Missouri “Firearms Safety Training Course” - Teaching More Than Is Required
By Chris Shoffner
In reality, this is what we have in Missouri, a “Firearms Safety Training Course”, rather than a “CCW Course” or a “Concealed Weapons Course”. In fact, it is even referenced on multiple occasions as a “Firearms Safety Training Course” in Missouri Revised Statute 571.111, which is the section of our statutes that specifies the training requirements an applicant must complete before being eligible for a concealed carry endorsement.
I think, as instructors, this simple fact should tell us something. The state is, very specifically, requiring basic firearms safety training, and a quick perusal through the training requirements confirms just that. Excluding the legal portion of the class, the mandated practical training requirements are:
- Handgun safety in the classroom, at home, on the firing range and while carrying the firearm.
- A physical demonstration performed by the applicant that demonstrated his or her ability to safely load and unload a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol and demonstrated his or her marksmanship with both.
- The basic principles of marksmanship.
- Care and cleaning of concealable firearms.
- Safe storage of firearms at home.
- A live firing exercise of sufficient duration for each applicant to fire a handgun, from a standing position or its equivalent, a minimum of fifty rounds at a distance of seven yards from a B-27 silhouette target or an equivalent target.
- A live fire test administered to the applicant while the instructor was present of twenty rounds from a standing position or its equivalent at a distance from a B-27 silhouette target, or an equivalent target, of seven yards.
Reading through this list, the complete absence of a requirement for any type of combatives or advanced shooting training should be quite obvious. It becomes apparent that our legislators were specifically concerned with firearms safety, first and foremost, when they passed this law. They wanted to keep the course curriculum at a level that would not only provide a good safety review for seasoned shooters, but also adequately teach beginning and inexperienced shooters proper safe gun handling practices and safety protocols.
So how does this affect us, as instructors, and what does it mean in regards to our course curriculum? Clearly, each of us as an individual will have a slightly different take on the finer points of what each requirement might or might not involve. For example, in some cases, the facility we teach in might require us to teach “handgun safety in the classroom” in a way that is slightly different than the way another instructor would teach it in a different facility. Or perhaps we have our own, unique gun cleaning procedure we prefer to teach. These personal preferences are just one of the things that make our classes unique to us. What it boils down to is that, in many instances, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
As instructors, I don’t believe we should unnecessarily avoid these variations. As long as our curriculum closely complies with the requirements set forth by the state and meets the highest standards of safety, then there is nothing wrong with “making it our own”. Keeping your curriculum relevant and interesting goes a long way towards keeping your students interested enough to pay attention to the very important subject matter you are trying to cover.
On the other hand, we could easily run into problems if we try to incorporate controversial or untested ideas, techniques, and concepts into our training programs. While we might think it makes us “cutting edge” or “state of the art” to include some kind of new or controversial topic of instruction, it will more than likely only detract from the real task at hand as well as adding unnecessary minutes, or perhaps hours, to the time it takes to cover all of the required curriculum. In addition, it is possible that such topics could cause us additional legal liability if, God forbid, a student was ever placed in jeopardy because something we taught was not tested and proven to be safe and effective.
There is also risk in teaching too far above the skill level of the students in a class where the curriculum is mandated by the state. For example, taking a person who has never picked up a handgun prior to the day of the class and placing him or her in a position where they must operate the gun at an advanced level after only a few hours of instruction, is a recipe for disaster. Skills take time and practice to develop, and basic fundamentals simply must be learned and then mastered, before moving on to anything more advanced. A student or instructor with a bullet hole in his or her body is every instructor’s worst nightmare. The only safe way to approach the state-mandated training course as an instructor is to assume that every student in your class is an absolute beginner that has no handgun experience at all. It will be many weeks, or perhaps even months, before these students are ready to move on to any kind of advanced defensive handgun skills.
In the wake of the tragic events that took place in a March 2011 “concealed carry” class held near Vanzant, Missouri, which cost a Mountain Grove man his life, I believe every instructor would be well served to step back and reevaluate his or her course curriculum and how it compares with what the state has mandated. It’s appears almost certain at this point that a non-mandated training exercise was at the heart of the unfortunate events that led to this man’s death. As training professionals, we have an ethical and moral responsibility to our students, our families, and the people of this state, and indeed, to each other, to ensure that we always put safety first. Unnecessarily placing a student or any other person in harms way because we are trying to include training exercises or other curriculum that is outside of the scope of the course, or to try to make our students think they are getting some kind of “combat” training, is simply unacceptable. In addition, whether just or unjust, the actions of one always reflect on the many so when one instructor does something questionable, you can bet that it will reflect poorly on the rest of us as well.
Ultimately, each instructor will have to make some decisions about any non-mandated curriculum they might choose to include in their version of the state mandated Firearms Safety Training Course. While the statutes do not specify that additional content may not be included, they clearly outline a basic firearms safety course that the state expects to take at least 8 hours. If the instructor adds additional content, then the course length should increase accordingly. In other words, at no time should the state mandated curriculum be short changed so non-mandated curriculum can be covered, and obviously, safety should always take precedent over anything else when a decision is being made whether or not to include additional content.
I truly believe that we, as instructors, hold the future of our state-mandated concealed firearms training requirements in our hands. We essentially will choose our own destiny through our actions. If care isn’t taken and we allow ourselves to become complacent, our legislators will respond with more restrictions, more red tape, and more direct oversight of training programs. On the other hand, if we exercise due diligence and keep our training programs firmly grounded in the state mandated requirements, we will continue to enjoy a system that allows all of us to develop our lesson plans in our own unique ways and maintain our individual training styles, rather than the state taking a “cookie cutter” approach and developing their own lesson plan and requiring all of us to teach it exactly the same. I would encourage all of you to keep this in mind as you develop, update, or modify your “Missouri Firearms Safety Training Course” curriculum. And if you choose to call it a “Concealed Firearms Course”, or some other name, well, that’s just fine. At least your students will recognize what it is you are offering.
As always, Be Safe!
Chris is an NRA Certified Instructor in the Pistol, Personal Protection In The Home, and Personal Protection Outside The Home disciplines, in addition to being a Certified Range Safety Officer. His organization, Armed Missouri, Inc., has been providing state compliant Firearms Safety Training since February 2004, in addition to providing NRA Sanctioned student and instructor courses year round. For more information, you can visit his website at www.armedmissouri.com
