Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   General gun discussions (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   Need CCW or Background Check to attend GunSite in AZ??? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=644913)

Danz la Nuit 11-16-2012 9:05 AM

Need CCW or Background Check to attend GunSite in AZ???
 

http://www.gunsite.com/main/contact-...ked-questions/
Frequently asked Questions

How do I register for classes?
Answer: Simply mail or FAX a completed application, credentials (either a CCW permit, LE background check or active duty military or police ID,) and a deposit equal to half the tuition. Applications can be downloaded from this website, are included in our calendar and course catalog, or can be mailed to you. (FAX #: 928.636.1236)


Emailed gunsite, they said that a receipt of a purchase of a firearm in CA within 2 years will satisfy the requirement.

bradhe 11-16-2012 9:17 AM

your local police dept will usually produce this for the asking

ausala 11-16-2012 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradhe (Post 9734582)
your local police dept will usually produce this for the asking

You can get a copy of your criminal background report via a Livescan provider: http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security

However, nobody is supposed to ask for your report and you can only provide it to third parties in limited circumstances. From the DOJ FAQ:

Quote:

No. California Penal Code section 11142 prohibits you from giving a copy of your criminal record to an unauthorized third party. In addition, California Penal Code section 11125 prohibits an individual or agency from requiring you to provide him/her or the agency with a copy of your criminal record or proof that a record does or does not exist. Violation of either of these sections is a misdemeanor offense.

hawk1 11-16-2012 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausala (Post 9735120)
You can get a copy of your criminal background report via a Livescan provider: http://oag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security

However, nobody is supposed to ask for your report and you can only provide it to third parties in limited circumstances. From the DOJ FAQ:

Gunsite is an Arizona company. California drivel means nothing to them...

fiddletown 11-16-2012 11:51 AM

This has been a requirement at Gunsite for years. In fact when I took my first class there in 2002 they also required a letter of reference. Some other schools and instructors have similar requirements. They don't want to risk training criminals.

ausala 11-16-2012 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawk1 (Post 9735193)
Gunsite is an Arizona company. California drivel means nothing to them...

I understand that Gunsite is an Arizona company, and if they have Cal-DOJ authorization to make the requests or are comfortable in taking the position that Penal Code Section 11125 doesn't apply extraterritorially, they can go ahead and make a request.

However, California Penal Code section 11142 is directed at the individual making the disclosure, not the party requesting it. If Gunsite is an authorized party to receive criminal history info under 11142, there's no problem in giving them the information, but I would verify that to avoid committing a misdemeanor.

I assume Gunsite must have some kind of lawful arrangement to get background information for CA residents, because I'm sure there are plenty of CA people who have attended classes there. But as with all things, I would not follow a practice that seems OK in 49 other states without making sure CA allows it.

ETA: I just looked at Gunsite's application--they aren't requesting the applicant's DOJ background report itself, but a LE agency's statement of no criminal history, which may be sufficiently different to avoid a Public Records Act violation.

fiddletown 11-16-2012 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausala (Post 9735530)
...I assume Gunsite must have some kind of lawful arrangement to get background information for CA residents, because I'm sure there are plenty of CA people who have attended classes there. But as with all things, I would not follow a practice that seems OK in 49 other states without making sure CA allows it.

The easy way for many of us, at least, is to use one of our non-resident CCWs. That's what I've done since my first class at Gunsite in 2002 (for which I got a statement of "no record" from the Sheriff).

ausala 11-16-2012 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiddletown (Post 9735570)
The easy way for many of us, at least, is to use one of our non-resident CCWs. That's what I've done since my first class at Gunsite in 2002 (for which I got a statement of "no record" from the Sheriff).

Yet another reason for me to get off my butt and pick up a nonresident permit.

hawk1 11-16-2012 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausala (Post 9735530)
I understand that Gunsite is an Arizona company, and if they have Cal-DOJ authorization to make the requests or are comfortable in taking the position that Penal Code Section 11125 doesn't apply extraterritorially, they can go ahead and make a request.

