Interesting addition in Iowas law!

[John S.]

This was found in an FAQ from Iowa DPS...............................

QUESTION: What are the training requirements for a new Iowa professional or nonprofessional permit to carry weapons?
ANSWER:
 Completion of any National Rifle Association (NRA) handgun safety training course.
 Completion of any handgun safety training course available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency,
community college, college, private or public institution or organization, or firearms training school, utilizing instructors
certified by the National Rifle Association or certain other firearms training certifying bodies (such as the Iowa Law
Enforcement Academy).
 Completion of any handgun safety training course offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division
or subdivision of a law enforcement or security enforcement agency approved by the Iowa Department of Public Safety.
 Completion of small arms training while serving with the armed forces of the United States as evidenced by any of the
following:
o For personnel released or retired from active duty, possession of an honorable discharge or general discharge under
honorable conditions.
o For personnel on active duty or serving in one of the national guard or reserve components of the armed forces of the
United States, possession of a certificate of completion of basic training with a service record of successful completion of
small arms training and qualification.
 Completion of a law enforcement agency firearms training course that qualifies a peace officer to carry a firearm in the normal
course of the peace officer's duties.

Compare that to MN's FAQ's

Do members of the military need to take additional firearms training in order to apply for a permit to carry?
Although members of the military received superb firearms training, they must receive training from an instructor that has been certified by an approved business organization in Minnesota. This additional training pertains to the legal aspects of “permit to carry issues”. Military members can contact their local sheriff’s department for further clarification and consideration.

[Heffay]

While I appreciate the convenience that the Iowa provides, having additional training is a good idea. You fight like you train, and training someone did 20 years ago doesn't exactly keep the skills sharp.

[Sietch]

Alright. Then they can train if they if they want. If you completed basic you shouldn't need a thumbs up from the state that you understand what a firearm is and how to use it. However basic should specifically include handguns. It does now. But forty years ago my Dad didn't qual on handgun in Army basic. So for the old timers there may be a discrepancy.



EDIT:Spelling

[Heffay]

If you completed basic you shouldn't need a thumbs up from the state that you understand what a firearm is and how to use it.

In Minnesota, the thumbs up doesn't come from the state. It comes from certified firearms instructors that live in the same neighborhoods as the people who they are certifying.

[Sietch]

Hmmm. I don't know about you, but I had to submit to the Sheriff a signed certificate from a state-approved instructor/business as a condition for accepting my application. Although my instructor doesn't live anywhere near me, he does have to satisfy requirements dictated by the state and tailor his course to specific criteria. There was also in my last class an at-least 70yo Marine who could have saved $150 and wouldn't have put the community out any by insisting on a little common sense instead of a certificate. For the vets a qualification is surely fine. If they want to take a course or do their own research to get a handle on the relevant law--and they certainly should--then they can do that. We're all adults. We can spare them from the course and fee nonsense. They've been there. Done that.

[Heffay]

Hmmm. I don't know about you, but I had to submit to the Sheriff a signed certificate from a state-approved instructor/business as a condition for accepting my application. Although my instructor doesn't live anywhere near me, he does have to satisfy requirements dictated by the state and tailor his course to specific criteria. There was also in my last class an at-least 70yo Marine who could have saved $150 and wouldn't have put the community out any by insisting on a little common sense instead of a certificate. For the vets a qualification is surely fine. If they want to take a course or do their own research to get a handle on the relevant law--and they certainly should--then they can do that. We're all adults. We can spare them from the course and fee nonsense. They've been there. Done that.

Are you saying that because I'm prior military I shouldn't need to take training?

THINK ABOUT IT. I WAS IN THE FREAKING NAVY!!

[Sietch]

Are you saying that because I'm prior military I shouldn't need to take training?

THINK ABOUT IT. I WAS IN THE FREAKING NAVY!!

Like I wrote. I've addressed Army because that is what I know. Did you have handgun? If not, then yes, you should cert up like the rest.

[Norsesmithy]

Are you saying that because I'm prior military I shouldn't need to take training?

THINK ABOUT IT. I WAS IN THE FREAKING NAVY!!

There is no statistical difference in accident rates between states that don't require registration or testing at all, and states that are stringent about it.

Therefore there is no logical reason to have any testing/training requirement at all.

