Where can I find the qualification standards for my local PD?

[ST911]

This may be helpful.

Members of the shooting community often reference law enforcement firearms proficiency standards as useful measures of competency. They will measure themselves against these standards, use them as benchmarks, or adapt the courses of fire for their own uses.

As part of other efforts, I have been collecting the handgun qualification courses of fire established by state regulatory bodies governing police service (POST boards, etc). These courses of fire represent that states academy exit standard for handgun proficiency, annual (or more frequent) continuing education or proficiency requirement for the handgun, other applicable handgun qualification standard established for serving as a law enforcement officer in that state, or a state LEOSA standard.

The links below are those courses of fire, listed alphabetically by state. To ensure accuracy, only those courses of fire published by the POST body, to their own website, are included here. Where the course is part of a larger document or manual, page numbers are referenced.

As you utilize this resource, keep in mind that these constitute a minimum standard of proficiency. Alternate courses may be approved in lieu of these courses, and local agencies may utilize higher standards in their programs.

....

Alabama Police Officers Standards and Training Commission
http://www.apostc.state.al.us/Portal...%203-29-07.pdf

Alaska Police Standards Council
Not found on site

Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training
Semi-auto: http://www.azpost.state.az.us/assets...defintions.pdf
Revolver: http://www.azpost.state.az.us/assets...lverCourse.pdf

Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy
http://www.clest.org/aleta/Documents/handgun.pdf

California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site

Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.g...N%20COURSE.pdf

Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council
Not found on site

Delaware Council on Police Training
Not found on site

Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/...DTD110807.aspx

Georgia Police Officers Standards and Training Council
http://www.gapost.org/pdf_file/gsac05.pdf

Hawaii
Not found on site

Idaho Peace Officers Standards and Training
http://www.post.idaho.gov/Forms/docu...msQualForm.pdf

Illinois Law Enforcement Standards and Training Board
http://www.ptb.state.il.us/pdf/AdmRu...alFirearms.pdf
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/hr218secondarycw.cfm Secondary/Covert Weapon Course of Fire, 2006 (LEOSA Qual)

Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board
http://www.in.gov/ilea/files/48_round_course.pdf
http://www.in.gov/ilea/files/60_round_course.pdf (IN LE Academy Instructor Handgun Course)

Iowa Law Enforcement Academy
Not found on site

Kansas Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training
http://www.kscpost.org/target.php
http://www.kletc.org/pdf/resources_h...se_of_fire.pdf

Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training
Not found on site

Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement Administration of Criminal Justice
http://www.lcle.la.gov/programs/uplo...emy_Manual.pdf
(Page 59)

Maine Criminal Justice Academy
http://www.maine.gov/dps/mcja/forms/...Course2011.doc

Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions
Not found on site

Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/LEO_002...lification.pdf

Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mc...d_249947_7.pdf
(Page 20)

Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training
https://dps.mn.gov/entity/post/forms...structions.pdf

Mississippi Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site

Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site

Montana Peace Officers Standards and Training Council
Not found on site

Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center
http://www.nletc.state.ne.us/pdfs/FireQual.pdf

Nevada Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training
Not found on site

New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council
Not found on site

New Jersey Police Training Commission
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/njptc...armsManual.pdf (Page 23)
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

New Mexico Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Academy
http://nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/documen...ence_Guide.pdf
(Page 88)

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services
Not found on site

North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission
http://ncja.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/fe3d19f...--Rev--XI.aspx
(Page 50)

North Dakota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
Not found on site

Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission
http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/F...e-of-Fire.aspx

Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training
http://www.ok.gov/cleet/documents/Fi...onJune2007.pdf

Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training
Not found on site

Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Commission
Not found on site

Rhode Island Police Officers Commission on Standards and Training
Not found on site

South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council
Not found on site

South Dakota Law Enforcement Standards and Training Commission
https://atg.sd.gov/docs/State%20Hand...NOV%202013.pdf

Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission
Not found on site

Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
Not found on site

Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training
Not found on site

Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council
Not found on site

Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standar...aining/cjm.pdf
(Pages 508-515)

Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
Not found on site

West Virginia Division of Justice and Community Services – LEPS
Not found on site

Wisconsin Department of Justice Training and Standards Bureau
https://wilenet.org/html/leosa/wis-course-approved.pdf

Wyoming Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission
Not found on site

[Cypher]

This may be helpful.

