybe even result in prison time
-
It's a Free Market.
And a relatively Narrow One, at that.
Charge what you wish; see who shows up.
You will build (or have already built) a Reputation. You will or will not have Followers, based on that reputation.
You cannot control the prices or quality of Other Instructors. Only your own.
My own approach in teaching CHP (or any other firearms discipline) is that:
>It's Fun
>You meet nice people (Other Shooters)
>You often learn more than you teach
>It contributes to the Shooting Sports
>The World is a Safer Place when the class is over
>Liberty and Freedom are enhanced, and
>There are Much Better, Easier Ways to Make a Buck Without Taking On the Very Real Risk of Getting Shot
That's About It..........
sfg
-
Got Windy, Forgot to Address the Issue of CHP Course Prices.......
Here are some with which I have immediate knowledge:
$179 National Safety Council - Nebraska (Classes usually fill up.)
$149 Paragon Firearms Training (My partners: Includes rolls in AM, coffee all day, pizza lunch, Paragon Firearms T-shirt)
$125 My own class when not taught w/partners (Just the course; no frills. Discount given for spouse. Can't remember how much. $25???)
$101 Nebraska101 in Gretna, NE (I refer folks here if I have no classes scheduled.)
$75 Papillion Gun Club (Special discount rates only for PG Club Members. Course is taught pro bono by me, two courses/year only. Lunch included. All proceeds go to PGC.)
So that's quite a range of prices, depending on the (a) instructor and (b) circumstances under which the course is offered.
They all are approved by the Nebraska State Patrol, which is the Main Thing.
sfg
-
This is what Nebraska does not need.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/charges-against-st-louis-county-gun-instructor-put-concealed-carry/article_c8d2659b-9f6c-5b39-91f1-acfd48305f52.html (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/charges-against-st-louis-county-gun-instructor-put-concealed-carry/article_c8d2659b-9f6c-5b39-91f1-acfd48305f52.html)
-
There has been one in Nebraska that has lost their credentials for similar actions
-
This is what Nebraska does not need.
You are so right Gary, one bad instructor can taint the whole system, and the haters are just looking for a story like this.
Just as they are waiting for some "fool" with a CHP to shoot up some place in a drunken stupor.
Greg58
-
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'd be very careful with statements like this. Though I cannot disagree with you, under business guidelines this could be interpreted as an attempt at price fixing. If you profit from your classes in any way, and someone gets bent out of shape over this you could be taken to task by the government. I think the probability of that is low, but how many senseless things have you seen the government do lately?
-
I'd be very careful with statements like this. Though I cannot disagree with you, under business guidelines this could be interpreted as an attempt at price fixing. If you profit from your classes in any way, and someone gets bent out of shape over this you could be taken to task by the government. I think the probability of that is low, but how many senseless things have you seen the government do lately?
I find the request to maintain certain prices slightly offensive. Let the market decide like it should.
-
I find the request to maintain certain prices slightly offensive. Let the market decide like it should.
I am confused. 00Buck was not asking to maintain prices as they are, in fact, he was warning against it. Unless you are referring to the post that Gary made about the "cut rate prices".
-
My apologies for the confusion gsd. I was referring to the original post by gary.
-
I honestly don't care what other people charge for their classes. I have been doing this since the very beginning, and have seen it all across the board. I've seen Instructors come and go. Some good ones, some bad ones, and some who jumped in thinking they were going to get rich or make a living doing this but quickly learned otherwise.
There was once an Instructor who offered classes for $35.... (He did a 2 day class) He ran around bad mouthing other Instructors saying that we were gouging people...... He didn't last very long, and unfortunately I ended up taking many of his former students through my class, because they felt like they did not get a quality class and did not learn anything in his TWO DAY class. This Instructor didn't even last the first year....... He quit teaching classes quickly when he realized it was way more work than he ever expected.
If you find a class that covers all the state required material, and you learn from the class...... EXCELLENT! Tell your friends and everyone else about it and recommend that Instructor.
Just because you pay $77 or $179 doesn't mean it is going to be a good class or a bad class.
