Because no one here does anything illegal?   
My point is the test is not difficult if you are familiar with your weapon, which I hope everyone is.  Right now, I have no intention to apply for a CCW permit under the present regulations.

Same here.

I may be good but even I  cannot hold camera, lift/sweep garment simultaneously while drawing and shooting.   
+1 on the kneeling.
IIRC,  I rolled over brass for momentum to get up.   

Ever heard of a tripod?   

Seriously, that course of fine looks fun to shoot.  Mostly to see where proficiency is at, not for purposes of proving anything to the powers that be/want to be.  Shooting on demand, particularly under pressure, interesting things happen.  No Hondo roll or anything like that.  Folks that think "they good" often find otherwise with even friends watching.  Always friendly competition 

Where did he get the test details?  I can't seem to find them anywhere on the website.  It mentions you must submit scores from "FIREARMS PROFICIENCY TEST " but never describes the test anywhere on the site that I can find.

UPDATE:  I did find the test for Maui and it seems much easier than what this video demonstrates.   https://www.mauicounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/137616/CONCEALED-WEAPON-PROFICIENCY-COURSE

So doing math,

380 max and you need 81% to pass which means minimum score of 308

If you score perfect (10) for 3 yrd and 5 yrd, you will have 180 points . (3 yard is very do-able. 5 yard and all 10 ring hits is not automatically do-able).

This leaves 128 more points needed and only 200 left to achieve it in.

10 yard line say you score average 80 (8 hits in the 8 ring). Now you need 48 more points for the 15 yard target. (now we get into the harder territory)

15 yard target, anything outside of the 7 ring doesn't count. So you need at least 7 hits of 10 in the 7 ring at minimum at this distance.

So someone who shoots a few times a month might be able to do this, but to do it with every handgun they wish to carry, which means consistently, I don't see this being passable.

Then add in any new gun owner or those who don't shoot a few times a month, this is very difficult.

Right now, I have no intention to apply for a CCW permit under the present regulations.

Same-same. 

Bastards will get no more info on me.

I think the video was a great demonstration, but I hope people don't underestimate how difficult such a nice grouping would be.  As others have said, I'm not going to apply for a CCW until they figure out what the testing requirements will be, and especially not until they figure out if the lic. will be for a specific gun only.

I have several guns I could CCW and potentially test with, but it might be like one of those "safety check" or "reconstruction permits" situations where I modify the gun specifically for the test, even though the gun may not necessarily be in that configuration for EDC (if you know what I mean).

I feel like it has to be illegal for them to mandate CCW testing requirements that are prohibited by public range code, thereby forcing you to patronize a private institution to satisfy the requirements. For example, a drivers test that requires you to be able to "drift" sideways at 60 mph to ensure you can handle a car that is out of control would seem unreasonable, since you cannot "drift" on any public street and therefore no public agent assigned to test drivers could endorse or test for such an activity; in such a case, you would be forced to hire a certified private drivers ed. instructor who has domain over a private area in which you can "drift". I'm sure this argument has already been heard and rejected, since I have not heard of any public agent or agency that can perform the firearms safety course in a public place. It just seems ethically reprehensible. Driving is not protected under the constitution, yet taking the road test was free and performed on public roads (20 years ago).

I think the video was a great demonstration, but I hope people don't underestimate how difficult such a nice grouping would be.

Dave is a very good shooter. IDK how good of a shooter his grandma is.

So doing math,
380 max and you need 81% to pass which means minimum score of 308
If you score perfect (10) for 3 yrd and 5 yrd, you will have 180 points . (3 yard is very do-able. 5 yard and all 10 ring hits is not automatically do-able).
This leaves 128 more points needed and only 200 left to achieve it in.
10 yard line say you score average 80 (8 hits in the 8 ring). Now you need 48 more points for the 15 yard target. (now we get into the harder territory)
15 yard target, anything outside of the 7 ring doesn't count. So you need at least 7 hits of 10 in the 7 ring at minimum at this distance.
So someone who shoots a few times a month might be able to do this, but to do it with every handgun they wish to carry, which means consistently, I don't see this being passable.
Then add in any new gun owner or those who don't shoot a few times a month, this is very difficult.

