The Constitution doesn't say one danged word about concealment, so the difference is only in the "minds' of those who distrust their fellow man. I know full well how few can really handle a gun in a tense situation, but I know that having such problems is better than letting tyrants decide who will be free to defend themselves.
Instructor Arrested and Charged
- Thread starter Bttbbob
- Start date
AndeyHall
Active member
I'd like to add that on top of the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment, which gave the states the right to govern themselves after the civil war, made it clear that although they could pass laws for themselves, they ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT pass any law contradicting the Bill of Rights.
N R A
New member
What is the web address of the free on line class?
N R A
New member
I am an NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer and An Endowment Life Member.
Someone should revoke ALL his NRA membership privileges.
Reading the story, one bad instructor was pushed to the point of killing himself. Hope that does not happen here.
While this is serious, it does not go to the extreme of falsifying a Hawaiian birth record, and becoming president of the united states.
If we are going to straighten out all the falisified paperwork ever submitted, lets start at the top and work down.
Someone should revoke ALL his NRA membership privileges.
Reading the story, one bad instructor was pushed to the point of killing himself. Hope that does not happen here.
While this is serious, it does not go to the extreme of falsifying a Hawaiian birth record, and becoming president of the united states.
If we are going to straighten out all the falisified paperwork ever submitted, lets start at the top and work down.
golddigger14s
SFC At Fort Lewis, WA
Link Removed
show me in the Bill of Rights or in the writings of our Framers where they said that concealed weapons are not protected by the Constitution. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. ccw requirements are an infringement,and by law, null and void. With RARE exceptions, military "training' doesn't amount to a rat's behind, even with the rifle. I was an MP and fired a whoopee 50 rds with the 1911. I'm sure that things are not any better in today's military. IF you have an infantry MOS, you MIGHT get a bit more work with the rifle than the 200 rds of slowfire that I got, but over a million men of my generaation went to Nam with no more than such basic training with the rifle, (and NONE with the handgun). What training that we got with the pistol was Bullsye bs, and that's all.
whodat2710
New member
So basically what you're saying is that CC is an infringement, but waiving that infringement for military makes you mad. Hmmm.
AndeyHall
Active member
I'm confused as to where he was trying to go with that comment. Most of his comments have no point to them they are just random rants. All I got was CC laws are an infringement and the military doesn't train enough with their pistols or rifles.
AndeyHall
Active member
Thru, those on here who believe that ccw requirements are constitutional are very rare and very few and far between. You're preaching to the choir on that bit so you're not really hitting on anything new there. But until you find someone (cause I doubt you'll want to volunteer yourself) who is willing to undergo all the legal procedures and expenses to take that issue to the Supreme Court, then it's a useless argument. Because the fact of the matter is, as the Supreme Court currently stands, they believe that they have the authority to strip us of any rights they see fit as long as it is in the name of "public safety" or "national security". And that's exactly how they get away with it now. So sure, under the 2nd amendment, the fact that South Carolina requires me to go through all that bs to get a CWP is 100% unconstitutional. But unless I can find a dang good attorney who is willing to go for it pro bono, I doubt I would get very far on the (barely) 5-digit-a-year salary I'm making right now.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
The simple answer is they lied on a legal document. Now is the law valid if it violates the 2nd Amendment?
so what else do you THINK that I was pointing out, hmm? What's everyone's problem with somebody who DOES post and DOES start interesting new threads? Do I make you feel ignorant/lazy, or what? 
This is a gun/shooting/survival, etc, forum. That's what I post about, and what you do is CRY about it. Why is that the case, hmm? Why aint YOU starting gun topics and posing questions and pointing out solutions? Why not come on out on the field, with the real "players", instead of merely jeering from the sidelines?
This is a gun/shooting/survival, etc, forum. That's what I post about, and what you do is CRY about it. Why is that the case, hmm? Why aint YOU starting gun topics and posing questions and pointing out solutions? Why not come on out on the field, with the real "players", instead of merely jeering from the sidelines?
