GOA Accomplishments?

[siglite]

Oh, and as an afterthought, it is a monopoly, because the state chooses not to train civilians for CCW purposes.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Who said I wasn't doing both?

Because your argument doesn't hold water if you blame both. If the NRA had that kind of stroke they would have this agreement in more than one state wouldn't you think?

The NRA training has become the defacto standard, for better or worse. Many organizations, public and private, require range officers to be NRA certified, instructors to be NRA certified, etc.

The lazy man's way out is just to say "make them use NRA training". That is what happened in WV, the legislators took the easy way out and said "use the NRA training stuff, it's already written and we can go on break sooner".

So you fault NRA for maintaining a level of certification that requires instructors to use their course material and be approved by NRA to teach the class?

That's just silly.

Oh, and as an afterthought, it is a monopoly, because the state chooses not to train civilians for CCW purposes.

And you said that was the NRAs underhanded doing which is, again, silly.

Because NRA weasels got that language placed in our freakin' laws, I have no choice.

Prove that one. You can't because that's not how it was done.

The WV statute says (I've put some things in bold):

(d) All persons applying for a license must complete a training course in handling and firing a handgun. The successful completion of any of the following courses fulfills this training requirement:
(1) Any official national rifle association handgun safety or training course;
(2) Any handgun safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by an official law-enforcement organization, community college, junior college, college or private or public institution or organization or handgun training school utilizing instructors duly certified by such institution;
(3) Any handgun training or safety course or class conducted by a handgun instructor certified as such by the state or by the national rifle association;
(4) Any handgun training or safety course or class conducted by any branch of the United States military, reserve or national guard.

There are clearly other means of getting trained, it's just that the NRA is the only one offering it.

Why isn't your state certifying anyone else? Why is there not a certification program through a "community college, junior college, college or private or public institution " like your statute clearly says would be OK?

Just because no one else wants to do it doesn't make it a vast NRA conspiracy.

 

[Robert Hairless]

siglite:

I have a WV CCW permit. And I had to go through the NRA to get it.

You compromised! You sold out to the forces of darkness for your own benefit. You have betrayed everything you profess to embrace. You knowingly undercut the Second Amendment. You violated the principles of Gun Owners of America and all who follow it. You crumbled, you grovelled at the feet of the NRA, you cast aside your principles.

Don't mind me. I'm just trying to get a feel for what it's like to be inside your head. Creepy stuff.

But I can see why Gun Owners of America is a good fit for you. Still, I don't think you should take NRA benefits while denouncing them. It's not nice to bite the hand that feeds you. A man of principle would not have done it. A principled man who despised the NRA would have refused to take that course until the legislature changed the requirement. It's interesting, though, that the NRA owns the West Virginia legislature. I'll file that information away for the next time we want to visit Beckley or Charleston. I learn so much on Internet gun forums.

 

[siglite]

Prove that one. You can't because that's not how it was done.

You're right, I can't prove it. Because of exactly HOW bills get introduced. They're crafted by special interests such as the NRA, hacked up by lawyers, then presented to a rep, who then hacks it some more, and eventually submits it.

And I'm supposed to believe that the NRA lobbyists in the state had NOTHING do do with the NRA's legal monopoly on CCW training in WV? Wow.

Really?

lol

 

[TexasRifleman]

And I'm supposed to believe that the NRA lobbyists in the state had NOTHING do do with the NRA's legal monopoly on CCW training in WV

Well you clearly can't even read your own states statutes so I'm not sure what you believe.

Have you ever actually read it? I posted above for you. It most certainly does NOT give NRA an exclusive and anyone with any reading skills at all can see that. Just because none of the alternative organizations WANT to teach the class does not make it an NRA conspiracy and you just look silly by continuing to insist that there is one.

You are typical of this argument. Lots of yelling and waving of arms about but very little fact, and when presented with fact you don't have much else to say except "well I know it says that but it's not really like that".