B-27 target is 24" wide, 7 ring begins about 2 " in from sides leaving a 20" wide x 26"= high target.
Most folks could throw a rock 15 yds and hit that.

    Phases 1, 2 & 3 = 6, 12, 10 rnds respectfully
That's a total of 28 rounds leaving only 3 rounds required for phase 4.
"A minimum of thirty-one (31) rounds fired into the scoring rings (81%) shall be considered a qualifying score"
31 rounds will do the job.

   Get off base 13. 

B-27 target is 24" wide, 7 ring begins about 2 " in from sides leaving a 20" wide x 26"= high target.
Most folks could throw a rock 15 yds and hit that.

    Phases 1, 2 & 3 = 6, 12, 10 rnds respectfully
That's a total of 28 rounds leaving only 3 rounds required for phase 4.
"A minimum of thirty-one (31) rounds fired into the scoring rings (81%) shall be considered a qualifying score"
31 rounds will do the job.

   Get off base 13. 

Oh snap. I was thinking the target was like a 8 inch pizza and the 7 ring was like jabone (armored car qual).  I retract my statement, grandma will be able to do this.  But she will still need some practice b4 trying.

No focus.

31 rds if you shoot it clean (all 10's) because the min score is 308 of 380.

So again, assume you shoot the 3 and 5 yard clean (all 10's).  This gives you 180 points of the 308 you need.

The remaining minimum is 128 more points.

Too bad head shots cannot count as extra.

So, how many polices here could pass this if drawing from concealment?

Oh snap. I was thinking the target was like a 8 inch pizza and the 7 ring was like jabone (armored car qual).  I retract my statement, grandma will be able to do this.  But she will still need some practice b4 trying.

No focus.

31 rds if you shoot it clean (all 10's) because the min score is 308 of 380.

So again, assume you shoot the 3 and 5 yard clean (all 10's).  This gives you 180 points of the 308 you need.

The remaining minimum is 128 more points.

Too bad head shots cannot count as extra.

Do not pass go, do not collect CCW permit.
The test does not require "point scoring"  but rather "hits".
"Only rounds fired into the scoring rings (7 ring and and inward) shall be counted as hits."
"A minimum of thirty-one (31) rounds fired into the scoring rings (81%) shall be considered a qualifying score"

    Tutu can do.

Ever heard of a tripod?   

No can use tripod.
Qualifying protocol clearly states shooting "Unsupported"

FOCUS !   

No can use tripod.
Qualifying protocol clearly states shooting "Unsupported"

FOCUS !   

For the video, bozo . . . 

I believe the saying is "Aim small miss small."  But you might have heard it different.

 

You have a right to keep and bear arms.  You also have a responsibility to comply with the legal BS the state requires.

Whether you choose to follow those laws is your right as well, which includes the consequences that may follow.

It's been discussed here more than once -- some people have more to lose if caught committing a crime, especially a felony gun crime.  It's why many of the laws exist.  They are legal landmines, set in hopes you'll break a big enough law that you are then prohibited from legally buying or possessing firearms at all.

Once a felon, your job opportunities shrink by magnitudes.  You can't be bonded, you'll lose any security clearances you held, etc.

You do you.  Questioning why others are not going the Ainokea route is just rehashing the issue.  Maybe most of us do care, about our families, our employment, and the careers we choose  -- at least enough to avoid committing crimes that can have life altering consequences.

I was always careful to avoid being around anyone doing illegal drugs, even weed.  With random testing in the military, JAG rules that included tough penalties for not reporting other service members who were using, and so on, it just wasn't worth the risk.

Ainokea is fine until you get caught.  Then you'll be rethinking whether or not the crap raining down on you financially and legally was worth it.

I don't know which lawyer you have on speed dial, but unless it's a young Perry Mason, he's not going to insulate you from the system if you get caught.  All he can do is try his best to mitigate the damage you did to yourself.

