Biggest "surprise" at your CCW class

[wishin]

I don't want to pull this thread off its topic. I just had to record my surprise at the comments that I saw.



Like when you're driving around town and another driver cuts you off, or maybe he crowds you with his truck, or he otherwise makes some obvious and bothersome maneuver, you might remark, "People like that shouldn't be given a driver's license"! I hear it all the time.

But it was probably just one mistake, and you witnessed it. That guy could be a safe and respectful driver, but he made that one move in front of you, and that's the impression he made on you.

I hear these same reactions when an unskilled or misguided individual wants to exercise his God-given rights. Rights that do not require anything at all the way a driver's license does. Guys who claim to be freedom lovers will say, "Some people just shouldn't be allowed to...".

It just bothers me how easy it must be to believe that not every free citizen should be allowed to exercise their rights.

Not as surprised as I am about your parochial approach to RKBA.

Where you're wrong is our rights are not unconditional to the point where when exercised indiscriminately they negatively effect the rights of others.

If we're to live in country that values order, there must be some means of achieving and maintaining that order. Allowing a people to do as they choose, without respectful regard for others, results in a chaotic society with no concern for the detriment of these actions in the furtherance of a civilized nation. That's why we have laws.

Yes, there's freedom of speech, but you can't say what you damn well please with impunity. You have freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean you can sacrifice others at the alter in practicing that religion. Your RTKA is no more infringed by licensing laws, than your 9th Amendment right to drive a car is infringed by licensing laws that require a drivers license. The same can be said about freedom of the press. And, the same applies to all of our other freedoms.

You can't possibly believe that everyone can exercise their rights as they see fit without some restraint.

US law is filled with hundreds of years of unsuccessful arguments in the vain of untethered rights. Whether you choose to accept it or not, the Second Amendment does not mean you can go where you want, when you want and do what you want with a firearm. This kind of thinking is childish and unrealistic, unless one moves to the far reaches of Siberia.

BTW, I'm a strong proponent of the Second Amendment.

 

[Werewolf]

Took my CCW class in 2003. It was taught by a lawyer who specialized in self defense cases.

During the class he made this exact statement: "if you pull your gun somebody better die". I was stunned. Didn't agree with that statement and still don't.

His logic was:

1. It is only legal to pull your CCW and point it at another if you are in fear for your life.
2. If you are truly in fear for your life you have absolutely no other choice than to eliminate the threat.
3. You eliminate the threat by shooting it until your attacker stops what he/she is doing that is the source of the threat.
4. Stopping the threat will in most cases mean the threat is dead.

The lawyer was deadly ernest. The topic was discussed for almost 1/2 hour and he would not back down. If you pull your gun in OK someone better die.

Still don't agree with him but then he's a lawyer, I'm not and to the best of my knowledge he's never lost a self defense case.

 

[CoRoMo]

Your RTKA is no more infringed by licensing laws...

I fundamentally disagree. It pains me that you find encroachments on our freedom not only justified, but suitable, and that's the crux of my posts.

...there must be some means of achieving and maintaining that order.

I suppose giving up a bit of liberty in exchange for a bit of security is palatable to you? That's what I'm getting from you anyway. When I say that it bothers me to no end that guys like you welcome these types of infringements, I'm not wrong, it really does. With friends like this... you know.

BTW, I'm a strong proponent of the Second Amendment.

You could have fooled me. From your posts, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

 

[benEzra]

Biggest surprise at my CCW class? Hmmm.....the "criminal-looking" element taking the class. I actually said to my self, "That's the reason why I need to carry..."

(Yes...even the bad guys, without prior arrests, apply for CCW.... that's more reason why the GOOD guys need to.)

"criminal looking element" = it's a combination of factors...no set "profile"...but you know it when you see it.

Given that most states require a background check as part of the CHL process, and will reject you for some pretty minor things, you can probably rest assured that those guys weren't bad guys if they were old enough to take the class and didn't have records.

I also wasn't impressed that you could qualify shooting a .22, but that's just me.

Plenty of people with FL CHL's probably intend to carry a .22, so it makes sense to let you qualify with one.

I will say the NC CHL class was a lot more in-depth than the FL CHL class, but then again NC's self-defense laws and carry rules are a bit more arcane than Florida's.

 

[kda]

To help quell my wife's jitters about training for CCW, I located and hired one of the top trainers in our area. He came to our home and gave the course for just my wife and I, right at our kitchen table. Of course with only two "students" in his class, things moved along somewhat more quickly as there were not 20-30 students asking questions.

Also, we had targets from our range visits (and we had been shooting a lot) hanging around the house ... so our instructor had zero doubts that we could easily pass any range qualification requirements.

After the instruction and written test, he took us to a private spot where he liked to shoot. There we were given the opportunity to shoot through his arsenal of handguns including one with a silencer. Lots of fun. Also he provided a raft of printed material including the statutes (which he had annotated). And finally, in the time remaining, he gave us some basics on personal defense that he had picked up at the 2-4 day training camps one can go through if interested.