However, California Penal Code section 11142 is directed at the individual making the disclosure, not the party requesting it. If Gunsite is an authorized party to receive criminal history info under 11142, there's no problem in giving them the information, but I would verify that to avoid committing a misdemeanor.

I assume Gunsite must have some kind of lawful arrangement to get background information for CA residents, because I'm sure there are plenty of CA people who have attended classes there. But as with all things, I would not follow a practice that seems OK in 49 other states without making sure CA allows it.

ETA: I just looked at Gunsite's application--they aren't requesting the applicant's DOJ background report itself, but a LE agency's statement of no criminal history, which may be sufficiently different to avoid a Public Records Act violation.

And they are not asking to GET the info from CA DOJ themselves. They are asking the applicant to get the info and include it in their application.


If you have a FFL check to see if they will accept that. When I went through Lethal Force Institute they accepted it as a positive background check as well.

The Virus 11-16-2012 1:47 PM

This should be required for all firearms training. And training resumes should be required for anything beyond a basic course.

Sgt Raven 11-17-2012 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virus (Post 9736102)
This should be required for all firearms training. And training resumes should be required for anything beyond a basic course.

Yeah, let's make it harder to get people trained in the safe use of firearms. :confused: :rolleyes:

Merc1138 11-17-2012 1:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virus (Post 9736102)
This should be required for all firearms training. And training resumes should be required for anything beyond a basic course.

Which Brady campaign newsletter did you read that in? I can only assume that with such an anti 2a attitude that you must be a supporter of theirs to consider repeating such nonsense on a pro-2a forum.

Danz la Nuit 11-17-2012 9:05 PM

Emailed gunsite, they said that a receipt of a purchase of a firearm in CA within 2 years will satisfy the requirement.

LMTluvr 11-17-2012 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9739501)
Which Brady campaign newsletter did you read that in? I can only assume that with such an anti 2a attitude that you must be a supporter of theirs to consider repeating such nonsense on a pro-2a forum.

I don't believe that's an anti 2A attitude at all. I loath and despise the Brady campaign just as much as many on here. However I can loosely agree with his points.
First off, why not? If I owned a school I too would want to make sure we weren't training bangers to be better shots or parolees to be more effective gun fighters. They already have an advantage as they couldn't care less about the laws we have to abide by. Why give them any more? It's bad enough gangs like the nortenos are sending their new recruits to join the corps to learn mout, to them turn around and teach those newly acquired skills.
As far as training resumes, I would view that more of a courtesy thing. It's really frustrating to be in a somewhat " advanced" class that's constantly being bogged down by the guy still stuck in " the bullets go in that way" mode. I'm not knocking this individual, we all were new at one point and I for one much enjoy helping one new to firearms. But with a training resume you can gauge what level that shooter is currently proficient in. Thius, for the most part accurately ascertaining which skill level class he/she should be in.just my .02

ausala 11-17-2012 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawk1 (Post 9735813)
And they are not asking to GET the info from CA DOJ themselves. They are asking the applicant to get the info and include it in their application.
.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but we are going in circles and I must not be making myself clear. Or I don't understand you. Either way, if are suggesting that someone can redistribute their own DOJ report to a third party, PC 11142 prohibits that. It doesnt make sense, but thats how the statute works. That's why I linked to the Cal-DOJ website explaining the system.

SilverTauron 11-17-2012 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven (Post 9739458)
Yeah, let's make it harder to get people trained in the safe use of firearms. :confused: :rolleyes:

If someone is seriously investing the time and effort to attend Gunsite or a similar training academy, they will have no trouble with these requirements.

There is no room for error when 20 + people share a live firing line for a week .

One reason we can attend such places in America is because they keep off the Brady Club's radar. If you think they're pissed about private gun sales, just wait until the blisninnys find out its legal in America for anyone to learn about detailed weapons training. The best way to keep Gunsite and its cohorts off the Federal radar screen is to ensure no one ends up dead over negligent BS, which means some ground rules need to be laid down first.