"You have a right to keep and bear arms.  You also have a responsibility to comply with the legal BS the state requires."

You are absolutely correct.
However these tests you have to pass are not laws, they are arbitrary
regulations formulated with no or little  public input.
I ask you why you think having to pass a arbitrary test (not lawful) to practice a right
that the highest court in the land affirmed, is "lawful", just because they have more money than you,
is OK?
They can prosecute,  that is your bottom line?
Get on the train.  It ends at Auschwitz..

"You have a right to keep and bear arms.  You also have a responsibility to comply with the legal BS the state requires."

You are absolutely correct.
However these tests you have to pass are not laws, they are arbitrary
regulations formulated with no or little  public input.
I ask you why you think having to pass a arbitrary test (not lawful) to practice a right
that the highest court in the land affirmed, is "lawful", just because they have more money than you,
is OK?
They can prosecute,  that is your bottom line?
Get on the train.  It ends at Auschwitz..

I never said anything resembling that remark.

If I say, "You ought to follow the law," nowhere does that statement directly or indirectly imply, "because I agree that the law is OK."

Please don't read too much into what I'm saying.

We all obey laws we don't think are OK every single day. 

I don't think it's OK to ban standard capacity mags in one state when there are many other states proving every single day the ban has no affect on public safety.  Yet, I have 10-rd mags in all my pistols that were designed for 15 or 17 rds.

I also don't think it's OK to require a permit for every single handgun transfer/purchase.  It's contrary to the 12-month permits issued for long guns, and it ignores the situations where those acquiring handguns already have at least one at home.  But, we go through the permit process as dictated by the state and the police departments because we are law-abiding gun owners.

If you want to rephrase your question so it doesn't accuse me of having an opinion I do not, I'll be glad to discuss the issue.  Such as:

Do you think there should be a test for a CCW license, and if so, how easy or difficult should it be?

Otherwise, please refrain from lobbing loaded questions in my direction.  I think you're smarter and more honest than that.

Finally, I fail to see how complying with the state's CCW testing requirements in any way, shape or form is analogous to "Get on the train.  It ends at Auschwitz.."  That's a stretch I don't think most people could make without tearing a muscle.  I think if the Jews were being given a choice to take a test to legally carry a firearm or board a train to what was advertised as a work camp for an indefinite amount of time (i.e. forever), I know what they would choose without exception.

I never said anything resembling that remark.

If I say, "You ought to follow the law," nowhere does that statement directly or indirectly imply, "because I agree that the law is OK."

Please don't read too much into what I'm saying.

We all obey laws we don't think are OK every single day. 

I don't think it's OK to ban standard capacity mags in one state when there are many other states proving every single day the ban has no affect on public safety.  Yet, I have 10-rd mags in all my pistols that were designed for 15 or 17 rds.

I also don't think it's OK to require a permit for every single handgun transfer/purchase.  It's contrary to the 12-month permits issued for long guns, and it ignores the situations where those acquiring handguns already have at least one at home.  But, we go through the permit process as dictated by the state and the police departments because we are law-abiding gun owners.

If you want to rephrase your question so it doesn't accuse me of having an opinion I do not, I'll be glad to discuss the issue.  Such as:

Do you think there should be a test for a CCW license, and if so, how easy or difficult should it be?

Otherwise, please refrain from lobbing loaded questions in my direction.  I think you're smarter and more honest than that.

Finally, I fail to see how complying with the state's CCW testing requirements in any way, shape or form is analogous to "Get on the train.  It ends at Auschwitz.."  That's a stretch I don't think most people could make without tearing a muscle.  I think if the Jews were being given a choice to take a test to legally carry a firearm or board a train to what was advertised as a work camp for an indefinite amount of time (i.e. forever), I know what they would choose without exception.

I have no intention to insult what so ever.
We are on the same team.
I'm very sensitive to being "law obedient"
when it will result in your death.
It was very legal to disarm Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Armenians, et al.
look at where that got them.
A 100 million dead.
That is my point.
I see Hawaii laws as no different.  We are lucky in that
The US Constitution slows down the  Politicians, and police
running our state, but that is a very fine
and thin ice to stand on.
Oahu just probably lost its only public shooting range.
I don't think you will get it back.
If you get on that train, you know where it ends.
Speaking as a guy raised in SE Los Angeles county
and living next to Compton "Go along to get along" is stupid.

