Scrutenizing training

[Shay]

Next year (and the next 4, 6 or 8 years) we will likely face Democrat controlled Executive and Legislative branches. On the federal level we have dodged sever gun control for the last several years, but that will be changing.

The rush to buy guns, ammo and gear is a natural consequence of current political events, but please keep in mind that access to professional training can also be restricted. If you are planning to horde guns and ammo, take a moment to think about hording some education as well.

I've been saying for many years that professional training has largely avoided legislative scrutiny. I also believe that we cannot count on that continuing indefinitely.

Anyone have any thoughts to add on this topic?

 

[JimFloyd]

Very astute observation and commentary. While material items can be lost or (potentially) taken away, training and skill are always present (as long as your brain works, anyway!) and, as I am very fond of stating during my courses: the more you know the less equipment you need. Therefore it may be a good time to learn how to use a Bic Pen to defend yourself... at least until they are banned.

Regards,

Jim

 

[Lars]

I sure hope you're wrong Shay.......

*starts to plan out his training budget for 2009*

 

[Tinman]

Actually, there is precedence for the regulation of training. That’s why so many tier 1 trainers have that little disclaimer that you must be a US citizen to train with them. It’s only 1 more step to you must be Military or LE.

Tinman....

 

[techres]

It will likely come in the limitations of age first, then of type. I.E. no kids and then it will be no militia-type. Later will come, nothing LEO'ish (to keep LEO's safer will be the excuse).

This is serious business and one that I have been lax in certain ways on. Thank you for bringing this to the front burner where it should have already been.

And as a note of embarrassment, I should not suddenly do something only because it might be taken away. If it is something of true value, as is good training, then it is something I should have already done. So shame on me for not doing it before I am worried about those who might shamefully try and take it away!

Training is worth more than another ammo can in the ammo fort.

 

[jmb79]

First, I can imagine that indirect legislation could make people less able to afford or access training. For example, high taxes on ammunition could make today's ammo price seem cheap and also make ammunition so expensive that picking up 1,000 rounds for a three day course would not be possible for many people.

Second, governments at any level could pass laws requiring the certification and training of firearms instructors. In other words, like doctors, teachers, lawyers and other professionals, "firearms instructors" would have to meet certain educational or functional criteria and perhaps pass some sort of licensing test. This would increase the cost to the trainer and ultimately, to the trainee.

I am having trouble imagining the circumstances under which a legislature would impose an outright ban on firearms traning. What would the justification be? (Don't tell me "they don't need justification" because that's avoiding the issue, not addressing it).

I've got to think about this one some more...

However,

 

[Donnelly]

I think I agree with jmb79. I don't see an outright ban on training being passed, however, training might soon be like many other things that we have taken for granted. Access to training (or ammo) may simply be priced out of what most of us could afford. Not banned, but not accessible either.

 

[Tinman]

The problem is not an outright ban, the problem is that very few instructors can make a "living" just training civi's. WHat the government can do is impose a restriction on who you can train if you want to be awarded LEO, Government, or Mil contracts. They can do it all in the name of not "training" the bad guys the same skills.

I really don't want anybody, least of all his administration, telling me what I can and can't learn.

Tinman....

 

[Shay]

I am having trouble imagining the circumstances under which a legislature would impose an outright ban on firearms traning. What would the justification be? (Don't tell me "they don't need justification" because that's avoiding the issue, not addressing it).

I've got to think about this one some more...

I'm not the fat ex-navy seal [sic] at the gun show trying to get you to buy some gun/bullet/mag only because it's going to be banned soon.

Restrictions on training are only an incident away. The first time someone who has taken a class or two at any of the big-name schools flips out and does some real damage, there will be calls for restrictions not only on "assault weapons" but also "assault training".

I'm concerned about this possibility enough to start this thread and solicit responses. Training should be more of a priority for the majority of gun owners, but I don't think they will realize the opportunities they have until those opportunities are gone.

 

[techres]

Restrictions on training are only an incident away.

Yep, try these nightmare headlines as "proof" of training legislation to better "regulate safety":

"'Leaked' Swat tactics caused swat team deaths in botched 'wrong address' raid"
"Cop killer had 'militia training' in marksmanship"
"School shooter once visited 'tactical shooting school' to perfect killing spree"
"Shooter in 'bad judgement' shooting event claims training said he could 'kill in self defense' no matter what"
"Stalker attended special civilian 'SWAT' classes before the murders"
"Bomber attended 'militia camps' which now are under investigation for their role in supposed 'individual attack'"
"Man claims he was instructed to 'Shoot the guy multiple times to make sure he was dead' even though the supposed attacker was unarmed"

Keep on going and you get the idea. Spin and tenuous links to someone who attended a class once and later did something nightmarish is all it would take.

McVeigh killed the militia movement. Good and bad were dealt with the same.

It could happen again.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am having trouble imagining the circumstances under which a legislature would impose an outright ban on firearms traning. What would the justification be?

Several years ago legislation was introduced in Texas that would have banned firearms training outright. The justification was to "reduce crime" and promote "safety".

 

[rhino]

It might be a good idea for those who offer instruction to also consider limiting the types and depth of personal information they retain in the records about their students.

 

[slow1911s]

Several years ago legislation was introduced in Texas that would have banned firearms training outright. The justification was to "reduce crime" and promote "safety".

Wasn't that and end-around to get at the handgun licensing issue in Texas (Texas LTCH holders must attend an 8 hour class and pass a shooting test)?

 

[Shay]

It might be a good idea for those who offer instruction to also consider limiting the types and depth of personal information they retain in the records about their students.

We had a VERY spirited debate on that exact topic at my previous school. It's a tough call with marketing, prerequisite completion verification, sales data, payment records, business trending.... The larger the school, the tougher it becomes to not keep a lot of data.

Personally, I don't keep any records on any of my students. It respects their privacy as well as leaving nothing to subpoena.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Funny, I keep records and files on all my instructors . . . and rhino.

*points at eyes, points at rhino*

 

[indyjoe]

Funny, I keep records and files on all my instructors . . . and rhino.

I am pretty sure everyone keeps records on Rhino.

 

[rhino]

That's just good thinkin'. If I really am out to get you, then it's not really paranoia!

 

[obijohn]

i got some records from rhino. burl ives, i believe. hehe

 

[Soundslikejosh]

The Carpenters?