 

[siglite]

You compromised! You sold out to the forces of darkness for your own benefit. You have betrayed everything you profess to embrace. You knowingly undercut the Second Amendment. You violated the principles of Gun Owners of America and all who follow it. You crumbled, you grovelled at the feet of the NRA, you cast aside your principles.

You mean I chose not to go to prison? That's "force" not "compromise."

Don't mind me. I'm just trying to get a feel for what it's like to be inside your head. Creepy stuff.

Your insults are truly getting tiresome. First I'm dumb, now I'm creepy. Does THR have an "ignore this person" feature? I assume you're out of arguments at this point. I find you not very "high road" at all Mr. Hairless.

But I can see why Gun Owners of America is a good fit for you. Still, I don't think you should take NRA benefits while denouncing them.

Forced. I was forced under threat of incarceration to be subjected to the NRA fees to exercise a fundamental right.

A man of principle would not have done it. He would have refused to take that course until the legislature changed the requirement.

Are you saying a man of principle would have gone to prison?

It's interesting, though, that the NRA owns the West Virginia legislature. I'll file that information away for the next time we want to visit Beckley or Charleston. I learn so much on Internet gun forums.

I don't think you know much at all about the WV legislature. And I'll be surprised if you learn much of anything anywhere. Because any differing views than your own are "stupid." One has a hard time learning when one knows everything already.

 

[siglite]

Why isn't your state certifying anyone else? Why is there not a certification program through a "community college, junior college, college or private or public institution " like your statute clearly says would be OK?

Just because no one else wants to do it doesn't make it a vast NRA conspiracy

If you look at that, besides the NRA, those are all effectively state run entities. So the choices are, the NRA, or the state. And the state chooses not to do it. It *is* a monopoly. Period. And that's supposed to be a good thing.

Good thing: NRA compromise on NICS
Good thing: NRA attempts to derail Levy
Good thing: NRA monopoly on CCW training in my own state.

You guys have some seriously twisted definitions of "good."

 

[Euclidean]

You know, I've read all this...

Here's the thing people.

The NRA won't change its position on NICS and background checks. Background checks don't stop criminals and infringe on the rights of innocent people.

I believe if you can't be trusted to possess a gun, you shouldn't be out of prison.

I believe I have the right to buy M249s over the internet and have them shipped to my door, where I can mount them on my Abrams tank if I feel like it.

Is the NRA realistically going to adopt a no compromise platform and fully support my rights like I want them to? If not, what choice do I have but to support a group like GoA or JPFO that will work towards the ends I desire?

 

[TexasRifleman]

private or public institution

Can't you read? You typed it out, surely you read it.

Your state authorizes private institutions to start their own training program.

Again, just because no one has fooled with it does not a conspiracy make.

You have a problem in West Virginia because no private institution OTHER THAN the NRA has offered training.
That does NOT MEAN that ONLY the NRA can offer it.

Seriously, this is pretty simple grammar here.

 

[siglite]

private or public institution

I believe that "institution" is a legal term in WV meaning "school" in this context. There are very few truly private institutions in WV. And specifically in charleston, I'm aware of exactly three. They're all k-12.

I don't care what you guys say. I live here. There is a monopoly on CCW training with the NRA. Period. I shopped. I looked. I called. At the counter at the courthouse, they said "you need an NRA certificate." It's printed on their documents. It is simply the case as far as my search took me. And it's the law.

Edit: But surely you guys know better, being WV residents and CCW holders and all...

 

[siglite]

Well Euclidean, according to Robert, you're a dangerous minority element.

psst... hint... "marginalize those you disagree with" is an ancient political tactic... transparent to me, but hey... maybe some people buy it...

 

[TexasRifleman]

There are very few truly private institutions in WV. And specifically in charleston, I'm aware of exactly three. They're all k-12.

That's the NRAs fault too I'm sure.

Oh, the University of Charleston is a private university. They could offer the course.

And it's the law.

No, it's not. I posted the law above. It's in English and it's not some lady behind a counter.

