I have a problem and only you can help...

[DAN]

I need some feedback on:
Where does the right to carry fit with the responsibility to have the appropriate training and the appropriate mental attitude.

What is the instuctors responsibility?

Last week I cancelled instruction for a student who had a hazardous attitude. Shot well, was safe on the range yet his macho attitude is going to get him in trouble.

Right or wrong??
I thought I would post it here rather than in training,
Dan

[VegasGeorge]

Dan, you absolutely did the right thing. Your gut will tell you if someone's attitude is not right. If they scare you, or worry you in any significant way, back out.

Unfortunately, there is something about firearms that attracts a certain type of immature or unbalanced individual. Usually, such a person winds up hurting themselves or someone else in a negligent discharge situation. Sometimes they will rush into a situation waiving their gun around in a misguided attempt to "save the day." Less frequently they will use the gun to settle an argument, or commit a crime.

In any of these cases, you don't need the potential liability of having instructed such a person in the use of the firearm.

[DAN]

Vegas George, thanks for the feedback.

So how does this fit with only 4 hours or so of training and then a state will issue a CCW?

Everyone has the right to carry but is 4 hours or 8 hours enough to assess an individual? How about proficiency is just hitting the target at 7 yards or not having to shoot at all for a permit?

Are we doing the right thing?? More feedback please?

By the way the trainee has been a cop for 5 years.
This was advanced one on one self defense training.

DAN

[VegasGeorge]

Dan (and everyone else), don't get too wrapped up in worrying about how dangerous guns are. Just remember, motor vehicles are a lot more dangerous than guns, and the States issue drivers licenses to just about anyone. And, the right to drive isn't even in the Constitution!

[VegasGeorge]

By the way the trainee has been a cop for 5 years..

My 27 years of law practice made a real skeptic of me. If he was a cop for 5 years, then I bet he's had some mental difficulties since then. More likely, his cop history is just part of his grandiose ideation surrounding the "excitement" of using firearms. How do you know this guy was telling you the truth about anything?

[Bill of Rights]

Dan and George:
While I can agree that the liability is on you if you instruct someone, I also consider the possibility that whatever training you were going to give him or her might be tailored to help quash that 'tude that this guy seemed to have. Granted, if he's been a LEO for any length of time, this is unlikely, but I think I might, IF I chose to instruct a newbie who appeared to me to be of questionable intention in his desire for a gun, I'd not only clearly teach him or her about limitations on deadly force and on what he/she has to do to get and to keep a CCW permit as a part of the greater picture, I'd also make a small note in a notebook somewhere as to the fact that I'd done so. I might add a comment for my own use that "I said no less than five (5) times that carrying a gun imparts a responsibility to avoid fights and escalation of situations that may lead to fights in which one might have no choice but to shoot."

Note that I am not a certified instructor, so if there are rules or precepts of which I'm not aware that mandate not training such a person in how to safely use a firearm, I'm certainly willing to be corrected.

Blessings,
M

[nodaywithout]

I think weather or not he she is a LEO, should not play a role in your descion. Simpley because the leo has a job as a police officer, does not mean that he is responsible enough for you to sign papers stating (in your proffesional opinion) a lie.
It is the almost the same thing as a driving instructor approving a teenager to drive a 1 ton vehicle around, if you do not prove your knowledge, skill and proffesionalism to the instructor they will fail you in a second, cause they don't want to take responsiblity for someone who is that obviously a danger to the public.

I don't know about you but it is not a comforting feeling knowing that there is always someone that could kill you in a car wreck simply because they were not trainned properly.

[EBDPA]

Dan,

I have mixed feelings about this issue. I do agree with St. Michael about keeping notes. I keep a 4x6 file on all of my students, as well as keeping them in my computer database. I keep this file becuase our NRA Counselor and teacher told me to... and it made great sense. First, I like the marketing potential of keeping track of students, particularly for classes that require recerts like CCW... but more because I want to remember, if asked, what the student was all about and my impressions and specific notes on what we covered. This is also why I keep printed copies of my course curriculum and put that in their file as well. A good reference to 'what was taught'.