9mmepiphany 11-18-2012 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danz la Nuit (Post 9734513)

http://www.gunsite.com/main/contact-...ked-questions/
Frequently asked Questions

How do I register for classes?
Answer: Simply mail or FAX a completed application, credentials (either a CCW permit, LE background check or active duty military or police ID,) and a deposit equal to half the tuition. Applications can be downloaded from this website, are included in our calendar and course catalog, or can be mailed to you. (FAX #: 928.636.1236)


Wait until the first day of class and you have to fill out the multi-page release of liability...and get it witnessed by two other people

Merc1138 11-18-2012 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMTluvr (Post 9744221)
I don't believe that's an anti 2A attitude at all. I loath and despise the Brady campaign just as much as many on here. However I can loosely agree with his points.
First off, why not? If I owned a school I too would want to make sure we weren't training bangers to be better shots or parolees to be more effective gun fighters. They already have an advantage as they couldn't care less about the laws we have to abide by. Why give them any more? It's bad enough gangs like the nortenos are sending their new recruits to join the corps to learn mout, to them turn around and teach those newly acquired skills.
As far as training resumes, I would view that more of a courtesy thing. It's really frustrating to be in a somewhat " advanced" class that's constantly being bogged down by the guy still stuck in " the bullets go in that way" mode. I'm not knocking this individual, we all were new at one point and I for one much enjoy helping one new to firearms. But with a training resume you can gauge what level that shooter is currently proficient in. Thius, for the most part accurately ascertaining which skill level class he/she should be in.just my .02

Re-read the post from the guy I called an anti.

If that's how you want to run your school, fine. However requiring people to cough up the cash for background checks just to take a class(someone's going to have to pay for it) would just further disenfranchise people as an "extra" thing to do that's really irrelevant. Who would enforce a requirement that all firearm training requires that? The state? Feds? Yeah, that's an anti-2a attitude. Might as well ask for FOID cards like Illinois or some nonsense. Making it even more difficult for regular citizens to get any sort of firearm training is most certainly anti-2a.

Sgt Raven 11-18-2012 1:37 AM

By your statements here I don't think you have a clue about how Gunsite runs a training class. If you had a clue about Gunsite, you might look at my user name and go Hmmmmmm. I'll give you one little clue, my hat is Orange and my belt buckle says American Pistol Institute. My cert for API250 was signed on the 10th of May by Jeff. Lets see if you know what's special about that date, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverTauron (Post 9744701)
If someone is seriously investing the time and effort to attend Gunsite or a similar training academy, they will have no trouble with these requirements.

There is no room for error when 20 + people share a live firing line for a week .

One reason we can attend such places in America is because they keep off the Brady Club's radar. If you think they're pissed about private gun sales, just wait until the blisninnys find out its legal in America for anyone to learn about detailed weapons training. The best way to keep Gunsite and its cohorts off the Federal radar screen is to ensure no one ends up dead over negligent BS, which means some ground rules need to be laid down first.


SilverTauron 11-18-2012 8:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Raven (Post 9745010)
By your statements here I don't think you have a clue about how Gunsite runs a training class. If you had a clue about Gunsite, you might look at my user name and go Hmmmmmm. I'll give you one little clue, my hat is Orange and my belt buckle says American Pistol Institute. My cert for API250 was signed on the 10th of May by Jeff. Lets see if you know what's special about that date, too.

OK, so you've been to Orange Gunsite.Cool story bro.

With that out of the way, we now return to our regularly scheduled thread topic.

LMTluvr 11-18-2012 8:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9744976)
Re-read the post from the guy I called an anti.

If that's how you want to run your school, fine. However requiring people to cough up the cash for background checks just to take a class(someone's going to have to pay for it) would just further disenfranchise people as an "extra" thing to do that's really irrelevant. Who would enforce a requirement that all firearm training requires that? The state? Feds? Yeah, that's an anti-2a attitude. Might as well ask for FOID cards like Illinois or some nonsense. Making it even more difficult for regular citizens to get any sort of firearm training is most certainly anti-2a.

