Online CC course a joke.

[Gunguy45]

I'm afraid that many of the comments here point to a desire for government to dictate to us, what they feel consists of responsibility. For the life of me, I just don't understand why some people think that it's up to someone else to tell them to learn the laws and learn how to safely and responsibly use a firearm. Those of you who feel that way are a part of the problem. /snip

I adamantly oppose ANY mandates for owning a gun or carrying one.What's being pointed out is the utter BS of mandating these classes to begin with.

Telling someone that the NRA Home Firearms Safety course, which doesn't necessarily involve even TOUCHING a firearm is necessary, much less helpful, before you can carry a CCW pistol is ludicrous on it's face. I know Mass. and Florida both accept this course.

States will NEVER institute meaningful mandatory training because it would price most people out of a CCW. And in states that aren't already deeply anti-gun, the population won't tolerate it.

But again, I oppose ANY mandates prior to exercising a right, the same way I oppose Poll taxes and for the same reason.

These mandated classes are designed to be a BARRIER. That's ALL they are meant to do. Make it as time consuming and expensive and fraught with legal uncertainty as possible to get a permit, and many fewer people will get one.

And pointing out that this is the REAL reason behind these jokes masquerading as mandated CCW "training" is entirely appropriate.

Personally I'd give everyone who bought a gun a voucher for free training. Many would never use it, but many WOULD. and you'd have to look long and hard to find WORSE training to conceal-carry than what most of the states that mandate it call for.

 

[eliduc]

Constitutional carry doesnt need a class....

Here is the thing, there is going to be a class. We already have a mandatory class. The class is not going to go away. Isn't it a little stupid to have a class that teaches what the parts of a gun are (This is a trigger. This is a magazine etc. ) and doesn't have one word about when a person carrying a concealed weapon is permitted by law to kill someone? Then when there are a few cases of people who have CCL's pulling the trigger when they shouldn't have it will be like a school shooting and the grabbers will use it to deny a CCL to everyone. So far we are lucky. I had to take an Oregon safe boating test (Not a class but a test) in order to continue to operate the boat I have owned and operated since 1986. It's a comprehensive test with things like knowledge of ocean buoys included which are not pertinent to people who do not use their boat on the ocean. There is a charge for the test and the safe boating card. Really ticked me off. I applied for my CCL because I think that after the last election it's going to be really difficult and expensive in the future to get one. We shouldn't need a license to conceal carry. The second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms but somewhere in time the Supreme Court must have ruled that states have the right to regulate how we bear arms. It was warped thinking that a concealed firearm is more intimidating and more dangerous than a open carry firearm or that a criminal would not carry a concealed weapon without a license because of a law prohibiting it. These things go in cycles. Our saving grace may be that we have a conservative Supreme Court and congress.

 

[Koda]

Here is the thing, there is going to be a class. We already have a mandatory class. The class is not going to go away.

Who says? Washington doesn't have a class. Vermont doesn't have a class, nor a license. Neither of those states are having any issues... Who says we have to have a class? Oregon has a class only because "somebody" made it a law.

Isn't it a little stupid to have a class that teaches what the parts of a gun are (This is a trigger. This is a magazine etc. ) and doesn't have one word about when a person carrying a concealed weapon is permitted by law to kill someone?

agree, its stupid to have a class that doesn't include an overview of the laws. I don't necessarily agree we should have to take a class to exercise a right, but I think there should be a class available, affordable, for everyone... that covers the laws. IMO for every gun sold there should be a free basic safety/laws overview class that comes with it.... here's how you handle a gun, and here's where you can find the pertinent laws on using it.

I had to take an Oregon safe boating test (Not a class but a test) in order to continue to operate the boat I have owned and operated since 1986. It's a comprehensive test with things like knowledge of ocean buoys included which are not pertinent to people who do not use their boat on the ocean. There is a charge for the test and the safe boating card. Really ticked me off.

Be careful using comparisons... the point is moot, boating is not a constitutional right. If gun rights people use these comparisons the antis will run with it wanting to regulate gun use the same way. I've heard all kinds of comparisons for CCW permits to car licensing and registration, boating, fishing/hunting, mental health.... this is a downward spiral to confiscation, lets not go there. None of these are an inalienable constitutional right.

The second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms but somewhere in time the Supreme Court must have ruled that states have the right to regulate how we bear arms.

None of the rights are without regulation, the difference here is when the regulation infringes on the right. For example a license to carry a gun (bear arms) is lawful because its not an infringement (you still get to bear arms). But laws that limit where, what, when or how we can bear arms are an infringement and unconstitutional, for example: DC or NY.

 

[eliduc]

I never attempted to imply that boating is a constitutional right. I was using it as an example as to where the Oregon mandated class could go....to a mandated test like the safe boating test which in my opinion is total b.s.. Or if it is like a DMV test we could be required to take a hands on proficiency test that is made so difficult no one could pass it.

I didn't say that Oregon has to have a class. What I did say is that we already do have a class and that it is not going to go away. It's a done deal. So, since we already have it why shouldn't it have something in it that is of informative educational value? I disagree (in general not personally) that an applicant has the responsibility to search around to educate themselves about concealed carry statutes and liabilities after paying to be educated about concealed carry? Then applicants are being forced to pay for something that they are not receiving and that's a ripoff. A requirement for a concealed carry class to be required to teach concealed carry law and liability is in no way an infringement or a threat to our 2nd amendment rights since we are already required to take the class. It's just common sense pertinent education. I don't think this omission is some kind of a conspiracy. The politicians who mandated the class have their heads up a very dark place. Of course, in the present political climate it's true that if you ask for an omission to be corrected then you have to worry about an over-reach by these clowns.