Second thought, I do agree that every citizen who has the legal right to own a gun deserves to be trained and if they meet the statutory requirements for a CCW, then they should have the right to carry. I feel it is my responsibility as the trainer to make sure that I guide the student, give them the information and try and impart their personal responsibility in the equation.

The rub is, I really think, particularly in the letigious republik in which we both live, that we as instructors will ultimately have liability for our students actions. I think we should have the right to protect our livlihoods, our homes and our families by refusing to train someone who shows, maybe repeatedly, that they will be a liability to themselves, the public and us. I don't think anyone on the forum would have a problem with or give it a second thought to ask someone to leave the firing line or the entire range for exhibiting unsafe practices or attitudes. Why should it be any different in our classrooms?

My two cents... :x

[Bill of Rights]

I had forgotten I'd written on this topic. Re-reading my answer and the posts before and after it, I wouldn't change anything. One issue occurred to me that did not before, and that is that by cancelling his instruction in a state requiring same prior to issue, it could be said that you denied him his RKBA. Only a moment's reflection, however, reminded me that this is not the case; there are, I'm sure, LOTS of CCW instructors in CA. (and if several of them each cancel his class and/or training, maybe they're all noticing something. At SOME point, the little light in the corner of his eye has to start flashing and telling him it's time to get a clue, especially if each instructor gives him the same feedback and the same reason for cancelling his participation in the class.

Blessings,
M

[CA CCWInstructor]

You did the right thing. You need to look at the big picture. Do you want to let this one guy ruin it for everybody else?

Remember a school yard with a guy name Patrick Purdy? He screwed it up for the whole state.

I've done what you did about six times. I didn't feel good about it. But I knew it was the right thing to do.

[ColtM1911A1]

I've removed or never allowed students to participate in either CCW or tactical training in the past; doesn't happen often, but it does and for a variety of reasons -- the student was not prepared or capable of handling/owning/shooting firearms due to physical or mental health was the most likely reason for dismissal from training...

You did the right thing if you felt it was the proper thing to do; it's a call only you can make...

[larryarnold]

Just to play devil's advocate.

Texas has a shall-issue concealed carry law. We fought hard over six legislative sessions, twelve years, to make sure of that. Anyone who meets the legal requirements shall be issued a license.

Therefore, as a CHL instructor I am obligated to issue a certificate of completion to any student who completes the legal requirements for passing the class. That means also I can't add requirements to the class.

I guess I've been lucky. After twelve years I've had one student who made me uncomfortable, and he couldn't pass the final exam.

I would think long and hard before I turned someone out who had not done something wrong in class.

And no, I don't like dime store cowboys or wannabe cops.

"Shall issue" means shall issue.

[ErnieH]

Dan,
I know you have been around enough shooters in your time, that you can pretty much get the vibes going in the first few minutes. If you had the feeling this guy had too much of that deadly macho attitude to be safe, or the "I know" attitude, to listen and take directions, then it was time to send him packing.
You know as well as I do, that once an officer puts on his uniform; he needs to have a bit of an attitude on the job. When I was working the streets, I noticed I had much more attitude at work in the public eye then now. But that is something that should be turned on and off like a light switch, there is a time and place for it and on the range or in the class room is not the place. Even more so when he is coming to you for instruction. Sometimes because of the fact that they are around firearms so much, LEOs tend to get lazy about safety.
Sometimes instructors push people through just to make a buck or the simple fact that the guy is in Law Enforcement gets him through the class. But if and when he is involve in a shooting and they call this officer's instructors to the stand, you can sit there a not have to worry about what you tought him or what you said to him. Take the sigh of relief my friend, you washed your hands clean of him and you are free of liability.

[SnowCajun]

What is the instuctors responsibility?

Last week I cancelled instruction for a student who had a hazardous attitude. Shot well, was safe on the range yet his macho attitude is going to get him in trouble.