At the counter at the courthouse, they said "you need an NRA certificate.

They said that because no one else wants to fool with it because it's a pain in the ass, costs a lot of money to administer, and opens the provider up to liability.

 

[Robert Hairless]

siglite:

You mean I chose not to go to prison? That's "force" not "compromise."

...

Forced. I was forced under threat of incarceration to be subjected to the NRA fees to exercise a fundamental right.

NRA fees? You mean the fee you were charged by the instructor. NRA-certified instructors set their own fees. Some of them don't charge any fee.

But I guess I understand your reasoning. I am guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but those awful people who own restaurants and groceries force me to pay for my food under pain of death!

Still, there is a difference between eating and carrying a concealed weapon. Eating is a requirement of existence. Carrying a concealed weapon is not. (Now go ahead and do a few riffs on why it's a requirement of your existence to carry one, and how it's essential that you have one for self defense, and how it's a human right! to have one. I'll wait.)

And still once again, I and TexasRifleman both pointed you to the section of the West Virginia Code of Laws that shows two other ways you could have satisfied the training requirement. You didn't. Are you too un-American to join the military? Why are you unwilling to defend your country and your Second Amendment rights?

So it's not true that your only alternatives were to take an NRA certified course or go to prison. West Virginia doesn't force everyone to get a concealed weapons permit and it does provide two other ways to satisfy the training requirement for those who do choose to get a permit. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if every civilian and police CWP instructor in West Virginia is NRA-certified: it's a common requirement. And it doesn't surprise me that you've turned that requirement into a diabolical plot by the NRA and corrupt legislators everywhere. You're in step. Everyone who doesn't see the world your way is out of step.

Nah, you like being insulted so much that you twist everything into an insult. You enjoy them and create them for yourself so you can be outraged by them. It's evidently fun for you. Enjoy yourself.

You, of course, aren't trying to insult me with your essential nastiness and twisting. But I suppose that even if you were trying to insult me it would be because I forced you to do it. It must be hard to be passion's plaything with no ability to control your own actions.

I don't know the answer to your question "Does THR have an 'ignore this person' feature?" but I'm certainly willing to find out for you if you whisper sweet nothings in my ear or pay me to do your work. Or did you intend an insult when you said "Does THR have an 'ignore this person' feature? ... I find you not very 'high road' at all Mr. Hairless."

When I choose to ignore somebody I do it the old fashioned way. But, for perspective, I'm not forced to read messages I don't want to read or respond to messages unless I choose to do so. I live in the United States of America and I don't worry about the West Virginia police incarcerating me because of my choices. I'm a bit surprised that you're forced to read or reply to messages. What happens to people in West Virginia who aren't members of this forum? Are they all incarcerated?

About your signature: "Vote for liberty. Vote your conscience. Please stop voting for the same socialist pig in a different dress. Vote Ron Paul in 2008."

I'm not entirely familiar with the customs of your people so I must ask whether "pig" is a term of endearment in West Virginia. The reason why I ask is that it seems to me that you're saying that anyone who doesn't vote for Ron Paul in 2008 is not voting for liberty and not voting his or her own conscience, and that every candidate other than Ron Paul in 2008 is "the same socialist pig in a different dress."

Where I live you would be considered insulting, offensive, and most assuredly not on "The High Road" for proclaiming such an arrogant and dictatorial message. My people assume that others do vote for liberty and do vote their own consciences even when we differ. We don't think that we need to vote your conscience or your understanding of liberty, even though you say we're voting for "the same socialist pig in a different dress." You, after all, perceive that you are forced to have a concealed weapons permit or suffer incarceration. Your people might not consider your perception at least a wee bit warped, but my people do. We also believe that calling people a "pig" is an insult. You don't, so I wonder if your people believe as you do or whether you are being forced to behave that way by the West Virginia police? It is good to compare the customs of our people.

