So, what would be the ballpark figure for this 3 day course? $300?

I'm not going to make up numbers.  But we can do a comparison.  Most local sources run $100 - $150 for the Basic Pistol (or equivalent) class.  If you simply triple that, you get the $300 - $450 range.  But it's not that straightforward.  Unlike Basic Pistol, it would be reasonable to ask students to supply their own ammo for PPITH and PPOTH, so expenses drop.  And students will need to provide their own firearms, so again, expenses drop.  Then you have to turn around and pay a lawyer, or LEO, for an hour or two of their time, which is an all new expense.  And there is always insurance and classroom materials.

If you had an outfit where all the instructors were volunteers AND they had a volunteer attorney/LEO for the laws, and were allowed to use the public range, I could see it being as little as $75.  If you were dealing with a commercial enterprise, had to pay full lawyer's rates, and use a private range, I could see it being as high as $800. 

It would be nice if there was some allowance for people with out-of-state CCW licenses to skip some of the training. 

[EDIT]
Oh, I forgot... there is a section of PPOTH that must be taught by a practicing attorney, or LEO, or someone qualified to teach said laws in the state.  That will probably run the cost up a little.

Which is exactly why we should lobby against any additional training requirements structured under the NRA.  And, instead, go by requirements that are "Use of a holster" "drawing a weapon" and scoring requirement with a set time frame (8 hours course).

Going with one specific brand is garbage; on top of that - I can't really say that NRA courses are the pinnacle of firearms training. 

So, what would be the ballpark figure for this 3 day course? $300?

Well first, a 3 day course is bullshit. That should not be required.  John Lott has data that as soon as you hit 9 hours (day 2), about 1/2 the people drop off.  It just gets worse. 

For gun training, from a lower qualified instructor, you are looking at about $150 dollars a day.   Will people do it for less - sure.

Which is exactly why we should lobby against any additional training requirements structured under the NRA.  And, instead, go by requirements that are "Use of a holster" "drawing a weapon" and scoring requirement with a set time frame (8 hours course).

Going with one specific brand is garbage; on top of that - I can't really say that NRA courses are the pinnacle of firearms training. 

As someone who teaches for a living, I can honestly say I have NEVER had someone else hand me a curriculum that I 100% agreed with.  This is also true of NRA.  Their classes, at least the ones I have experience with (which are about half the roster), have a LOT of good content in them.  And they have some strange restrictions.  And a few things that are just poorly-thought-out.  Pinnacle of firearms training?  No.  Mighty fine classes with good resource materials and organization?  Absolutely.  A curriculum that a competent instructor can feel certain will cover the essentials?  Again, absolutely.

I agree that the current structure, requiring two days with an optional third, is onerous.  We're all hoping that the new class, when it is revealed, will  make more sense.  Will that be true, and will it happen before Hawaii gets shall-issue?  Unknowns.

But NRA is the recognized standard for civilian firearms training.  For good or ill, it's the first name that pops to mind when people wonder "Gee, where should I turn to get instruction on how to use my gun?"

Now, if we are lucky and diligent, any new requirements will be worded like the current ones, requiring a class that is taught by a certified instructor (NRA certification would be one option), and requiring certain elements like you mentioned (laws, holster, accuracy come to mind), but not actually specifying a curriculum. 

Well first, a 3 day course is bullshit. That should not be required.  John Lott has data that as soon as you hit 9 hours (day 2), about 1/2 the people drop off.  It just gets worse. 

For gun training, from a lower qualified instructor, you are looking at about $150 dollars a day.   Will people do it for less - sure.

my fear is that even if we get "shall issue", the requirements will be high and there will be no reciprocity

my fear is that even if we get "shall issue", the requirements will be high and there will be no reciprocity

If other states that were unwillingly dragged into "shall issue" by the courts (e.g. Illinois) are any example, I can only imagine the absurd impediments that have already been "brain stormed" by the Second Amendment opponents in our public servant offices (legislators, police, attorney general, governor, etc.). And I can only imagine the hours and dollars that will be involved to exercise a fundamental civil right guaranteed by the Constitution. But then I'm a cynical old geezer. Perhaps they will be "reasonable" and generous and actually act according to a rational evaluation of the evidence and the law. 