So I was surprised at the professionalism and the amount of material he gave us to study and use for future reference. It was obvious that he wanted us to get our moneys worth so he went beyond the minimum training requirements to provide other useful training and insights such as choosing a SD flashlight, using a baton, personal safety at an ATM, walking across a dark parking lot to get your car, etc.

I've since had friends that took the more conventional training ... taking a typical Gun shop class. They were given virtually no printed materials for future reference, no training beyond the minimum requirements. They were also surprised at the mix of students. About 50% from each sex and nicely distributed across the age groups including students in their 80s.

With all the careful attention, I now feel pretty good about the money I spent for more intensive training. Easily worth the money.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The lawyer was deadly ernest. The topic was discussed for almost 1/2 hour and he would not back down. If you pull your gun in OK someone better die.

Still don't agree with him but then he's a lawyer, I'm not and to the best of my knowledge he's never lost a self defense case.

1. I would not hire him if I was in a SD shooting.
2. I would consider reporting him to whomever issues instructor licenses in OK.

 

[WardenWolf]

I was honestly surprised nobody commented on my choice of a qualification gun. I qualified with my 1953 Romanian Tokarev, and shot a very good group. That's my 100% gun, the gun I can always count on to feed and go bang.

Several people in the class didn't even have their own guns. They were either sharing guns with someone else or renting them from the facility.

 

[SwampWolf]

Your RTKA is no more infringed by licensing laws, than your 9th Amendment right to drive a car is infringed by licensing laws that require a drivers license.

So I take it that you ascribe to the notion that your "right" to keep and drive a car is enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Unlike your privilege to operate a motor vehicle, the Founding Fathers declared your right to keep and bear arms is a truth that is "...self-evident, that all men are endowed by their Creator (not to be confused with the local magistrate or police chief or Representative or Senator or President) with certain unalienable Rights..." (one of those rights as defined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as embodied in the Bill of Rights). When you are prepared to hand over just one your God-given rights to some petty-minded lawmaker, you are willing to cede everything that is worthwhile for any freedom loving citizen.

If you find these views regarding our blood-gained freedoms too extreme, I would ask you to reacquaint yourself with Senator Barry Goldwater's memorable and deeply meaningful Acceptance Speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964, when he said,"...I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!..."

 

[spoon]

FMJ is this what your talking about ---
What's this got to do with CCW instructor and their classes ???
This was saveral years ago ???

Man Shoots Self At Shooting Range
POSTED: Wednesday, August 22, 2007
UPDATED: 5:14 pm EDT August 22, 2007
ROYAL OAK, Mich. -- Police responded to reports of a shooting at Target Sports on Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak Wednesday.
When officers arrived at the range, they spotted a man, whose name has not been released, suffering from a gunshot wound to the head.
The man was transported to Royal Oak Beaumont Hospital where he was pronounced dead.
At the time of the incident, police said the gunshot wound was self-inflicted, but weren't sure if it was accidental.
Later, investigators confirmed the man walked into the facility with the intention of killing himself, Local 4 reported.
Officials have contacted the man's family.

 

[wishin]

So I take it that you ascribe to the notion that your "right" to keep and drive a car is enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Try the 9th Amendment.

 

[buy guns]

So I take it that you ascribe to the notion that your "right" to keep and drive a car is enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Yep and there have been a few judges who agree.

 

[wishin]

Sorry, forgot to add, "the natural right to own a horse and ride it". (property). Though not enumerated.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

FMJ is this what your talking about ---
What's this got to do with CCW instructor and their classes ???
This was saveral years ago ???

no, there's been 5 gun rental/suicides at this range over the last couple years. (bizarre, i know)


i'll try to find the article.

 

[Shadow Man]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment, U.S. Bill of Rights.

Just curious, Wishin, as to how this justifies the Department of Motor Vehicles and licensing therof. Not trying to ruffle feathers, just trying to understand the dynamics of the conversation.

 

[LeontheProfessional]

Never had to take the class. Here you either take the class or show your hunting license.

 

[tc54]

i took my class in 96'. i live in a small country town and one of the deputy sheriff's provided the instruction. i remember the "training" and shooting segments as being sufficient, but the segment where our prosecuting attorney spoke still rings in my mind. he did a great job of covering the law regarding cc and cautioned us about pulling and/or firing our cc weapon. he mentioned several cases where cc folks "stepped in" to stop robberies at walmart and 3 other locations. in every case, the cc person fired at and wounded either the perp or someone else at the scene. the cc holder was in absolutely no personal danger until he decided to step in and address a situation that did not involve him. all four cc holders were later sued. they were all found liable for the injuries they caused. bottom line - he said keep you gun hidden unless someone in threatening you or yours, and only show it (as in drawing it) once you determine the threat is real and "life-threatening".

 

[SwampWolf]

Quote:
So I take it that you ascribe to the notion that your "right" to keep and drive a car is enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

Yep and there have been a few judges who agree.

Yeah, right. Let's all put our faith in the hands of a few activist judges...