Thank you

[JRV]

I may have miss read the article.

I am absolutely certain you didn't. I believe I have read the article you're mentioning, or a similar article citing that one. Mas Ayoob's writing is prolific and extremely valuable to anybody that carries a handgun for self-defense. He's a long-serving expert witness and a scholar in his own right. He might disagree with me entirely.

My comments were directed more to the fact that the Overton Window on training available to the civilian self-defender has shifted so drastically in the past 40 years that I think you could do far better than a LEO qual if you wanted to put on evidence of your competence and/or the seriousness with which you take the responsibility of concealed carry.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Regarding the California entry above, while there are standard handgun & shotgun courses of fire for the basic academy, there are not state-wide courses of fire for officers after they've graduated.

Of interest - I can't recall coming across a court case that relies on a qual course, they seem to all rely on the issue of training. Was there training? Did it meet the standards laid out in various cases involving the use of deadly force by coppers?

jlw - well played, sir.

[HCM]

I am absolutely certain you didn't. I believe I have read the article you're mentioning, or a similar article citing that one. Mas Ayoob's writing is prolific and extremely valuable to anybody that carries a handgun for self-defense. He's a long-serving expert witness and a scholar in his own right. He might disagree with me entirely.

My comments were directed more to the fact that the Overton Window on training available to the civilian self-defender has shifted so drastically in the past 40 years that I think you could do far better than a LEO qual if you wanted to put on evidence of your competence and/or the seriousness with which you take the responsibility of concealed carry.

I disagree with you. Mas suggestion is not a bad one. I am no Mas Ayoob But I have 24 years of dealing with prosecutors, judges, juries and grand jury’s.

Law enforcement Handgun qualifications are not much in terms of developing pistol skills, particularly to an enthusiast But that is not the point of documenting such a qualification for a civilian shooter. LE qualifications are validated by legal precedent and accepted by courts, prosecutors, jurors, and Grand Jurors, none of whom are usually gun enthusiast or shooters.

If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.

[JRV]

I disagree with you. Mas suggestion is not a bad one. I am no Mas Ayoob But I have 24 years of dealing with prosecutors, judges, juries and grand jury’s.

Law enforcement Handgun qualifications are not much in terms of developing pistol skills, particularly to an enthusiast But that is not the point of documenting such a qualification for a civilian shooter. LE qualifications are validated by legal precedent and accepted by courts, prosecutors, jurors, and Grand Jurors, none of whom are usually gun enthusiast or shooters.

If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.

I appreciate your input and experience. My suggestion isn't, however, that someone try to testify about their Bill Drill times to show competence. I was thinking more about what the evidence would likely be asked to show at trial and whether a LEO qual would have as much value as something else that's comparably easy to obtain.

If you didn't miss your target and you are not disputing the intentionality of a shooting, then you're likely going to be using the evidence we are all discussing to show reasonableness and judgment at the moment of the shoot. No one cares about competence if the purpose of the criminal or civil action prosecuted is assailing the basis of the shooting itself.

Shooting 100% on the FAMS qual, for example, will require extensive training and practice. Depending on one's baseline skill, possibly months of dry-fire and live-fire.

However, if I am able to show that (a) I have 50+ or 100+ hours of documented training involving self-defense law, safe manipulation of a handgun, and scenario-based force-on-force training and (b) that I am an active and competent competition shooter, then I can (possibly) argue that:

(a) I understood the legal standards for deadly force and was able to act rationally under stress,

(b) I have deliberately subjected myself to training that required judgment calls and decision-making while using a firearm, and

(c) that I have done my best to incorporate stress inoculation (competition) into my training curriculum to ensure that I would stay clear-of-mind and tunnel-vision-free in a self-defense situation.

That's the type of evidence I would want to put forward to show that I was capable of rationally recognizing a basis for deadly force self-defense at the moment a hypothetical shooting occured. Shooting a LEO qual, while recognizable to jurors as some sort of standard, does not seem (to me) like it could be used to illustrate anything about mindset, experience, or reasonableness in an arena that would require proving those issues on defense.

As a final thought, given much of the public discourse surrounding LEO shootings in recent years, I am not sure I would advise a client to associate themselves with standards likely perceived to be low or inadequate by much of the population.