Speaking of which, according to the polls "Ron Paul in 2008" seems to be fluctuating between a solid 1% and a triumphant 3%, except for the June 26-27 poll when he didn't poll high enough to register. I don't know whether that was before or after the launching of the Ron Paul Blimp with the slogan "Who is Ron Paul?" on one side. If I happen to remember his name and ask anyone of voting age what they think of Ron Paul they echo that slogan and say "Who is Ron Paul?" So I guess it must be catching on. Good slogan. Good thinking.

Nope, I haven't changed the subject. You made my comment "Don't mind me. I'm just trying to get a feel for what it's like to be inside your head. Creepy stuff" part of the subject. All I'm doing is giving you my opinion. My opinion is that your thinking is creepy.

But don't feel insulted! Your methods demonstrate those practiced by Gun Owners of America. Thus your 7 keys to virtue, the path along the high road for all GOA members to follow, the path that will preserve our Second Amendment rights except in West Virginia where the police force people to get concealed weapons permits and take NRA-certified courses, and where people are required to read and respond to my messages:

1. Your insults are truly getting tiresome.
   
2. I find you not very "high road" at all Mr. Hairless.
   
3. I don't think you know much at all about the WV legislature.
   
4. And I'll be surprised if you learn much of anything anywhere.
   
5. Because any differing views than your own are "stupid."
   
6. One has a hard time learning when one knows everything already.
   
7. Please stop voting for the same socialist pig in a different dress.

 

[guil2000]

WOW !!! 88 comments and still no answer to the question of exactly what GOA has accomplished. But as always, some have attempted to turn this into another bash-the-NRA thread.

Regarding the DC case, NRA had been working on this for years. They had their own case in the works AND had been pushing for the DC Personal Act. I provided you a link to this earlier which seems to have been ignored.

THIS WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO DERAIL THE PARKER CASE. All this was just an honest disagreement between lawyers as to the best way to proceed. Also remember, the make-up of SCOTUS was different a couple of years ago, and many people were afraid of the results. With the last two additions to the Court, the picture has changed, but is still a big gamble. Timing is everything in cases like this.

And for SigLite, WV is not the only state that specifically references NRA training and NRA certified instructors. In fact, most of them do so. Is this because the NRA "owns" all these state legislatures? Imagine that. Or could it possibly be that almost all training programs are based on the NRA-developed and approved firearm training programs? Programs that have actually proven themselves valid over all these 100+ years. Please tell me what other firearm training programs exist in WV that you would rather get your training from. Without knowing for certain, my guess is that your law enforcement agencies also use the NRA certification programs for their personnel.

 

[guil2000]

Just so everybody understands, there would be no CCW in WV or just about anywhere else without the NRA. According the the "purist" ideals, the concept of having a license is abhorrent to the Second Amendment and they should be able to carry whenever and wherever they want. VT style carry is frequently cited as an example, but even VT has restrictions on where you can carry. Many "purists" feel that a property owner has no right to deny you to carry on his own property (i.e. My right is more important than your right syndome).

It may surprise you, but I generally agree with the "purists" in concept, but I am also a realist in that I have to deal with the real world and the situation that currently exists. I would rather get what I can now and establish a base, then seek to expand that base next legislative session.

For example, I get 60% of what I want now instead of 100%. Next year I push for 80%, but settle for 70%. Now who wins here? I won, since I have made a net gain of 10% without giving up anything. This is the way CCW has evolved over the years.

The GOA thought process is that if I can't have it all right now, I'll yell and scream and go home with nothing.

 

[NGIB]

Hate to jump in here but I have to make a comment about compromise. Had the founding fathers not compromised we would not have the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights - period. While I want the stupid laws to go away, I realize that some compromise is just a reality of the world we live in. A positive step in the right direction is better than demanding total change and achieving nothing. The no compromise mentality - by the gun haters and the 2A purists - only serves to stoke the rhetoric that achieves nothing. I'm sure I'll get flamed for not being a 2A purist but that doesn't bother me the least little bit as I sincerely believe that this is a long fight that must be won one battle at a time...