I teach classes because I am passionate about the subject and I absolutely love teaching. Yes I get paid to do it, I don't do it for free. I have invested a lot of my time and a lot of money to make sure I know what I'm doing and that I am giving a top notch class..... I don't offer any discounts. I know what my costs are, I know what sort of time commitment is in putting together, preparing for and teaching the class, as well as the work that continues after the class (paperwork, frequent contacts/questions by past students), and I know what my time is worth.
If a prospective ccw student contacts me asking for a 3 hour discounted class because they already know everything..... I politely will direct them elsewhere because that is not what I do.
NSP sends undercover Officers into all CHP classes often..... They don't show up and announce that they are there to audit you! They register and pay, and sit through the class just like everyone else. And they see the true picture as to whether an Instructor is doing what is required. Or cutting corners.
I have a friend who witnessed first hand NSP coming in to audit another Instructors range portion, and the Officer ended up flipping out because of the gross safety violations that were happening on the range, and the fact the Instructor was NOT doing the prescribed qualification...... The Officer pulled the Instructor aside, Identified himself, and threatened to fail the 15 students right there on the spot......... That was a real "come to Jesus" moment for that Instructor, and I'm guessing he is following the rules to the T now IF he is still teaching.
I've heard some reports of some of those undercover visits to some classes...... And all I can do is shake my head at what they experienced.
Bottom line is this......... Give a GREAT CLASS and people will come. Charge what you have to, to do it right.
-
^^^what he said.
-
And that is why, when I talk to people about the combined NE and Utah classes, I specifically recommend Chris Zeeb. I went through Chris' Utah portion, I already had my NE permit. I am an NRA pistol instructor, and have been for a number of years. I was an Air Force Training Manager and First Sergeant for over 20 years and know and understand what proper preparation and instruction is. You have to be passionate about what you do when you are an instructor, to be effective. Students sense it. Nothing turnes me off more that an instructor that doesn't know his material or hasn't prepared for his/her class. I'm glad that the NSP secretly audits classes, it's good for all of us!!
-
Once again, the Glock Guy is right.
And I believe a good instructor will tell you that the CCW class is NOT enough. Getting training above and beyond what the state mandates is essential IMHO.
A good start is Chris Z's Legal Aspects of Lethal Force class.
And there is very good training to be had at PRT.
Yes, they're Glock guys, but they still know what they're doing. :)
-
Once again, the Glock Guy is right.
And I believe a good instructor will tell you that the CCW class is NOT enough. Getting training above and beyond what the state mandates is essential IMHO.
A good start is Chris Z's Legal Aspects of Lethal Force class.
And there is very good training to be had at PRT.
Yes, they're Glock guys, but they still know what they're doing. :)
I can't say enough good things about Legal Aspects of Lethal Force.......and its coming up again:
Saturday January 25th 8:30am-1pm in Gretna
-
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NRA TRAINER’S ETHICS GUIDE
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
COMPETENCE
INTEGRITY
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
RESPECT OF PARTICIPANTS' RIGHTS AND DIGNITY
CONCERN FOR OTHERS' WELFARE
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY
ETHICAL STANDARDS
A. GENERAL STANDARDS
1. APPLICABILITY OF ETHICS GUIDE
2. BOUNDARIES OF COMPETENCE
3. MAINTAINING EXPERTISE
4. BASIS FOR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS
5. DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF INSTRUCTING OR COACHING JUDGMENTS
6. RESPECTING OTHERS
7. DISCRIMINATION
8. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
9. AVOIDING HARM
10. MISUSE OF INFLUENCE
11. MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS
12. EXPLOITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
13. DELEGATIONS TO AND SUPERVISION OF SUBORDINATES
14. HONORING COMMITMENTS
B. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
1. AVOIDANCE OF FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS
2. MEDIA PRESENTATIONS
3. TESTIMONIALS
4. REPRESENTING THE NRA
C. RESOLVING ETHICAL ISSUES
1. FAMILIARITY WITH ETHICS GUIDE
2. CONFRONTING ETHICAL ISSUES
3. CONFLICTS BETWEEN ETHICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEMANDS
4. INFORMAL RESOLUTION OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS
5. FORMAL REPORTING OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS
6. COOPERATING WITH ETHICS INVESTIGATIONS
7. IMPROPER COMPLAINTS
NRA TRAINER’S ETHICS GUIDE
INTRODUCTION
We are not immune from ethical problems in the shooting sports.