 

[Koda]

I disagree (in general not personally) that an applicant has the responsibility to search around to educate themselves about concealed carry statutes and liabilities after paying to be educated about concealed carry? Then applicants are being forced to pay for something that they are not receiving and that's a ripoff.

because the minimum requirement for a license is a safety class, not a legal class. Firearm instructors are not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal advice and could become liable for any said advice that wasn't correct, interpreted wrong. There is no firearm instructor that's going to take on that liability, that's a lawyers job. Its a risky proposition to make legal study a requirement because laws are interpreted on a case by case basis. A thorough study of law, and case law would be an overly expensive requirement that would begin to infringe on the rights of many based on cost. Lawyers charge a lot of money for a good reason.

 

[NoFlinch]

Here .................congress.

When someone posts without paragraphing, I interpret it as a RANT, and won't even read their "words of Wizzdumb"

 

[U201491]

When someone posts without paragraphing, I interpret it as a RANT, and won't even read their "words of Wizzdumb"

Hate to say it but I am guilty of that from time to time, but trying to get better at my rants and at least break them up a bit I'm working on it .

 

[eliduc]

The thing is, there are rules for when a new paragraph is needed. Just because a topic is wordy does not necessarily mean it is in need of a new paragraph so long as the paragraph stays on subject and does not change. Here are the rules for when a paragraph is needed. Otherwise, a new paragraph is not called for. You can make your long rant without paragraphs if you follow the rules. Making paragraphs that are not necessary is as bad as not making them when they are.

After reading my last post I have to admit that it could have used a paragraph or two but this is supposed to be an informal forum where members express their views, not an English class. Personally, I am more interested in a person's thoughts than their grammar.

• When you start in on a new topic
• When you skip to a new time
• When you skip to a new place
• When a new person begins to speak
• When you want to produce a dramatic effect

 

[NoFlinch]

The thing is, ...............I am more interested in a person's thoughts than their grammar.

I ADMIT IT!

Having written for 30 years (not my MAIN job but I have been published nationally, been on national talk radio/TV because of it, etc), I am PICKY about grammar/punctuation/spelling.

BUT, I have backed WAY off....otherwise I wouldn't be able to handle the poor excuses for "writing/posting I see on line..................

BUT (again), all of the above represents a persons educational level......I PREFER conversing with people what got education, although I realize some uneducated people are intelligent, and I don't have no problems with them too!

Posting in multiple paragraphs is easier to read. Period

 

[eliduc]

yeahbuthereisthethingyousayyoudon'treadanythingthatdoesnt
haveaparagraphbecauseitisarantbutyouhavetoreadittoknowifitneedsaparagraphornotexceptforthis.

 

[U201491]

yeahbuthereisthethingyousayyoudon'treadanythingthatdoesnt
haveaparagraphbecauseitisarantbutyouhavetoreadittoknowifitneedsaparagraphornotexceptforthis.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

And for the record, my spell checker just flat quit and on edit would not even check this LOL

 

[NoFlinch]

yeahbuthereisthethingyousayyoudon'treadanythingthatdoesnt
haveaparagraphbecauseitisarantbutyouhavetoreadittoknowifitneedsaparagraphornotexceptforthis.

Very seldumb will I read moar than a sentence or 2, if I read anything at al.................

Butt, that is jouts ME

Me is a pickie bass-turd when spalling and, punctuation and,/or grammer is, or, is, not con-searned.

 

[eliduc]

I didn't have any problem at all reading your last post. So if I can do it anyone can.

 

[Riot]

Constitutional carry doesnt need a class....

FYI there is a push for firearm training to be mandatory for WA residents before they get a concealed permit...some of the people pushing it are CJTC instructors, as well (no conflict of interest, there!).

 

[teflon6string]

I agree that constitutional carry shouldn't require a class. But Utah won't issue their multi-state permit without proof of attendance. So instead of arguing with them about the Constitution, I took the approved local class.

Mine was the last one offered at Dual Smoking Gunns in Beaverton before they closed for good a few years ago. And it was a disgrace. Not sure if it was the fault of store employees for overbooking the class, or the instructors (not affiliated with the store) for exceeding "classroom" capacity by 300-400%. Picture dozens of people standing around in other rooms with no clue what the "instructors" even looked like. It was a noisy, confused paperwork mill with nothing taught and nothing learned.

I don't recall the name of the main guy who "taught" it, though I've recognized him at a few Portland gun shows. If I'm ever forced again to jump through some similar hoop to remain compliant with the laws du jour, I'll opt for the online course instead.

 

[NoFlinch]

FYI there is a push for firearm training to be mandatory for WA residents before they get a concealed permit...

I have absolutely 0 (as in NONE...or NO) problems with this....AS LONG as the instruction is "GOOD"...

There are one or two people I have seen in the past who need more training...........................................................

 

[NoFlinch]

I took the approved local class.
And it was a disgrace.

The "Approved Classes" of today should be scrutinized, IMO.

I remember (barely) the one I took 20+ years ago.
What did I learn?
Oh, so this is what a Makarov looks and feels like...........................

 

[teflon6string]

I suppose the Portland area instructor applied to be on Utah's list and provided them with some sort of credentials. They gave me the the name of his outfit and I picked it because it was close.

Would the class have been conducted professionally if 10-12 people showed up on time to fill the 10-12 person classroom? I'm guessing 40 customers will never know the answer to that one.

 

[Koda]

just thought Id throw this out there for when comparing constitutional carry vs licences (with or without a class). Before we vote for constitutional carry the GFSZ act must be completely abolished first.

 

[NoFlinch]

j.....Before we vote for constitutional carry the GFSZ act must be completely abolished first.

I can't see the Gona' Friggin Shoot Zombies act at all....

Is there another act you are referencing ????????????????