Right or wrong??
It sounds to me that you did exactly the right thing. I live in a state, "Washington" where all you have to do is pass the background check, no class instruction, no safety training, not anything is required other than that clean background check! I find fault in that in all honesty, to issue a license not even knowing if someone has the slightest clue how to handle their weapon safely, or even the ability to load it correctly, it just doesn't make sense to me. Many people have clean backgrounds, not everyone has been around guns all their lives and know enough to carry safely. That's my view anyway.

Personally I applaud your decision, I wish that could be taken even further to be honest, that an instructor report could be sent in to the licensing agency stating your views or concerns as to why this person was unable to complete his instruction courses with you. That would prevent him from just going to someone else by circumventing you like you were never in the chain of events and your views and opinions concerning this person were never heard. My two cents anyway.

Regards,
SnowCajun

[Bill of Rights]

Welcome to Carryconcealed.net, SnowCajun!

With respect, I disagree with you on the training issue. Indiana has much the same setup- no training requirement, no anything but a background check. Truthfully, even that goes too far, IMHO. I don't have to prove I know how to speak publicly or to write effectively to have those rights, nor do I have to prove that my religion is "approved" or that I know it's precepts to practice it. I own my home, and as such, no soldier will ever stay here without my permission (not that I'd likely refuse that permission to someone who was truly defending our country). I don't have to be trained to be a juror to serve as one, nor to have 12 of them sit and judge my case., etc., etc. Our rights are just that: Rights; not subject to government whim on whether we are allowed to exercise them.

Sure, there's the old saw about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and yes, I DO have the right to do so-and to accept the consequences accompanying that action. Similarly, I DO have the right to purchase and carry a gun and use it as I see fit, accepting the consequences (good or bad), if any, of my actions. All of that said, I very strongly recommend training in the use, care, and handling of the gun, marksmanship, and Deadly Force law. I'd go so far as to make such training mandatory, yes, but not as a condition of a "permit" being issued; rather as something similar to first aid, CPR, "Stop, Drop, and Roll", or proper use of a fire extinguisher.

Safety around firearms is basic information, and if kids can be taught how to bandage a wound and call 911 or how to compress a chest and breathe into someone's mouth, then I don't see any reason they can't start at age 5 with "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area. Tell an adult." Nine words. Nine words that may save their butts some day. Not as a condition to permit exercise of fundamental and Constitutional rights, though; it's too easy for some gov't functionary to simply make the training so difficult or so difficult to obtain that few people do so.

I understand, though- I was there, too, a couple of years ago. It's both amazing and tragic how the media has insinuated the Brady thinking into society. One of our aims here is to turn that thinking around.

(To be clear, I mean absolutely NO insult to you by my post. If any seems apparent, it is unintentional.)

Blessings,
M

[SnowCajun]

Welcome to Carryconcealed.net, SnowCajun!
Thank you very much. I just found this site, it surely seems much more active than the one I was on previously, I like good discussion. Forums to me are a place of learning, though we may debate different views we also learn from others views also, and as you said, "To be clear, I mean absolutely NO insult to you by my post. If any seems apparent, it is unintentional", I also feel the same exact way.

I understand what you've said, and it's not that I don't share your feelings, but just out of my own life growing older I've realized how drastically our world is changing, much faster than I think we realize. I'm 55 years old, when I was born the population of the USA was 150 million, now it's 300 million, by 2090 the USA population is projected to be just over 1 billion. It's doubled in my lifetime, it'll triple in the next 80 years. I already think we're too crowded as it is, how can this go on?

I'm not a gun activist or lobbyist, I was raised hunting and fishing in my youth, raised to handle guns and live off the land. Back then you could go about anywhere and hunt, anymore you need 20 permits and 17 licenses. :D It's just not the same anymore. I feel we have to realize that we're the foundation of what's to come in the future in this country. The future isn't showing us a world as we know it now, what's predicted to come is a country that's going to be crowded beyond what we visualize. Nothing will be the same! By 2040 Caucasians will no longer be the predomitory race in the USA, it'll equal out half Caucasions and half others, by 2090 Caucasians will be 25% of the US population, we'll be the minority. This isn't going to effect me one way or the other because I'll be long gone, and I'm not saying that because I'm a racist either, nor ever have I ever been, but I'm talking about our world as we know it now and have known it all our lives with be amazingly different.