The intent of this guide is to provide both general principles and the decision rules to cover most
situations encountered by NRA trainers.
It has been designed with the purpose of establishing trainer ethics in order to protect the students,
athletes, trainers, volunteers, clubs, the NRA, and the public. These standards define (to the extent
possible) acceptable and unacceptable categories of behavior.
Whether a trainer has violated the Ethics Guide does not in itself determine if a contract or agreement is
enforceable or if legal consequences occur. These results are based on legal rather than ethical rules.
However, compliance with or violation of the Ethics Guide may be relevant as evidence in some legal
proceedings, depending upon the circumstances.
It is the individual responsibility of each trainer to aspire to the highest possible standards of conduct.
Trainers should respect and protect human civil rights, and should not knowingly participate in or
condone unfair discriminatory practices.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
COMPETENCE
Trainers strive to maintain high standards of excellence in their work. They recognize the
boundaries of their particular competencies and the limitations of their expertise. They provide
only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education,
training, or experience. Trainers exercise careful judgment and take appropriate precautions to
protect the welfare of those with whom they work. They maintain knowledge of relevant
educational information related to the services they render, and they recognize the need for
ongoing education. Trainers make appropriate use of scientific, professional, technical, and
administrative resources.
INTEGRITY
Trainers seek to promote integrity in the practice of instructing and coaching. Trainers are honest
and fair. In describing or reporting their qualifications, services, products, or fees, they do not
make statements that are false, misleading, or deceptive. Trainers strive to be aware of their own
belief systems, values, needs, and limitations, and the effect of these on their work. To the extent
feasible, they attempt to clarify, for relevant parties, the roles they are performing and to function
appropriately in accordance with those roles. Trainers avoid improper and potentially harmful
relationships.
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Trainers uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations,
accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and adapt their methods to the needs of
different participants. Trainers consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and
institutes to the extent needed to serve the best interests of their students, or other recipients of
their services. Trainers' moral standards and conduct are personal matters to the same degree as is
true for any other person, except when trainers' conduct may compromise their responsibilities or
reduce the public's trust in shooting instruction or shooting instructors and/or coaches.
RESPECT OF PARTICIPANTS’* RIGHTS AND DIGNITY
Trainers respect the fundamental rights, dignity, and worth of all participants. Trainers are aware
of individual differences. Trainers try to eliminate the effect of biases on their work, and they do
not knowingly participate in or condone unlawful discriminatory practices.
CONCERN FOR OTHERS' WELFARE
Trainers seek to contribute to the welfare of those with whom they interact. In their actions,
trainers consider the welfare and rights of all participants. When conflicts occur among trainers'
obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts to perform their roles in a
responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Trainers are sensitive to differences in power
between themselves and others, and they do not exploit or mislead other people before, during or
after their instructional or coaching relationships.
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY
Trainers are aware of their ethical responsibilities to the community and the society in which they
work and live. They apply and make public their knowledge of shooting in order to contribute to
human welfare. Trainers try to avoid misuse of their work. Trainers comply with the law and
encourage the development of law and policies that serve the interest of shooting and responsible
gun ownership.
* Participants: Those taking part in shooting (shooters and their family members, instructors,
coaches, officials, volunteer, administrators, and spectators).
ETHICAL STANDARDS
A. GENERAL STANDARDS
These General Standards are applicable to the activities of all NRA trainers.
1. APPLICABILITY OF ETHICS GUIDE
While many aspects of personal behavior and private activities seem far
removed from official duties of teaching shooting, all trainers should be
sensitive to their position as role models for shooters and their
community. Private activities perceived as immoral or illegal can
influence the public’s perception of shooting instructors and coaches.