[HCM]

I appreciate your input and experience. My suggestion isn't, however, that someone try to testify about their Bill Drill times to show competence. I was thinking more about what the evidence would likely be asked to show at trial and whether a LEO qual would have as much value as something else that's comparably easy to obtain.

If you didn't miss your target and you are not disputing the intentionality of a shooting, then you're likely going to be using the evidence we are all discussing to show reasonableness and judgment at the moment of the shoot. No one cares about competence if the purpose of the criminal or civil action prosecuted is assailing the basis of the shooting itself.

Shooting 100% on the FAMS qual, for example, will require extensive training and practice. Depending on one's baseline skill, possibly months of dry-fire and live-fire.

However, if I am able to show that (a) I have 50+ or 100+ hours of documented training involving self-defense law, safe manipulation of a handgun, and scenario-based force-on-force training and (b) that I am an active and competent competition shooter, then I can (possibly) argue that:

(a) I understood the legal standards for deadly force and was able to act rationally under stress,

(b) I have deliberately subjected myself to training that required judgment calls and decision-making while using a firearm, and

(c) that I have done my best to incorporate stress inoculation (competition) into my training curriculum to ensure that I would stay clear-of-mind and tunnel-vision-free in a self-defense situation.

That's the type of evidence I would want to put forward to show that I was capable of rationally recognizing a basis for deadly force self-defense at the moment a hypothetical shooting occured. Shooting a LEO qual, while recognizable to jurors as some sort of standard, does not seem (to me) like it could be used to illustrate anything about mindset, experience, or reasonableness in an arena that would require proving those issues on defense.

As a final thought, given much of the public discourse surrounding LEO shootings in recent years, I am not sure I would advise a client to associate themselves with standards likely perceived to be low or inadequate by much of the population.

Cops in general aren’t great pistol shooters by PF standards but compared to the average public range shooter or person with just a mandatory CHL class they are steely eyed gunfighters.....

Re: the FAMS - the technical proficiency of the FAMS is another example of gun nerd stuff.

You need to think of this as a marketing issue not a technical issue and you are marketing to the general public. Your target audience watches criminal minds, Quantico, silence of the lambs, point break, etc, etc

[HCountyGuy]

If I tell a bunch of random people on a grand jury that you can shoot a sub 5 second FAST drill they won’t know what I am talking about and their eyes will glaze over when I try to explain it to them because they have no frame of reference. If I tell them that you shot 100% on the standard FBI agent pistol qualification course they will immediately assume that you are a competent and proficient hand gun shooter. Why waste Time explaining all that technical shooting stuff when you can let 100 years of FBI public relations, books, movies, and TV shows do the talking for you.

This hits the intent of Mas’s explanation pretty square on, at least in my opinion.

The reasoning I remember being given for shooting at least the state-level LEO qualification was to demonstrate that one was at least as competent in their firearms handling as what’s required for each officer certified in the state. So if some attorney wanted to say you were incompetent with a firearm, you can have your passing score brought up to counter that claim and then see if that attorney has the stones to make the argument that the state qualification was insufficient and thereby insinuating all officers in the state have no business with a gun.

[lwt16]

I offer my state's APOST qual course to students I train as well as the newest fifty round 2019 FBI qual course. I explain that while it may not be worth a hill of beans in court proceedings it costs nothing more than ammo and time to perform. One quick snapshot of the target/student emailed to them provides documentation of the event should the need arise in the future to show a standard was met.

Plus, they all need the trigger time anyway.

100 percent of them take me up on the offer.

Regards.

[revchuck38]

@JRV - Shooting a passing (or better) score on a LE qual has no relevance to mindset or legal knowledge. I'm pretty sure nobody implied that it did. It simply demonstrates a level of technical competence with a handgun that most citizens can relate to.

If I'm ever in a self-defense shooting, will part of my legal defense include the fact that I've shot the FBI qual with an instructor-level score*, witnessed by a high-level trainer? You betcha. Will it include the fact that I've been trained on the legal requirements for the use of deadly force? You betcha. Will it include the fact that I've been trained to avoid the use of deadly force unless absolutely necessary? You betcha.

It's not "either/or", it's "both/and".

*FWIW, I'm on the lower end of the skill level on this forum.