With all due respect I don't think you just place a loaded gun in just anyones hands in this day and age, or in the our future either, while saying, "hey an 1787 law said you have a right to have this and a right tote this around with you anywhere you go." Believe me I love guns, I love shooting and have all my life, but I don't believe you just hand guns over to imbeciles and village idiots freely because of a 220 year old law! Back then the population of the USA was just over 3 million, it's a 100 times more than that now, and back then there was open land eveywhere and indians and other foreign nations who were wanting the new world for themselves, so there was more than good reason to keep and bear arms, your life and freedom depended on it.

I do, however, believe that everyone has the right to have guns as long as they're mentally capable of the responsibility, as long as they're not convicted felons, or have a history of drug related run-in's with the law. Personally I find that background checks are perfectly acceptable as a requirement for a CCW license, mainly because I want my family to be as safe as possible around those who are issued licenses. I don't want criminals and mental patients carrying around my family, do you? No, of course this won't stop all of them from obtaining a license, or guns! As with all things there'll always be glitches in the system and someone will slip through, but the system will learn over time and adjust to get better as each mistake discovered.

I don't expect my views to mesh with yours on this, but that's why they're called "my views", I am thankful that a forum is available for us to discuss our views in a civil manner and express each others opinions. I'm not so old that I can't change my view if I hear an idea that works better than what I know now. I just feel that in this changing world of ours that a law from 1787 isn't going to stand up to our country with 1 billion people compared to the 3 million it had when the law was written! I believe we'll always be allowed to have guns, that part of the right won't be taken from us, but there'll just be safer control measures so that just every Tom, Dick, and Harry won't be carrying no matter their mental state or criminal history!

Sorry, I don't condense well! :D

[HairyEyeball]

As long as a law - however onerous and unconstitutional - is in effect, there will be consequences for individuals who violate it, and until such time as it is repealed, it is still the law. Were enough of those who choose to go armed to take the initiative to voluntarily familiarize themselves with the safe and proper 'care and feeding' of their firearm of choice, the initiative to train with it, the initiative to familiarize themselves with the responsibilities inherent in their choice and the consequences - intended or otherwise - of any action they may take, 'mandatory training', in whatever form it takes, will be a fact of life.

When I got my NY State CCW, there were no training requirements. In Arizona, we (specifically, AZCDL) cut the required hours for the CCW course from 16 to 8, and eliminated the mandated 'refresher course' for renewal. Other States have varying 'training' requirements (which is one obstacle to universal CCW), still others, none. I don't see that as relevant to this discussion.

As an instructor, you have the same responsibility as any teacher - if a student is capable of learning what you teach and does not (or will not), or 'learns wrong', you are at fault. If a student is incapable of learning, he should not be in that class. As others have pointed out, any future 'bad' action by this individual can and will reflect back on you, possibly with presumptive liability: "You saw that he was 'unfit', but..."

IMNSHO, you did the right thing, for the right reasons.

[Bill of Rights]

Well... you're right, I don't agree, but then, I don't have to, nor do you with me. I take some exception to the "220 year old law" somehow not being relevant; by that reasoning, only manual printing presses, non-amplified speech, etc. are permissible under the First Amendment. If anything, no, we don't hunt and live off the land anymore, nor do we have "Injuns" to deal with; Today, we deal with home invaders, drive-by shootings, and meth-crazed MFers who'd just as soon carve their names in your cooling corpse with a nail file as wave hello-and sooner in some cases.

Do I favor felons and the mentally ill being armed? If they are not in secured facilities, yes, I think they should have the same rights (i.e.: self-defense) as everyone else. The other side of that is that if they are not safe enough to be permitted arms, they are not safe enough to be permitted freedom. The criminals are going to get guns if they want them and no law in this or any other world is going to stop them. Ownership of the tool does not automatically mean the actions undertaken with that gun will be criminal. Of course, if they are, and the criminal survives the encounter, the penalties should increase exponentially.

