Instructor Association

[inman]

http://www.ncfia.net/


Free membership

[Swift locksmith]

The biggest thing I like about this organization is in the mission statement; their goal to standardize the CCW training methods. If CCW instructors around the country all teach the same course, all states with CCW will be forced to recognize out of state permits. All that's left are those annoying May-Issue states.

[Bill of Rights]

The biggest thing I like about this organization is in the mission statement; their goal to standardize the CCW training methods. If CCW instructors around the country all teach the same course, all states with CCW will be forced to recognize out of state permits. All that's left are those annoying May-Issue states.

Not quite, Swift. At least three states have no state-mandated training. The three I know of are GA, IN, and PA, but there may be others of which I'm not aware. In order, citizens of these states holding a state-issued permit/license/whatever may carry in 24, 26, and 27 states. I don't have a problem with standardizing CCW classes nationwide, but I have a very big problem with what doing so would likely lead to- that being a furtherance of the idea that the state has the power to decree what "training" one must have to be able to be "allowed" to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms, and thus, more states deciding that if you don't learn _this_ or prove _that_, your life, safety, and property are not worth protecting.

I've been very clear about the fact that I support the idea of people being trained in the use of their firearms, but I think I've been equally clear about the fact that what training someone gets and when they get it should be their own choice. Yes, firearms can be dangerous (otherwise, we would not carry them) but there is no restriction on the ownership or carrying of tools such as chainsaws-I might get some odd looks, but I can walk down the street with a chainsaw if I choose to do so and I'll not be in violation of any law.

Keep in mind also that some states' courses require that students be trained in that states' laws, too, and unless all instructors teach the laws of all states, we still will not meet everyone's standards.

It's an idea that sounds great on the surface, but I think has some really bad potential for abuse by those who would have us all disarmed and helpless.

Blessings,
B

[Rentiers]

I've been very clear about the fact that I support the idea of people being trained in the use of their firearms, but I think I've been equally clear about the fact that what training someone gets and when they get it should be their own choice.

I couldn't agree more.

I am a CWP Instructor in South Carolina. I am also a registered lobbyist for gun rights here in my state. I oppose any and all mandatory training in order to exercise a God-given right to keep and bear arms. I do, however, think that anyone who wishes to get firearms training is acting responsibly. This does NOT mean I feel those who choose NOT to get such training are acting irresponsibly.

My state (so far) refuses to honor permits from other states unless they have at least as much 'training' as our state unjustly forces upon her citizens. This is due to a certain specific few (criminal) Senators in our state's general assembly who consistently stand in the way of sensible gun legislation. Once we get rid of these traitors, perhaps we will be more successful in passing CWP reforms that make life easier for the law-abiding gun owner.

Bill Rentiers

[Bill of Rights]

I've been very clear about the fact that I support the idea of people being trained in the use of their firearms, but I think I've been equally clear about the fact that what training someone gets and when they get it should be their own choice.

I couldn't agree more.

I am a CWP Instructor in South Carolina. I am also a registered lobbyist for gun rights here in my state. I oppose any and all mandatory training in order to exercise a God-given right to keep and bear arms. I do, however, think that anyone who wishes to get firearms training is acting responsibly. This does NOT mean I feel those who choose NOT to get such training are acting irresponsibly.

My state (so far) refuses to honor permits from other states unless they have at least as much 'training' as our state unjustly forces upon her citizens. This is due to a certain specific few (criminal) Senators in our state's general assembly who consistently stand in the way of sensible gun legislation. Once we get rid of these traitors, perhaps we will be more successful in passing CWP reforms that make life easier for the law-abiding gun owner.

Bill Rentiers

Thanks Bill. I think I have to disagree on the point of it being irresponsible to not take some form of training in the use of any tool one may use that has dangerous potential. I think I was 2 or 3 when I first learned about the use of a hammer-don't worry, it was one of those Fisher-Price things- and my training in that particular tool became more refined and specific to the real thing as I grew older. I first used a saw at a young age also, and recall my father teaching me such little things as that the saw cuts on the downstroke, that I needed to cut slightly to the "waste" side of the length mark, and of course, "measure twice, cut once". Granted, neither of these tools is particularly dangerous to large numbers of other people, but the analogy holds true. The point I'm making is that while we should all be trained in the use of our firearms, such training can be informal, can consist of plinking or other practice, and needs no stamp of approval by any government organization. I think this may be what you're saying also; that taking any "approved course" is not necessary so long as one knows from some source how to handle his or her firearm safely and appropriately.

After all, what training did our legislators have? Who has greater potential to do harm to others, or for that matter, who has DONE more harm to those with no power to resist, the lawful gun owner or the lawfully elected politician?

Blessings,
B

[Rentiers]

Actually, I think that it is NOT irresponsible to exercise any God-given right with or without training. I think training in any tool is "a good idea" but I am adamantly opposed to mandating it by law prior to being able to enjoy one's rights. Training in any subject is always more beneficial than none. But how much 'training' does one need to hit an attacker less that 3 yards away & closing?

I am not forced by law to get 'training' prior to voting, or speaking my mind, or attending the church of my choice. All of these actions can have adverse results on the individual or the community if misused.

Voting without doing your homework (or using your brain at all) can get a Klintonski elected (twice). This hurts the entire nation. Similar scenarios can be said about all freedoms guaranteed us by our Creator and enumerated in our Constitution.

Bill

[Bill of Rights]

That's pretty much what I was trying (and failing) to say: Training good. Mandating bad. (and unConstitutional.)

When politicians are less dangerous to those who do them no harm with power and influence than I am with my firearms, I'll consider the concept of mandatory training a thought to give more than marginal consideration. That's a safe comment to make because it will never happen: How many millions of disarmed innocents died in the 20th century as victims of their own governments' avarice and power-hunger?

Innocent people cannot be protected by being disarmed, for a disarmed person can only flee from evil, and evil is not vanquished by fleeing from it. (paraphrase of two quotes; I think Col. Jeff Cooper was the source of one)

Blessings,
B

[Michael09]

I think the group is primarily marketing website development, and marketing of domain registration. If anyone wants a free website and domain name, just check out Microsoft Live.

Just my 2 cents in the bucket.