Aloha.

I have no intention to insult what so ever.
We are on the same team.
I'm very sensitive to being "law obedient"
when it will result in your death.
It was very legal to disarm Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Armenians, et al.
look at where that got them.
A 100 million dead.
That is my point.
I see Hawaii laws as no different.  We are lucky in that
The US Constitution slows down the  Politicians, and police
running our state, but that is a very fine
and thin ice to stand on.
Oahu just probably lost its only public shooting range.
I don't think you will get it back.
If you get on that train, you know where it ends.
Speaking as a guy raised in SE Los Angeles county
and living next to Compton "Go along to get along" is stupid.

Aloha.

I'm missing the connection between this post and county Cops requiring a CCW License test.

I think the range is going to remain after it reopens.  With the CCW test requirements, the count has an even bigger reason to provide a safe and affordable range for us to practice at.

Nobody said "Go along to get along."  What I'm saying is, "Choose your battles wisely."  Until the test is official, and the results show if it's too hard or too easy (subjective of course), there's really nothing tangible to get all up in arms over.

My opinion, of course.  I've had non-resident CCW permits from Maine, Utah, Nevada and Florida.  They all required training to some degree.  Some states require no training to buy & possess, but they do require for carry.  Some are Constitutional Carry, and there are no training requirements.  I think anyone who carries should take the training he/she CHOOSES to take.  Tests defined by the state are useless.  Basic operation and manual of arms is all anyone should be required to demonstrate.

I'm missing the connection between this post and county Cops requiring a CCW License test.

I think the range is going to remain after it reopens.  With the CCW test requirements, the count has an even bigger reason to provide a safe and affordable range for us to practice at.

Nobody said "Go along to get along."  What I'm saying is, "Choose your battles wisely."  Until the test is official, and the results show if it's too hard or too easy (subjective of course), there's really nothing tangible to get all up in arms over.

My opinion, of course.  I've had non-resident CCW permits from Maine, Utah, Nevada and Florida.  They all required training to some degree.  Some states require no training to buy & possess, but they do require for carry.  Some are Constitutional Carry, and there are no training requirements.  I think anyone who carries should take the training he/she CHOOSES to take.  Tests defined by the state are useless.  Basic operation and manual of arms is all anyone should be required to demonstrate.

"I'm missing the connection between this post and county Cops requiring a CCW License test."
Per SCOTUS they have no lawful right to test us,
don't you get it? LAWFUL!
Yes we are all responsible. I've been educated and trained, I carried for years as have many here.
Hawaii doesn't recognize American rights and I say that is WRONG!
There are no Laws saying we need a test to exercise our rights
to open or conceal carry!!!!!
I don't support cops or government that violates my rights.
 



"

"I'm missing the connection between this post and county Cops requiring a CCW License test."
Per SCOTUS they have no lawful right to test us,
don't you get it? LAWFUL!
Yes we are all responsible. I've been educated and trained, I carried for years as have many here.
Hawaii doesn't recognize American rights and I say that is WRONG!
There are no Laws saying we need a test to exercise our rights
to open or conceal carry!!!!!
I don't support cops or government that violates my rights.
 



"

Sorry, but I never saw that in the Bruen decision.

What SCOTUS said is NY can't require "good cause" -- a subjective "test" of the applicant's "need" for a CCW permit.

The objective firearm test you are ranting about is not the same kind of test.  SCOTUS mentioned 2 tests: the unconstitutional, subjective "good cause" test, and the 2-step test courts should use when deciding if a state law is constitutional (which expounded on the Heller decision).

If you can show me in the actual text of the decision where I'm wrong about that, please point me to it.  Otherwise, I'm assuming you are interpreting the court's use of the word "test" incorrectly.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Sorry, but I never saw that in the Bruen decision.