Trainers are encouraged to observe the standards of this Ethics Guide
consistently.
2. BOUNDARIES OF COMPETENCE
a. Trainers provide services only after first undertaking appropriate
study, training, supervision, and/or consultation from qualified members
of their respective credentialing association.
b. In those areas of the United States that require specified education or
certification for instructors or coaches, trainers take reasonable steps to
ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
3. MAINTAINING EXPERTISE
Trainers maintain a reasonable level of awareness of related educational
information and undertake ongoing efforts to maintain competence in the
skills they use.
4. BASIS FOR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS
Trainers rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge
when making judgments or when engaging in instructional or coaching
endeavors.
5. DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF INSTRUCTION OR COACHING
When trainers provide services or information to an individual, a group,
or an organization, they use language that is reasonably understandable
and appropriate to the recipient of those services, and information that is
always updated and truthful.
6. RESPECTING OTHERS
a. Trainers respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes, and
opinions that differ from their own.
b. When engaged in instructing or coaching, trainers recognize the power
they hold over participants, and therefore make reasonable efforts to
avoid engaging in conduct that is demeaning to participants.
7. DISCRIMINATION
Trainers do not engage in discrimination on any basis prescribed by law.
8. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
a. Trainers do not engage in sexual harassment.
b. Trainers will treat sexual harassment complainants and respondents
with dignity and respect.
9. AVOIDING HARM
Trainers take reasonable steps to avoid harming their participants.
10. MISUSE OF INFLUENCE
Because trainers' judgments and actions may affect the lives of others,
they are alert to guard against personal, financial, social, organizational,
or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence.
11. MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS
a. In many communities and situations, it may not be feasible or
reasonable for trainers to avoid social or other non-training contacts with
students, athletes and other participants. Trainers must always be
sensitive to the potential harmful effects of other contacts on their work
and on those persons with whom they deal. A trainer refrains from
entering into or promising a personal, professional, financial, or other
type of relationship with such persons if it appears likely that such a
relationship might impair the trainer's objectivity or otherwise interfere
with the trainer effectively performing his or her function, or might harm
or exploit the other party.
b. Whenever feasible, a trainer refrains from taking on obligations when
preexisting relationships would create a risk of harm.
c. If a trainer finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful
multiple relationship has arisen, the trainer attempts to resolve it with due
regard for the best interests of the affected person and in maximum
compliance with this Ethics Guide.
12. EXPLOITATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
a. Trainers do not exploit participants over whom they have supervisory,
evaluative, or other authority.
b. Trainers do not engage in sexual/romantic relationships with
participants over whom the trainer has evaluative, direct, or indirect
authority whenever such relationships are likely to impair judgment or be
exploitative.
13. DELEGATIONS TO AND SUPERVISION OF SUBORDINATES
a. Trainers delegate to their assistants only the authority that such
persons can reasonably be expected to perform competently on the basis
of their education, training, experience, or certification.
b. Trainers provide proper training and supervision to their assistants or
substitutes, as well as take reasonable steps to see that such persons
perform services responsibly, competently, and ethically.
14. HONORING COMMITMENTS
Trainers take responsible measures to honor all commitments they have
made to participants.
A. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
1. AVOIDANCE OF FALSE OR DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS
Trainers do not make public statements that are false, deceptive,
misleading, or fraudulent (either due to what they state, convey, or
suggest, or because of what they omit) concerning their accomplishments
or activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are
affiliated. As examples (and not in limitation) of this standard, trainers
do not make false or deceptive statements concerning:
a. Their training, experience, competence, or services.
b. Their institutional or association affiliations.
c. Their academic degrees.
d. Their credentials.
a. The basis for, results of, or degree of success of their services.
f. Their shooting accomplishments
2. MEDIA PRESENTATIONS
When trainers provide advice or comment by means of public lectures,
demonstrations, radio or television programs, pre-recorded tapes, printed
articles, mailed material, or other media, they take reasonable
precautions to ensure that the statements are consistent with this Ethics
Guide.