 

[antsi]

Is the NRA realistically going to adopt a no compromise platform

I think it is important to define what you mean by "no compromise." Let's try a couple of examples and you tell me what you consider to be "compromises" in these political scenarios.

A) Due to a recent high-profile shooting, there is overwhelming legislative support for a ban on "armor-piercing" ammunition. Some kind of ban is going to get passed, no matter what, because a huge majority in Congress favors it, President Hilary is pushing for it, and there is a lot of public clamor for it. The way the law is originally written, it defines essentially all centerfire pistol and rifle calibers as "armor-piercing." Realizing there is no way to totally stop this law, the NRA lobbies to change the definition of "armor piercing." Under the new definition, only rounds with sub-caliber penetrators are banned. The NRA's version gets passed instead of the much more far-ranging ban.

B) The state "Wisconsifornia" is one of the few states remaining with no shall-issue CCW law. There is a slim majority in the legislature who is willing, with a lot of arm-twisting, to pass a shall-issue CCW law. Initially, the governor was threatening a veto because she heard a story about someone getting shot in a beauty salon and it caused her to have emotional traumas. There are not enough votes to override a veto. The NRA proposes adding a provision to the law such that CCW is allowed everywhere except in beauty salons, and the governor agrees to sign the law if this is done. The local gun rights group "Hard Core Gun Rights Purists of Wisconsifornia" insists this is an unacceptable compromise. "The NRA is sacrificing our constitutional rights for the sake of hair color and perms!" says the HCGRPoW press release. The HCGRPoW lobbies hard against the proposed CCW law, and residents of Wisconsifornia have to go four more years without being able to carry anywhere, including beauty salons.

Usually, when people cry "no compromise!" they are talking about scenarios like those above. What they reveal is a total misunderstanding of how legislation works and a total misunderstanding of what effective political action is. Effective political action does not mean "I get everything I want right now." That is not realistic, and it is not a strategy that will achieve anything in real life. Effective political action means "I am getting something that is better than what I would otherwise have gotten if I hadn't been lobbying."

On one level, I guess I can agree with the fantasy purist RKBA folks - that is, if we had a magic wand and we could make anything happen just by wishing, we'd probably generate pretty much the same laws. Sure, I'd like to see select fire machine guns, subguns, and machine pistols deregulated this afternoon. I'd like to be able to own a Panther tank and shoot 75mm high explosive shells at reactive targets on my own private range. I'd like to see a no-license no-restriction concealed-or-open-carry law passed nationwide. I'd like to see everyone who is too criminal or too insane to be trusted with guns locked up forever.

So, I guess the "purists" and I have one thing in common - my fantasy land looks pretty much identical to theirs.

Where we have a difference of opinion - and I'm afraid it's a rather major one - is that I can tell the difference between my fantasy land and the realities of the world that I actually live in.

Is the NRA realistically going to adopt a no compromise platform and fully support my rights like I want them to? If not, what choice do I have but to support a group like GoA or JPFO that will work towards the ends I desire?

Translation: I will not cooperate with anyone in any political action unless I am in 100% agreement with their agenda.

Again, this is politically clueless. Nothing ever gets accomplished in politics without forming coalitions. A coalition is when people with somewhat different ideals, different purposes, and different long term agendas realizes that they share some of the same intermediate goals. They put aside their differences and work together on those intermediate goals, and this is how things get accomplished in the field of politics.

You certainly have the right to insist that you will not participate or cooperate with anyone else unless they are in perfect agreement with you. This guarantees that you will never achieve any practical results.

The reason the NRA has 4 million members is that they represent a broad coalition of gun related interests. There are probably no NRA members who totally 100% agree with the organization, but they agree closely enough to join in and achieve large numbers. This gives them the power to actually accomplish things.