The safety of society depends not on the whole, nor on the "thin blue line" (what were originally referred to as "peace officers", i.e. officers who ensure the peace, which over time have subtly become "law enforcement officers, i.e. those who enforce the law) but rather on each and every one of it's members taking personal responsibility for ensuring it. Here in Indiana, according to a recent post by JungleBob, approximately five percent of our population have chosen to take that responsibility upon themselves. 1 in 20. This is good. I want to see better. Should everyone be armed? No. Should everyone who chooses to do so be able to be armed? Yes.

That's my thinking. And don't worry-I don't compress well, either. :wink:

Blessings,
M

[HairyEyeball]

BoR, I'm not at all sure I follow your train of thought - I don't see how you get from what was said to what you inferred - but I think we're on the same page (albeit different 'editions'). If I understand your position, the responsibility for insuring that laws - at every level of government - lies not with the legislatures, but with 'we the People', then yes, we agree. That the responsibility for maintaining a civil society lies with the members of that society, not with a 'privileged class' within that society, again, agreed. That every segment of that society has the same level of rights and equality of opportunity within that society, agreed. That violation of the laws and rules accepted and agreed upon by that society be punished in proportion to the severity of such violation, equally across such society, to include a forfeiture of certain rights for the duration of the punishment, and these rights restored upon completion of the term of such punishment, yes - with the caveat that certain 'crimes' merit punishment for the duration of the individual's life.

Whether violent felons should be released on the general populace is a debate for another place, but if they are, then the presumption should be that their 'standing' upon release be equal to that of any citizen, with the rights and privileges such entails. Whether one 'approves' is personal. If such individual is a continuing menace to society, logic dictates he not be released, obviating the question.

Within such framework, there would be no basis for restricting the rights of any (much less every) member of society under fear of disruption by a minority, and given such structure, the 'self-correcting' nature of society would minimize any necessity for artificial restriction of rights by class or strata in such society.

[VegasGeorge]

.... if they are (felons released), then the presumption should be that their 'standing' upon release be equal to that of any citizen, with the rights and privileges such entails.

That seems to be the issue. Our present law imposes the disability of loss of rights on convicted felons. Personally, I agree with that. Although I have a lot of problems with all the issues concerning felony conviction, imprisonment and release. In my opinion, if a crime is serious enough to be considered a felony, the perpetrator should lose all his civil rights until such time as he has (1) completed his sentence and parole, if any, and (2) independently demonstrated his successful rehabilitation to the satisfaction of a judge following an open hearing on the matter.

[SnowCajun]

In my opinion, if a crime is serious enough to be considered a felony, the perpetrator should lose all his civil rights until such time as he has (1) completed his sentence and parole, if any, and (2) independently demonstrated his successful rehabilitation to the satisfaction of a judge following an open hearing on the matter.
Your post actually reminded me of something, but you'd have had to have seen the movie The Green Mile to remember it. Towards the middle of the movie when Graham Greene's character was put to death in the electric chair, Percy, the Governers nephew who was working on the block walked up to the body on the stretcher and said something like, "goodbye Chief, I hope it's not too hot for you in hell". David Morse's character grabbed Percy up by the front of the shirt and said something like, "Leave him alone you SOB, he's paid his debt, he's square with the house again".

There are felony convictions that don't mean you're necessarily a danger to society, then there are ones that mean you could be very dangerous to society. I think you're trying to say, if I'm reading your train of thought correctly here, that if you've paid your debt and are square with the house again, and hadn't committed one of those dangerous to society felony's, that all rights should be restored again??

[Lady Di]

SnowCajun wrote:
"There are felony convictions that don't mean you're necessarily a danger to society, then there are ones that mean you could be very dangerous to society. I think you're trying to say, if I'm reading your train of thought correctly here, that if you've paid your debt and are square with the house again, and hadn't committed one of those dangerous to society felony's, that all rights should be restored again??"