I'm not talking about anything to do with government intervention. The last thing I want is any MORE .gov intervention when it comes to firearms and or training. I was speaking theoretically in a privately owned school setting.
But I do see you're point and agree. :)

9mmepiphany 11-18-2012 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9744976)
However requiring people to cough up the cash for background checks just to take a class(someone's going to have to pay for it) would just further disenfranchise people as an "extra" thing to do that's really irrelevant.

Gunsite isn't requiring or even asking for folks to spend more cash.

You can just send a copy of your CCW...assuming you have one.

It is funny that this comes up for Gunsite, when Frontsight has been asking for cash for their background check for years

The Virus 11-18-2012 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9739501)
Which Brady campaign newsletter did you read that in? I can only assume that with such an anti 2a attitude that you must be a supporter of theirs to consider repeating such nonsense on a pro-2a forum.

You found me out. I spend thousands of dollars a year on training and many weekends competing all as a spy for the anti 2A people.

Oh well, I guess everyone knows now.

Merc1138 11-18-2012 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9mmepiphany (Post 9746457)
Gunsite isn't requiring or even asking for folks to spend more cash.

You can just send a copy of your CCW...assuming you have one.

It is funny that this comes up for Gunsite, when Frontsight has been asking for cash for their background check for years

Yup, because CCW's are free and everyone can get a CCW without any trouble in CA(out of state permits still aren't free, and pretty useless unless you find yourself traveling to those states at least once in a while).

So yeah, that's asking people to spend more cash. But like I said, if that's how they want to run their business then so be it. At least it's not somehow requiring all training to involve background checks.

BTW, The Virus, apparently you don't realize how 2a has been eroded in places. Registration doesn't stop you from owning guns, so no harm, right? What's a little card that requires being renewed every once in a while to keep the right to own your guns(I'm talking about those FOID cards). 10 day waiting period? Why not just make it 30? Heck, change it to 1 handgun a year instead of every 30 days while you're at it. SO yeah, making broad comments like all training should require background checks is anti 2a unless you aren't too clear on the 2nd amendment. Zumbo was a pro-2a guy till he outed himself as an anti(and then later on had to apologize for his nonsense). I'm sure the groups that got exemptions for their cowboy guns into some of the CA bills we're stuck with didn't think they were doing anything anti-2a either.

9mmepiphany 11-18-2012 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9747747)
Yup, because CCW's are free and everyone can get a CCW without any trouble in CA(out of state permits still aren't free, and pretty useless unless you find yourself traveling to those states at least once in a while).

So yeah, that's asking people to spend more cash. But like I said, if that's how they want to run their business then so be it. At least it's not somehow requiring all training to involve background checks.

I see accepting the CCW as an accommodation rather than a request to spend more money. What they are saying is, if you already have one just send us a copy and we'll accept it in place of other documentation.

That is what I sent them. It was merely a matter of scanning it and e-mailing it.

Also while a CCW isn't free, it isn't a lot (especially out of state ones) when you are already spending $1500 for tuition + hotel(x6) + lunch (X5) + dinner (x6) + travel (gas or airfare) + ammunition (1200 + 50rds)

The Virus 11-18-2012 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9747747)
Yup, because CCW's are free and everyone can get a CCW without any trouble in CA(out of state permits still aren't free, and pretty useless unless you find yourself traveling to those states at least once in a while).

So yeah, that's asking people to spend more cash. But like I said, if that's how they want to run their business then so be it. At least it's not somehow requiring all training to involve background checks.

BTW, The Virus, apparently you don't realize how 2a has been eroded in places. Registration doesn't stop you from owning guns, so no harm, right? What's a little card that requires being renewed every once in a while to keep the right to own your guns(I'm talking about those FOID cards). 10 day waiting period? Why not just make it 30? Heck, change it to 1 handgun a year instead of every 30 days while you're at it. SO yeah, making broad comments like all training should require background checks is anti 2a unless you aren't too clear on the 2nd amendment. Zumbo was a pro-2a guy till he outed himself as an anti(and then later on had to apologize for his nonsense). I'm sure the groups that got exemptions for their cowboy guns into some of the CA bills we're stuck with didn't think they were doing anything anti-2a either.