AndeyHall
Active member
Not sure who you're referring to in that vague post, since you obviously haven't learned how to use the quote button. But everyone I've seen that you could be referring to, including myself, post and and questions and answer questions on a regular/daily basis. You're right, this is exactly that type of forum. The information people take from this site could possibly determine whether or not they survive in a life or death situation. I haven't seen any comment you've made yet that would actually help somebody out. I've only seen you do 2 things: boast and talk down to people. That isn't what this forum is about.so what else do you THINK that I was pointing out, hmm? What's everyone's problem with somebody who DOES post and DOES start interesting new threads? Do I make you feel ignorant/lazy, or what?
wolf_fire
New member
Really? We don't have the right to concealed carry? Let me reread that ... "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wait a minute. I think you are wrong. It says right there that the right to keep your arms and to bear them shall not be infringed. If you have to ask permission and go through mandatory training before you bear them in a certain fashion, that surely sounds like an infringement. However, I've been wrong before... my government told me that.
AndeyHall
Active member
Definitely have to agree with wolf here...concealed carry falls under the word "bear". "Keep" means the actual owning of a gun. "Bear" applies to carrying something about your person. So if I have a cell phone on a holster on my belt, I am bearing a cell phone. But you don't think I am still bearing a cell phone if I put it in my pocket and it's now concealed? Nah, the only way you could make the argument work that we don't have the right to carry is if you completely misinterpret the word "bear". But honestly, I don't see how you could do that because I wouldn't even know where to get a pair of bear arms, and I doubt I'd like the fact that they were being killed just for their arms...
ChristiAnne Elkins
ChristiAnne
This may make me wildly unpopular, but I will say it anyway.
This story has zero to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with falsifying documents.
The NRA, in an attempt to remove fear and stigma of gun ownership/public carry developed a minimum safety course. It is the NRA's own standard.
Having made no bones about the facts as they exist for me - that until I took that course last month, I never even held a gun before that class.
And here is where I am going to be unpopular. I don't think it was enough. I would like to see it be a 16 hour class. The NRA gave me a certificate that says I am qualified to own, carry, and shoot a gun. I think the first 8 hours of the course should cover the laws, the basics - etc. The second 8 hours should be proper handling, and actual handling.
Despite the fact that I took that class, I still feel wholly inept as far as proper loading, unloading, clearing the chamber - etc. But according to the safety guidelines set by the NRA itself, I still qualify for a CCW.
Some places already have that 16 hour course set and those are places who statistically have lower and less serious "accidental shootings". I think everyone can agree a great number of instances where someone has been shot comes two ways----criminals and in experienced gun owners making big mistakes.
I think that everyone can agree that if there were less of the inexperienced owners, we will see a lot less accidental shootings. I'm not talking about the people who operate outside the law and have a gun to protect their drug stash or to exact a turf war. I'm talking about the guy who thought that he had to do nothing else but slip the magazine out of his gun, but didn't clear the chamber and ended up shooting a member of his family.
The worst parts of this story is that this guy was trusted by the NRA, by the State, and by the Federal government to perform certain duties. He was trusted by every day, normal citizens who wanted to do things the correct way - to learn how to be safe and competent. He defrauded everyone. The duties which he was entrusted to do, he did not do. People who thought they were doing it right are now faced with the fact that they didn't, that they handed over their hard earned money to a huckster. And they certainly did not get what they paid for.
It is things like this that weaken the 2nd amendment arguments and strengthen the gun control lobbyists because it paints all gun owners in a bad way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - Link Removed
This story has zero to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with falsifying documents.
The NRA, in an attempt to remove fear and stigma of gun ownership/public carry developed a minimum safety course. It is the NRA's own standard.
Having made no bones about the facts as they exist for me - that until I took that course last month, I never even held a gun before that class.
And here is where I am going to be unpopular. I don't think it was enough. I would like to see it be a 16 hour class. The NRA gave me a certificate that says I am qualified to own, carry, and shoot a gun. I think the first 8 hours of the course should cover the laws, the basics - etc. The second 8 hours should be proper handling, and actual handling.
Despite the fact that I took that class, I still feel wholly inept as far as proper loading, unloading, clearing the chamber - etc. But according to the safety guidelines set by the NRA itself, I still qualify for a CCW.
Some places already have that 16 hour course set and those are places who statistically have lower and less serious "accidental shootings". I think everyone can agree a great number of instances where someone has been shot comes two ways----criminals and in experienced gun owners making big mistakes.
I think that everyone can agree that if there were less of the inexperienced owners, we will see a lot less accidental shootings. I'm not talking about the people who operate outside the law and have a gun to protect their drug stash or to exact a turf war. I'm talking about the guy who thought that he had to do nothing else but slip the magazine out of his gun, but didn't clear the chamber and ended up shooting a member of his family.