What SCOTUS said is NY can't require "good cause" -- a subjective "test" of the applicant's "need" for a CCW permit.

The objective firearm test you are ranting about is not the same kind of test.  SCOTUS mentioned 2 tests: the unconstitutional, subjective "good cause" test, and the 2-step test courts should use when deciding if a state law is constitutional (which expounded on the Heller decision).

If you can show me in the actual text of the decision where I'm wrong about that, please point me to it.  Otherwise, I'm assuming you are interpreting the court's use of the word "test" incorrectly.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Now we are really splitting hairs.
"I'm assuming you are interpreting the court's use of the word "test" incorrectly."
What I'm saying is you should not have to pass any test to exercise a right.
Unless it is a lawfully enacted test.
Show me in HRS 134 where the criteria for these tests are.
That is a summary of what the SCOTUS decision is.

Hawaii guns tests are not enacted law, they are administratively determined,
arbitrarily by the police chiefs
which by the way aren't elected either.
 

Now we are really splitting hairs.
"I'm assuming you are interpreting the court's use of the word "test" incorrectly."
What I'm saying is you should not have pass any test to exercise a right.
Unless it is a lawfully enacted test.
Show me in HRS 134 where the criteria for these tests are.
That is a summary of what the SCOTUS decision is.

Hawaii guns tests are not enacted law, they are administratively determined,
arbitrarily by the police chiefs
which by the way aren't elected either.
 

No, that's NOT what you said.  You said:

Per SCOTUS they have no lawful right to test us,
don't you get it? LAWFUL!

Now you're changing to:

What I'm saying is you should not have pass any test to exercise a right.
Unless it is a lawfully enacted test.
Show me in HRS 134 where the criteria for these tests are.
That is a summary of what the SCOTUS decision is.

You're arguing 2 different points:  One is your opinion (which I share) that NO TEST should be required.  That's nothing more than a personal opinion.  Nowhere did the Supreme Court agree with that.

The second point you make is that the details of the test are not codified.  That's not required by SCOTUS.  That Hawaii State law HRS 134-9 states you have to "be qualified" as decided by each county PC is, in fact, in the law.

(b)  The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:

     (1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/hawaii/hi-statutes/hawaii_statutes_134-9

That gives the CHIEF OF POLICE IN EACH COUNTY the legal authority to require a proficiency test.  IF the test, once formalized by the PC, is too subjective or onerous, then they have violated the law -- you can't make the test so difficult that more applicants fail than pass.   In fact, there would need to be a standard that's officially recognized to support the testing requirements here.  Otherwise, they can be sued for making up a test on their own with every intention of denying CCW applications.

The wording in the statute is ambiguous, as are most of the gun laws -- and for intentional reasons.  It gives the powers that be the latitude to interpret the law as broadly as they see fit. 

In your mind, how would you determine if someone is "qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner?"  I know the military uses  the term "qualified" to indicate you've demonstrated the needed skills and knowledge to perform a task without assistance to some degree of objectively-measured level of competency.  Maybe the Hunter's Ed or NRA safety course is adequate?  All I know is, the law lets the police chiefs decide.

Can we at least agree that "test" and "qualification" (i.e. "A condition or circumstance that must be met or complied with") are quasi-synonyms?  If I devise a set of qualification criteria, is that not a "test" of whether or not you meet said qualification criteria?

The specifics for any test SHOULD HAVE BEEN spelled out much sooner than now, but we know why they didn't bother -- no tests were required for a license they intended to deny 99.9999% of the time.  Now that the SCOTUS struck down their "firewall" allowing them to deny us on the arbitrary and subjective grounds of "showing good cause and/or exceptional circumstances", and that "public safety" is no longer the catch-all justification for doing so, they are scrambling to avoid lawsuits for civil rights violations.

Something is needed (by law), to determine applicant qualification, and the specifics are up to the counties.  We have no choice but to wait and see.  Apparently Maui County is accepting the NRA Pistol Safety Affidavit/Course requirement for issuing acquisition permits adequate for CCW.  Are the other counties going to concede and agree with that?

We shall see.