May I jump in? I can agree with the statement you just made for one very important reason. Judges and legislators are taking huge liberties with the constitution, and many are abusing their power. I know "felons" who are lawabiding citizens.

A friend of mine is now a "felon" because a judge sentenced him harshly for allowing his cows to damage his neighbor's crops. My friend's children were raising cows for a 4-H project and they had a fence that was in disrepair. My friend offered to pay restitution to his neighbor, but that wasn't good enough. His "neighbor" wanted vengeance and dogged the prosecutor until he went after my friend who had previously plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of letting his livestock wander. His reason for pleading guilty was to avoid an expensive court battle. Because of multiple offenses involving his animals, he was eventually slapped with a felony conviction because he didn't have the money for a jury trial and he wasn't poor enough for a public pretender/defender. Because of the felony on his record, he cannot adequately defend himself or his wife and four children. He also had to surrender his 4th amendment rights. This is a true story and you can find the details of this incredible ordeal in the Tippecanoe County court system in Lafayette, Indiana. I'm sure there are many "felons" in our country who are not violent criminals. I'd sure trust someone like G. Gordon Liddy with a handgun, yet Mrs. Liddy "owns" all the handguns in his home since he is a convicted felon.

We're simply not safe from activist judges and lawmakers, and we cannot trust them to make sound judgments. If we trust a citizen to roam the streets, we should trust them with a gun. If he/she commits a violent crime, get them off the streets permanently.

[Bill of Rights]

Precisely that. I posted some weeks ago a short bit of doggerel beginning:
"Nothing stops a criminal but a coffin or a cell
Lock 'em up forever or send 'em straight to Hell..."

This is not strictly and totally true, as there is one other thing that will stop a criminal, and that is for him or her to decide to stop being a criminal. Much as an alcoholic might one day decide, "I'm done. No more." and start going to AA, it is only their choice and their willpower (with the help of their Higher Power) that makes it stick. If someone formerly committed all manner of robberies and somehow escaped being killed in the process, then one day decides (perhaps when he/she becomes a parent?) that it's time to put that part of his/her life away and become a law-abiding, responsible citizen, possibly even making restitution, that person should not forever be penalized. Have they done irreparable harm to anyone? Possibly, and if so, that's something they have to live with. The problem is that the rights are not the government's to take away from him or her, and for society to allow government to do so has set a very dangerous precedent, and now they think that all of our rights are theirs to give and take by one or another law.

We have Constitutional specificity that no punishment (specifically said of treason, the only specific crime named therein) shall work corruption of blood beyond the person actually guilty of the crime-that is, that the sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son. Perhaps this should extend by the same logic to the period after one has served the prescribed sentence-and yes, HEB, I agree that some will never be safe for release back into society. How do we tell which ones are and which are not? I think the only way is to give them their sentence and let them serve it, then get out. If they screw up again, either the courts or a well-armed person who refuses to be a victim will deal with them.

(As Lady Di indicated, some "felonies" are not, but are merely trumped up to grant revenge, and with the Lautenberg amendment, now even some misdemeanors are enough to deny someone the right of effective self defense. Why is "domestic violence" (which could be as little as one person saying that the other hit a cabinet in the house and scared them) enough worse than any other kind as to be sufficient for this purpose? It isn't. It's just the foot in the door to allow ANY "crime" to allow the government to deny the people their rights. Personally, I think it's time to slam the door on that foot.)

Blessings,
B

[HairyEyeball]

It would appear all of our roads are leading to the same destination. "Do the crime, do the time" - and I'm not a big fan of 'parole' or 'probation'. Once your 'debt to society' is paid and you are released back into society, you 'start over' as a 'full member' of society. If your crime is heinous enough that you are too much of a danger to society to be allowed back into it, then you are simply not.

Oh, and in your contempt for the 'Lautenberg Law', you might also include that it also violates 'ex post facto': 'Misdemeanors' committed long prior to its enactment expose individuals to cruel and unusual punishment and removal of their rights long after 'justice' has been committed on them.