Copied it, pasted it, sent it. Now for the reply.

I did the same...Modified the original letter and sent to the representatives.

This graphically illustrates the government of Hawaii's attempt to remain an extreme minority bastion of unconstitutional subversion of the right to keep and bear arms.

Article written by Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy blog at the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/growth-chart-of-right-to-carry/

Let's hope Peruta is upheld.

So, we have laws being overturned in California, Illinois, and DC recently where the courts declared the laws to be unconstitutional.

Logically, if the legislators who passed, and the executive officer who signed, these laws into existence were upholding their oath of office, we would never have a need to do this with a few rare exceptions! All laws would have already been scrutinized to ensure they abide by the Constitution well before passage.

What we are seeing is a Liberal agenda to pass these unconstitutional laws, then force citizens or states to contest them in court -- a lengthy and costly proposal.

These are the same law makers who swear on a Bible to support and defend the Constitution.... but don't worry! They all support the Second Amendment, too!

Logically, if the legislators who passed, and the executive officer who signed, these laws into existence were upholding their oath of office, we would never have a need to do this with a few rare exceptions! All laws would have already been scrutinized to ensure they abide by the Constitution well before passage.

It appears impossible for ideologue legislators/politicians to understand that "keep and bears arms" actually means "keep and bear arms". I mean, really, how difficult is that to comprehend? I suppose if your starting point is "no civilian ought to be able to own/possess firearms", then you must define "the people" and "keep and bear arms" in such a narrow way that it actually makes no sense. Politicians making no sense in order to impose their agenda, imagine that. 

The reason we see this sort of unconstitutional legislation is because there is no personal consequences for violating the Constitution through a legislators vote. It is true that they do have the right to vote their conscience but their conscience is supposed to be principally  bound by the Constitution. Thus an outright test (vote) against the Constitution is nothing less than an assault upon the Constitution unless cast through Constitutional amendment procedures.  The way I see it is at minimum - a legislator who votes in favor of an unconstitutional bill that is later decreed unconstitutional by the Courts should then automatically lose their seat, lose all benefits derived from such service, be barred from all political activities as well a forfeiture to the right to vote and contribute to any campaign fund.  Barred from all political activities for the remainder of their lives.

As it stands today... the legislative as well as the executive branch have overburdened the judiciary, rendering it largely ineffective, thus we have a clear breakdown in the check and balances. If there were ample consequences for voting in favor of unconstitutional  legislation our checks and balances could be restored, the judiciary burdens relieved and the allure to office by unscrupulous personality types reduced substantially. 

In the early days of this country, the population was largely driven by integrity and those who veered from such integrity were automatically ostracized. Today we've lost that integrity and we're not going to reclaim it until the expectations to conduct one self with integrity is re-enforced.

I would like to see a compromise:
1.  Take a defensive carry training course (and passing a written/live fire test)
or
2.  Take a written exam and a live fire test, consisting of safely firing from the holster, hitting 7 out of 10 rounds on a silhouette target at 10 yards.

The way I see it is at minimum - a legislator who votes in favor of an unconstitutional bill that is later decreed unconstitutional by the Courts should then automatically lose their seat, lose all benefits derived from such service, be barred from all political activities as well a forfeiture to the right to vote and contribute to any campaign fund.  Barred from all political activities for the remainder of their lives.

I really like that idea. My predictions on the House and Senate votes on a bill to implement such an idea: House 44 nays to 7 ayes: defeated; Senate 23 nays to 2 ayes: defeated. Common excuse: "I shouldn't be held responsible for some activist judge revisioning the Constitution. Next thing you know some judge will declare that "keep and bear arms" means "keep and bear arms". That's outrageous!"