[nyffman]

Are we talking about the law or logic. Now I'm confused.

[John S.]

Hmmm. I don't know about you, but I had to submit to the Sheriff a signed certificate from a state-approved instructor/business as a condition for accepting my application. Although my instructor doesn't live anywhere near me, he does have to satisfy requirements dictated by the state and tailor his course to specific criteria. There was also in my last class an at-least 70yo Marine who could have saved $150 and wouldn't have put the community out any by insisting on a little common sense instead of a certificate. For the vets a qualification is surely fine. If they want to take a course or do their own research to get a handle on the relevant law--and they certainly should--then they can do that. We're all adults. We can spare them from the course and fee nonsense. They've been there. Done that.

Are you saying that because I'm prior military I shouldn't need to take training?

THINK ABOUT IT. I WAS IN THE FREAKING NAVY!!

So was I, but, I was also a roving security patrol carrying a 1911 colt. And had training like once a year for it. I don't think simply being in the Military constitutes training for handguns, but, if it IS in your service record then Why the need to spend $200.00 for a **** class?

Although it appears in IA's case simply being in the Military will suffice, I don't quite aggree with that without further proof of training!

[Heffay]

So was I, but, I was also a roving security patrol carrying a 1911 colt. And had training like once a year for it. I don't think simply being in the Military constitutes training for handguns, but, if it IS in your service record then Why the need to spend $200.00 for a ******* class?

Although it appears in IA's case simply being in the Military will suffice, I don't quite aggree with that without further proof of training!

Maybe I'm missing what the Iowa law is stating. In MN we have to get re-certified every 5 years. In Iowa they don't need to do that?

That's what I'm basing my opposition on (although it's not really opposition, it's more concern that it could cause issues in the future). Continuous training should be necessary for anyone, regardless of past background. Laws change. Techniques change. Skills atrophy. Getting a refresher every 5 years seems... prudent.

[John S.]

I agree. Wait did I just say that?

At least the re-cert classes are quite a bit cheaper. I just wish my Military training would have covered the initial $200.00 ( I think) class, then the $75.00 (I think) wouldn't be so bad!

[cmj685]

I didn't have any handgun training the army at all, back in the old days when I was in. I trained on m-16s, on grenade launchers, on the m-60 machine gun...but not once did I so much as have a handgun in my paws. So if the Iowa law means what it seems to say, despite my prior military and having a honorable discharge certificate, I don't meet the requirements. Just a caution....

[John S.]

I didn't have any handgun training the army at all, back in the old days when I was in. I trained on m-16s, on grenade launchers, on the m-60 machine gun...but not once did I so much as have a handgun in my paws. So if the Iowa law means what it seems to say, despite my prior military and having a honorable discharge certificate, I don't meet the requirements. Just a caution....

Bet they taught keep yer finger off the trigger, and gun pointed away from people, though, but, yeah just having an honorable discharge don't mean ****, they should at the very least have you provide proof of small arms training.

Might have to change the states name to IOWAWG

idiots out wandering around with guns.........................

But alas, there are a few on this forum who believe you should be allowed to carry a gun free and clear with no laws or permits whatsoever. Not that I disagree but, I feel safer having people get SOME training first.

[hammAR]

But alas, there are a few on this forum who believe you should be allowed to carry a gun free and clear with no laws or permits whatsoever...............

Damn straight, it is a Right and I should not have to ask permission, and as such I should not be licensed or taxed by any governmental body to exercise my Right!

While I listen to those sheeple discuss and argue about which state has the fairer laws and more/less requirements, I wonder why they even waste their time. They have already begun relinquishing their rights - permit to purchase....permit to carry......permit to hunt......permit to fish......... Why do we have to fight for and get approval for "Stand Your Ground" or even "Castle Doctrine", exactly who the hell is the villain and victim................

As far as training requirements, since I would wager that less than 2% of the "permit" folks would actually use a weapon to defend themselves, it is a useless exercise to require state sponsored and defined training, as it has relatively nothing to do with weapons proficiency. IF an individual takes their self-defense seriously, then they will access the training for proficiency that they believe they need, and even more importantly they will practice appropriately. As stated before, there are no statistics that prove that the required training has any effect on anything other than creating a cottage industry, generate extra funds for the government, and allow for another level of control and reduction of an individuals Rights.........