 

[martialartsblackbelt]

in oklahoma you dont have to qualify at the range, just put 50 rounds thru your gun

 

[SwampWolf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwampWolf
So I take it that you ascribe to the notion that your "right" to keep and drive a car is enumerated in the Bill of Rights?


Try the 9th Amendment.

Because the rights of a free people can ultimately only be guaranteed by an armed citizenry, the authors of the Constitution rightly understood the importance of the right to keep and bear arms; an acknowledgement that is manifested in the definitiveness of the language used in the Second Amendment-an Amendment that is specific in addressing the extreme import of the right of the governed to be armed.


The catch-all Ninth Amendment is noteable by its lack of specificity. If it's your opinion that the Founders intended the "right" of the people to keep their horses, Buicks and lawnmowers to have the same repute as the right to keep and bear arms, well, there's nothing else I can argue to change your mind. Besides, speaking for myself, I think I've strayed an awfully long way from the topic of the op's thread-and I apologize for that.

 

[possum]

no ccw course for me yet (although i have trained at several school in the civilian sector). i live in ga, but i will be moving back home to NC in about 18 months, and will be in a class asap. sounds like i have alot to look foward to!

 

[wishin]

Ninth Amendment, U.S. Bill of Rights.

Just curious, Wishin, as to how this justifies the Department of Motor Vehicles and licensing therof. Not trying to ruffle feathers, just trying to understand the dynamics of the conversation.

My point exactly! The licensing argument holds no water, no matter the natural right.

 

[Flyboy]

1. I would not hire him if I was in a SD shooting.
2. I would consider reporting him to whomever issues instructor licenses in OK.

To be fair, Doug also points out that if he ceases the attack before you actually fire the shot, then no, you do not get to shoot him. Also, your drawstroke is too slow: the idea is that, when it's time for action, you have exhausted every opportunity other than deadly force, and when you employ such force, you act decisively, not to "scare" the guy into stopping.

Doug has been teaching this class for years, and I think everybody in Oklahoma knows what he says (we have this discussion on the Oklahoma Shooters board about once a month). Doug also beat the ATF on illegal-machinegun charges, so I'm willing to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Gatorbait]

wishin, You posted: "You're right, but as a practical matter, there are too many idiots out there that shouldn't be carrying a weapon. Adds new meaning to self defense; more aptly put "defense from oneself"."

Whose "shouldn't" is that? Yours or Sara Brady's? Doesn't it sound a bit like an egregious misunderstanding of the concept of a Right?
***************
Sometime--and it will happen--SCOTUS will have the opportunty to hear arguments about repeated money charges for gun ownership, permits, renewals world on end that aren't in any way qualitatively different from the poll taxes used in the South when I was growing up for the (sole) purpose of keeping black people and those without property from voting. It's an outrage that anyone would have to pay an admission fee to be allowed to "use" their Constitution.

It will fall, and I don't mean the State should be allowed to recoup expenses for issuing the documents. Costs of elections are assumed from the general fund.

 

[45Frank]

The biggest surprise was what a joke the class was.
They handed us a test a book and made us watch a film. That was it. Every question was answered in order and a few still didn't get it.

But the instructor made us aim, well I can't hit nothing when I aim. He pulls the target in and I barely kept it on the paper. He went over a talked to someone else and I put up another target and said may I shoot, he says yes. I turned with the gun at my side slightly forward and aced all 6 shots. All chest shots which is what I was shooting for.
I asked why do we have to aim he said well that's what we want you to do if you are confronted. I told him if I'm getting up in the middle of the night am I supposed to tell the intruder to wait so I can take aim. Well he was ex law enforcement so I was the last one to leave with my certificate and he never said another word to me. Still see him around and he always gives me the look.

Don't you think it's better to practice off hand then to aim at targets???????????

I shoot pins. balls set up sticks and so on. Just me.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

To be fair, Doug also points out that if he ceases the attack before you actually fire the shot, then no, you do not get to shoot him. Also, your drawstroke is too slow: the idea is that, when it's time for action, you have exhausted every opportunity other than deadly force, and when you employ such force, you act decisively, not to "scare" the guy into stopping.

Doug has been teaching this class for years, and I think everybody in Oklahoma knows what he says (we have this discussion on the Oklahoma Shooters board about once a month). Doug also beat the ATF on illegal-machinegun charges, so I'm willing to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

This is completely contrary to the statements made by Werewolf

During the class he made this exact statement: "if you pull your gun somebody better die". I was stunned. Didn't agree with that statement and still don't.

His logic was:

1. It is only legal to pull your CCW and point it at another if you are in fear for your life.
2. If you are truly in fear for your life you have absolutely no other choice than to eliminate the threat.
3. You eliminate the threat by shooting it until your attacker stops what he/she is doing that is the source of the threat.
4. Stopping the threat will in most cases mean the threat is dead.

The lawyer was deadly ernest. The topic was discussed for almost 1/2 hour and he would not back down. If you pull your gun in OK someone better die.

I see nothing in the statement about not shooting if the threat ceases.