It's an election year.....now is the time to vote these "fuggers" out!  PERIOD!

I really like that idea. My predictions on the House and Senate votes on a bill to implement such an idea: House 44 nays to 7 ayes: defeated; Senate 23 nays to 2 ayes: defeated. Common excuse: "I shouldn't be held responsible for some activist judge revisioning the Constitution. Next thing you know some judge will declare that "keep and bear arms" means "keep and bear arms". That's outrageous!"

Of course you're point is valid and hence outlines the necessary route for ratification.
I see a few ways of getting it through. First and foremost, it it should be adopted as a voter base litmus test accompanied by a few other new integrity based questions. For example - replacing the dead horse question of abortion with the question of a "Call to integrity" amendment (where do they (the candidate) stand?). Secondly a grass roots movement across the nation through the ballot box State by State to bring about a Constitutional Convention for such an amendment, thus circumnavigating the legislative representatives altogether. So it could be pushed through the campaigning litmus test process and become a conscience within Congress and the Executive or State by State on the ballot for Constitutional Convention. Since a Constitutional Convention has yet to place a single amendment into the Constitution, such an amendment would indeed be fitting as the first to accomplish such a task while demonstrating the ultimate power of the people. So how is it promoted? First the amendment is drafted and then promoted through alternative media, grass roots parties, such as the Tea party , Libertarian party and within the Democratic and Republican parties. I can see it as a binding catalyst in which all parties would be committing political suicide not to observe, respect and support the proposed amendment. Argument to such a litmus test question indeed displays a propensity to negate accountability on behalf of the candidate.

BTW... sorry for hijacking this thread, will pursue this elsewhere. If there's any interest. I'll let someone else nominate it as a topic if interested.

From Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst for Breitbart News and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law:

San Diego may well now petition the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, meaning that eleven of the court’s judges would rehear the case. Given its heavy leftward bent, an en banc court would very likely reverse the three-judge panel.
But either way, this case is also a good candidate for Supreme Court review. Depending on whether this case goes to an en banc court, it could be before the Supreme Court in 2015 or 2016—not long before the presidential election.


Full Article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/Federal-Appeals-Court-Ruling-a-Major-Pro-Gun-Victory-Could-Go-to-Supreme-Court

Klukowski also appeared on the NRA News show Cam & Company on 2/14. Stephen Halbrook also appeared that day also commenting on the Peruta decision. http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company

From Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst for Breitbart News and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law:

San Diego may well now petition the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, meaning that eleven of the court’s judges would rehear the case. Given its heavy leftward bent, an en banc court would very likely reverse the three-judge panel.
But either way, this case is also a good candidate for Supreme Court review. Depending on whether this case goes to an en banc court, it could be before the Supreme Court in 2015 or 2016—not long before the presidential election.


Full Article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/Federal-Appeals-Court-Ruling-a-Major-Pro-Gun-Victory-Could-Go-to-Supreme-Court

Klukowski also appeared on the NRA News show Cam & Company on 2/14. Stephen Halbrook also appeared that day also commenting on the Peruta decision. http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company

The 9th Circuit was the first court to rule that the Second Amendment was an individual right not connected to the militia.  Something to think about!

The 9th Circuit was the first court to rule that the Second Amendment was an individual right not connected to the militia.  Something to think about!

I guess every once in a while they get one right! They are the most over-ruled circuit by far (thus the common pejorative "Ninth Circus"). Let's hope this panel decision on Peruta is one of those that SCOTUS confirms rather than over-rules. I suppose Klukowski could be wrong and that even the en banc could uphold it, if it's appealed to them and accepted. It certainly seems "right" reasoning to my reading, but I'm more than a little biased.

I look at the Ninth Circuit website every morning hoping to see Baker v. Kealoha posted... gotta be soon, right? 

The 9th Circuit was the first court to rule that the Second Amendment was an individual right not connected to the militia.  Something to think about!

Nordyke? I thought Parker (the forerunner to Heller) held that honor?