3. TESTIMONIALS
Trainers do not solicit testimonials from current or prospective
participants who, because of their particular circumstances, are
vulnerable to undue influence.
4. REPRESENTING THE NRA
Trainers understand that their business relationship with the NRA is that
of an independent contractor who has been given credentials by the NRA
to teach specific NRA courses or perform other specified training
activities. Trainers understand they are not NRA employees and may not
represent the NRA on matters of NRA policy formulation or policy
interpretation nor may they make business commitments on behalf of the
NRA unless given specific written authorization to do so.
B. RESOLVING ETHICAL ISSUES
1. FAMILIARITY WITH ETHICS GUIDE
Trainers have an obligation to be familiar with this Ethics Guide (or as it
may be amended from time to time), other applicable ethics codes, and
their application to the trainer's work. Lack of awareness, or
misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not, in itself, a defense to a
charge of unethical conduct.
2. CONFRONTING ETHICAL ISSUES
When a trainer is uncertain whether a particular situation or course of
action would violate the Ethics Guide, the trainer ordinarily consults with
other trainers knowledgeable about ethical issues, or with the NRA
Training Department.
3. CONFLICTS BETWEEN ETHICS AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEMANDS
If the demands of an organization with which trainers are affiliated
conflict with this Ethics Guide, trainers clarify the nature of the conflict,
make known their commitment to this Ethics Guide, and to the extent
feasible, seek to resolve the conflict in a way that permits the fullest
adherence to the Ethics Guide.
4. INFORMAL RESOLUTION OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS
When participants believe that there may have been an ethics violation
by a trainer, they may attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the
attention of that individual in an informal manner.
5. FORMAL REPORTING OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS
If an apparent ethics violation is not appropriate for informal resolution
under this Ethics Guide, or is not resolved properly in that fashion,
participants and the NRA may take further action by:
a. Participant:
Any participant with first-hand knowledge may notify the NRA
Training Department in writing, identifying those involved and the
specific ethics violations and describing actions taken to resolve
the situation.
b. The NRA Training Department:
(1) Will review and investigate documented ethics
violation charges.
(2) If necessary, will review the ethics violation charge
with NRA counsel.
(3) If the charge is credible, will notify the accused of
the allegation in writing. The accused will be given the
opportunity to respond in writing.
(4) Will render a decision and notify the accused in
writing. The decision may result in exoneration or in
sanctions, including, but not limited to, suspension or
revocation of NRA training credentials.
(5) Will keep a written record on all reviews, responses,
and actions.
6. COOPERATING WITH ETHICS INVESTIGATIONS
Trainers cooperate in ethics investigations and proceedings. Failure to
cooperate is itself an ethics violation.
7. IMPROPER COMPLAINTS
Participants do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that
are frivolous or are intended to harm the respondent rather than protect
the public.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
http://youtu.be/2SS3b9coJ2M (http://youtu.be/2SS3b9coJ2M)
-
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
-
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! :laugh:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/11842444963_d94d51d175_c.jpg)
-
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.
-
"The thread is about what price is fair....."
And Obama and Marx smiled ......
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
"The thread is about what price is fair....."
And Obama and Marx smiled ......
^^^^^Post of the day right there!
-
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 (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 (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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
-
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.
-
When I took my class I did think one of the student might have been law enforcement, interesting to read that people say the NSP does go in and audit classes, makes me feel a little better about my eye! I was a paramedic and in that job I met several LEOs and this guy just felt like he was a cop.
my input on this isn't even worth my $00.02 but to me it comes down to integrity, if the teacher is who he says he is and is knows what he says he knows students will have a good class and will learn and more students will go.
$50 or $200 doesn't matter in things like this, where most of the students are professional conservative people, money isn't a huge issue when it comes to proper training, however integrity is.
-
.
-
"The thread is about what price is fair....."
And Obama and Marx smiled ......
Yep. There is no such thing as a "fair" or "just" price other than what two or more consenting market actors agree on.