Dude, I have no idea how you got to there from a training company requesting checks on students to ensure that criminals aren't enrolling, and to ensure the safety of others.

No one has to do anything, firearms training is voluntary, not required.
You can twist it anyway you like.
Here is what I said, not the spun interpretation.
Any potential student of a private firearms training facility should be required to submit a background check , and any students wishing to receive ADVANCED training should be required to provide adequate proof that there skill level in fact meets the requirements of the course in question.


It comes down to safety and making sure advanced classes have students of advanced levels, nothing more, no hidden agenda.

Merc1138 11-18-2012 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virus (Post 9748162)
Dude, I have no idea how you got to there from a training company requesting checks on students to ensure that criminals aren't enrolling, and to ensure the safety of others.

No one has to do anything, firearms training is voluntary, not required.
You can twist it anyway you like.
Here is what I said, not the spun interpretation.
Any potential student of a private firearms training facility should be required to submit a background check , and any students wishing to receive ADVANCED training should be required to provide adequate proof that there skill level in fact meets the requirements of the course in question.


It comes down to safety and making sure advanced classes have students of advanced levels, nothing more, no hidden agenda.

You have no idea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virus (Post 9736102)
This should be required for all firearms training. And training resumes should be required for anything beyond a basic course.

Required by who? Government? You're the one who said it should be required, so who is going to require it and enforce it?

You are an anti. The same train of thought that sees chipping away at our rights as being perfectly fine, is what got us in the current mess we have regarding 2a, and you just seem to want more of it. It has nothing to do with safety and avoiding training gang members. Any requirement that a business offer any sort of training has to do background checks is anti 2a, period. It would just be another chip at the 2nd amendment no different than if the government requiring thumbprints and DL scans for ammo purchases. You're even using the same kind of logic that some of the less fanatical anti 2a groups use "gotta keep it away from gang members and criminals, shouldn't be an issue if you're a law abiding citizen". Buying ammo is voluntary, being able to go to the range is voluntary. There are plenty of "voluntary" things after you've paid for a gun.

I wasn't aware that someone who could claim to be pro 2a, would have such a hard time understanding what "shall not be infringed" means.

If you don't mean there should be a law or some agency requiring and enforcing background checks and it should be left up to a business, go ahead and clarify that. Otherwise you're an anti.

The Virus 11-18-2012 9:38 PM

Enforced and implemented by the school putting on the course, you keep imagining these agencies and people behind something.
No where have I ever posted an agency or otherwise, you keep bringing it up.

So to follow your logic, you are all for felons and the like receiving firearms training, owning body armor etc? I mean who are we to say they can't?

Go back into your doomsday bunker, put on the tin foil hat.

ignore activated

Merc1138 11-18-2012 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virus (Post 9749640)
Enforced and implemented by the school putting on the course, you keep imagining these agencies and people behind something.
No where have I ever posted an agency or otherwise, you keep bringing it up.

So to follow your logic, you are all for felons and the like receiving firearms training, owning body armor etc? I mean who are we to say they can't?

Go back into your doomsday bunker, put on the tin foil hat.

ignore activated

All he had to do was just clarify that in the first place...

Of course calling the idea of asking for a clarification TFH worthy, he probably is really a closet anti along the lines of Tsai.

SilverTauron 11-18-2012 9:52 PM

http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/images/threaddrift.gif

SuperSet 11-18-2012 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9749731)
All he had to do was just clarify that in the first place...

Of course calling the idea of asking for a clarification TFH worthy, he probably is really a closet anti along the lines of Tsai.

We hashed this issue out in the Competition/Training forum so those who read that thread would have very clearly understood the intent of The Virus's post. You are not correct in your assumption.

Merc1138 11-18-2012 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSet (Post 9749939)
We hashed this issue out in the Competition/Training forum so those who read that thread would have very clearly understood the intent of The Virus's post. You are not correct in your assumption.