The "Total Liberty Panther Tanks Machine Gun Carry Everywhere Party" has six members, with hopes of adding a seventh if only uncle Fred will get back on his meds and they let him out of the asylum. They had a chance to recruit three more members, but one of them preferred the Tiger, another preferred the Sherman, and the third preferred the T-34. Since the TLPTMGCEP is serious about Ideological Panther Purity, they refused to "compromise" and allow any members with impure tank preferences. So now, all six (maybe seven) members of the TLPTMGCEP can take satisfaction in their own ideological purity: they all have 100% agreement on what they want to do and how they want to do it. The price they pay for this peurile self-congratulation is irrelevance and inefficacy.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for not being a 2A purist but that doesn't bother me the least little bit as I sincerely believe that this is a long fight that must be won one battle at a time...

I think most of us would be 2A purists if the 2A was pure.

Like it or not the 2A was corrupted in 1934 and there has been a steady erosion since.

That is 73 years of laws, big and small, passed to limit the 2A.

Too bad the Internet was not around back then, too bad lobbying didn't have the scope it has now, but that's how it is. Frankly it's too bad that many of the people that post on THR were not around back then, we might have avoided the whole thing.

But the simple truth is that we are faced with undoing of 73 years of lawmaking and that is not going to happen instantly. To hold out the notion that all of a sudden things are just going to do an instant reverse because of ANY group, NRA, GOA, SAF whoever, is just so naive.

It takes many years to turn government, that's just a fact. Look how long it took from "all men are created equal" to Rosa Parks getting on that bus.

We are in a place now where the tide is turning. CCW is growing state by state. The AWB was toyed with and found not to work. We have this mass communication and media now where every person who has a message to get out can do so and be heard.

The RATE of anti gun legislation has slowed and we see PRO gun legislation now. 20 years ago you'd have never seen the gunmaker tort reforms, you'd have never seen Congress rebuke the ATF for its methods. You'd never have seen states passing "Katrina" laws and "Castle Doctrines". Now we're looking at Heller before the Supremes, what will likely be THE landmark 2A case and it's happening in a time when the pro 2A movement is in a position to influence the outcome more than ever.

It is turning. That it is not turning fast enough for the "purists" doesn't matter, it's still turning.

At the RATE we are going, if we continue to hold on and fight, we CAN undo 73 years of anti gun legislation and we can probably do it in less time than we think.

That NRA and GOA are huge money gobbling machines is a good sign, that means there is movement. Frankly this debate between GOA and NRA should not be happening. In a perfect world we'd be sending ALL the money to Alan Gottleib and SAF, he's certainly carrying his fair share of the load and then some.

Compromise is the only way it's going to work. There's simply no way the gun owning public is going to be motivated enough to strongarm these kinds of changes all at once in the voting booth. There are what, 20 million gun owners in the US? 4 million belong to some kind of pro 2A group and half of them or more only care about deer hunting?

But even then the voice of reason is being heard, laws are changing, and there is progress.

Setbacks? Sure, there will always be those in any fight.

We should be worrying about whether our KIDS will be able to buy Machine Guns and .50 calibers, not us. The NFA isn't going away in our lifetime but it's entirely possible it could go away in our children's.

It's a long fight, the worst, the WORST thing that can happen is we begin to fight each other.

 

[Robert Hairless]

guil2000:

Just so everybody understands, there would be no CCW in WV or just about anywhere else without the NRA.

I am still waiting for a GOA member--any GOA member--to tell me about the GOA-certified Instructors. I might be interested in becoming one so that there can be an alternative to NRA-certified Instructors. I've looked through the GOA web site but don't see anything about how to become a GOA-certified pistol instructor.

As our GOA friends are fond of saying, "Please provide a link to the GOA-Certified Instructor program." Or is it possible that there is none? Is it possible that GOA makes not even one positive contribution to gun ownership in this country?

 

[guil2000]

Well, Robert, why would you need a GOA certified instructor when that "all or none" attitude would ensure that you never have a CCW program to begin with. But I still can't figure out why it is OK to compromise such high principles to get a license, and not OK to compromise to get a state to enact a law to issue a CCW license. There seems to be a disconnect here.