The worst parts of this story is that this guy was trusted by the NRA, by the State, and by the Federal government to perform certain duties. He was trusted by every day, normal citizens who wanted to do things the correct way - to learn how to be safe and competent. He defrauded everyone. The duties which he was entrusted to do, he did not do. People who thought they were doing it right are now faced with the fact that they didn't, that they handed over their hard earned money to a huckster. And they certainly did not get what they paid for.
It is things like this that weaken the 2nd amendment arguments and strengthen the gun control lobbyists because it paints all gun owners in a bad way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - Link Removed
AndeyHall
Active member
I think you are partly right. Yes, everyone should WANT to be educated on how to handle a gun if they intend to do so. However mandating it absolutely is a violation. In my opinion, the courses emphasize the fact that carrying a gun is taboo. If accidental shootings is the concern, be concerned no more. Statistically there are less than 1,000 accidental gun deaths per year. That's less than 3 people per day out of about 315,000,000 people. Being the country that accounts for the majority of all gun ownership in the world, I'd say that's a pretty darn good statistic. You'll never eliminate them all.
ChristiAnne Elkins
ChristiAnne
AndeyHall
I am not disagreeing with you - but my argument relates specifically to the fact that this guy committed fraud.
He advertised that he was providing a service in exchange for money. He did not provide that service.
To take it in a different light, let us change the profession and service offered.
Mr X advertises in various publications that he is a mechanic, and he specializes in brakes.
Dozens and dozens of people go to Mr X to have their brakes fixed. Mr X does not fix their brakes but he says he did.
Mr X has committed fraud. He certified he did something in exchange for money. That is the theory of the law under which this person was arrested. Mass media is the one that is shouting from the rooftops about the fact that it was gun instruction fraud as opposed to auto repair fraud. It's a hot button issue. It sells news.
Like I said - the arrest really has zero to do with 2nd A -- and everything to do with fraud
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - Link Removed
I am not disagreeing with you - but my argument relates specifically to the fact that this guy committed fraud.
He advertised that he was providing a service in exchange for money. He did not provide that service.
To take it in a different light, let us change the profession and service offered.
Mr X advertises in various publications that he is a mechanic, and he specializes in brakes.
Dozens and dozens of people go to Mr X to have their brakes fixed. Mr X does not fix their brakes but he says he did.
Mr X has committed fraud. He certified he did something in exchange for money. That is the theory of the law under which this person was arrested. Mass media is the one that is shouting from the rooftops about the fact that it was gun instruction fraud as opposed to auto repair fraud. It's a hot button issue. It sells news.
Like I said - the arrest really has zero to do with 2nd A -- and everything to do with fraud
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - Link Removed
wolf_fire
New member
I cannot argue your point. You are correct. However, I think this thread got convoluted that we have missed each other's points.
If a law that violates our Constitutional rights is enacted, should anyone be arrested, charged and prosecuted under that law? The answer is a vehement NO.
You are correct, he defrauded his clients. But the necessity to perform the training for a permit is un-Constitutional. Therefore, the other side of the coin is should he even be prosecuted? My answer is no.
AndeyHall
Active member
I understand where you're coming from but I'm trying to open it up to a bigger picture. Like wolf said, yes he did fraudulently certify that he was doing something he wasn't. But the documents he fraudulently signed were documents that unconstitutionally existed in the first place. So what does that mean if you break a law that shouldn't exist in the first place?
The best example I can come up with is during the 30's in Europe when the Nazis made it illegal to harbor Jews. Were the people who were harboring Jews criminals or were they simply breaking the law that they knew violated their basic human rights to help someone else out? I know this is an extreme example but it's the best case I can pull from the top of my head.
whodat2710
New member
The way I see it, unfortunately, is that in this instance you have to take the Constitution out of it. This is about business. Period. He didn't decide to make the law requiring the class. He just profited from it. The customer did not come up with the requirement for training either, but the government has deemed the class necessary and we haven't beaten them yet.
-
Simple facts - the customer paid for a service/product that did not satisfy the requirements that the seller promised. The seller knew this and didn't care about anything but the profit, for as little effort as possible (Obama voters would love it...). Regardless of constitutionality this guy is a fraud and a thief and should go to jail. Think about if you were on the "trainee" side of it.
-
Simple facts - the customer paid for a service/product that did not satisfy the requirements that the seller promised. The seller knew this and didn't care about anything but the profit, for as little effort as possible (Obama voters would love it...). Regardless of constitutionality this guy is a fraud and a thief and should go to jail. Think about if you were on the "trainee" side of it.