And yes, I am still waiting for all those things that GOA actually accomplished. Must be a long list since it taking so long to compile it.

 

[siglite]

And still once again, I and TexasRifleman both pointed you to the section of the West Virginia Code of Laws that shows two other ways you could have satisfied the training requirement. You didn't. Are you too un-American to join the military? Why are you unwilling to defend your country and your Second Amendment rights?

At this point, Mr. Hairless, I stopped reading your post. I will no longer read ANY post you craft on this forum. This section of your post proves that you willfully post vile insults on subjects upon which you have no knowledge. How do I know you're willing to do this? I know because my combat action ribbon proves it. USMC 1371 1989-1996. Kuwaiti Theater of Action 1990-1991. Never mind that the Sherrif's department would not accept my DD-214, and instead required that I bring in an NRA certificate.

This post, and this section of this post, are all the evidence that I need that you speak from a position of profound ignorance. And you're insulting while you do it. Feel free to waste further bandwidth glorifying the NRA, their selling out, and tell everyone how the 2nd is not a fundamental right (as you did above). It is safe (at least for me) to assume that you're just flinging baseless insults from a position of ignorance.

Not very high road Mr. Hairless. Not very high road at all. I'm surprised the mods let you play here.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I know because my combat action ribbon proves it. USMC 1371 1989-1996. Kuwaiti Theater of Action 1990-1991. Never mind that the Sherrif's department would not accept my DD-214, and instead required that I bring in an NRA certificate.

Then you should have hired an attorney, since the law in your state says that is acceptable. Once again, your fault not NRAs.

Any handgun training or safety course or class conducted by any branch of the United States military, reserve or national guard.

So once again you have argued against yourself. Are you now saying that the NRA has influenced your local Sheriff to the point where is willing to go against the law of the state because of his fear of the NRA?

 

[siglite]

So once again you have argued against yourself. Are you now saying that the NRA has influenced your local Sheriff to the point where is willing to go against the law of the state because of his fear of the NRA?

I'm just telling you the facts. I'm telling you what happened in my case. I'm telling you that my DD214 did not include the words "handgun safety" anywhere, and despite my service record containing pistol proficiency classes and a pistol qualification, the Sherrif's department told me i had to have the NRA certificate.

You guys are defending the codification of this NRA monopoly. You're telling me it doesn't exist. Robert's called me both a communist and a coward in his insistence that it doesn't exist. The problem is, I live here. I went through the process. Guess what? It exists.

I'm not going to ask Robert, because I don't care if he types the collected works of Shakespeare on this forum. But you TXR, when did YOU apply for a WV CCW, and how did YOU get around this NRA monopoly here? And since you proved your case by obtaining a WV CCW without an NRA safety course, I'll let you tell me again how it's not a monopoly.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You guys are defending the codification of this NRA monopoly. You're telling me it doesn't exist. Robert's called me both a communist and a coward in his insistence that it doesn't exist. The problem is, I live here. I went through the process. Guess what? It exists.

No, I am not defending this so called "monopoly". I am asking what has been done in your state to fight this kind of abuse.

I have no doubt your story is true, but that doesn't mean that it's NRAs fault.

What does WVCDL have to say about all this? Have you called them and asked?

I'd really expect a lawsuit over this somewhere along the way if your state officials are ignoring the law like this.

Edit: A quick look at WVCDL's web page shows some arguing going on:

item 5.3:

http://www.wvcdl.org/WVCDLbills/

You should be involved in this. It appears that WVCDL sees the problem, and they see it as a legislative screw up, not any NRA conspiracy as you've suggested.

I think you are pissed off, and rightfully so, but I think you just needed someone to blame for this and NRA was handy.

 

[guil2000]

SigLite:

Robert did not say it is not a fundamental right. He said it is not a requirement for existing (unlike eating), since it is your right to choose whether you carry or not. And you have confused me greatly here. How is it the fault of the NRA that your sherrif would not accept your DD-214 as proof of training?