Like I said, he could have just clarified it and not assume that everyone reads every thread without even mentioning that he had already discussed it in better detail elsewhere.

skyscraper 11-18-2012 10:54 PM

I have learned that some of calgun's members use the word "anti" to describe anyone who doesn't agree with their ideas.

If I ran a training institute, I would want qualifications as well, outside of just the basics.

Merc1138 11-19-2012 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 9750071)
I have learned that some of calgun's members use the word "anti" to describe anyone who doesn't agree with their ideas.

If I ran a training institute, I would want qualifications as well, outside of just the basics.

He could have clarified what he meant in post #23, or #26. Instead he decided to brag about donating money. I assume he's capable of reading so he chose to dodge the question rather than just answer the question I asked about it in post #18. Yeah, when it seems like someone has a hard time understanding what "shall not be infringed" means, thinking "guns for me, none for you" is fine, or "it's just a little extra restriction from the government", that person is anti-2a.

He could have hit the quote post button and responded with "I discussed this at length in another thread, I meant up to the schools" rather than choosing to brag and throw a fit. With such an easy way to clear up what appears to have been a misunderstanding, yet choosing to go the other way, I think he's really anti-2a and just didn't want to make a pro-2a blanket statement.

dieselpower 11-19-2012 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc1138 (Post 9750347)
He could have clarified what he meant in post #23, or #26. Instead he decided to brag about donating money. I assume he's capable of reading so he chose to dodge the question rather than just answer the question I asked about it in post #18. Yeah, when it seems like someone has a hard time understanding what "shall not be infringed" means, thinking "guns for me, none for you" is fine, or "it's just a little extra restriction from the government", that person is anti-2a.

He could have hit the quote post button and responded with "I discussed this at length in another thread, I meant up to the schools" rather than choosing to brag and throw a fit. With such an easy way to clear up what appears to have been a misunderstanding, yet choosing to go the other way, I think he's really anti-2a and just didn't want to make a pro-2a blanket statement.

I kept myself out of this thread when I saw who the thread was about... but I need to show support for Merc1138. He and I have disagreed on issues in the past, but I stand with him on this one.

The only creds I require are those showing a person has passed basic training classes so I don't have to go over that stuff.

Its a slippery slope of infringement....

Whats next a credit check with a score above 650...oh wait some CLEOs already do that when denying LTC apps...a low credit score shows a lack of good judgement and morals therefore the the person doesnt have the right of self-defense. :rolleyes:

SuperSet 11-19-2012 7:52 AM

This thread shows how character judgments over the internet are often wrong. I invite you both to a local match or training class to see how wrong you both are.

Mute 11-19-2012 8:16 AM

It seems some of you people are just waiting to be offended. No one is being subjected to any slippery slope of infringement, since this is a PRIVATE business and not the government. If you don't like their policies, don't do business with them. That is your prerogative. However, I suggest before flying off the handle you actually contact them with your concerns. You'd may find yourself surprised by the some good customer service and that your overreaction was for naught. As another poster has already mentioned, a receipt for the purchase of a firearm within the last two years will suffice to meet this portion of the requirement for attending a class. Try doing just a little research before going ballistic, especially over non-issues.

skyscraper 11-19-2012 9:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dieselpower (Post 9750824)
I kept myself out of this thread when I saw who the thread was about... but I need to show support for Merc1138. He and I have disagreed on issues in the past, but I stand with him on this one.

The only creds I require are those showing a person has passed basic training classes so I don't have to go over that stuff.

Its a slippery slope of infringement....

Whats next a credit check with a score above 650...oh wait some CLEOs already do that when denying LTC apps...a low credit score shows a lack of good judgement and morals therefore the the person doesnt have the right of self-defense. :rolleyes:

Wow. I did not know a issuing agency requires a credit check for ccw. Which county does this?

Mine did not ever ask for it. But then again I live in a county that will give them out pretty easily

Merc1138 11-19-2012 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSet (Post 9751000)
This thread shows how character judgments over the internet are often wrong. I invite you both to a local match or training class to see how wrong you both are.

No thanks, I'm not into setting up bro-dates for a literal pissing contest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraper (Post 9751567)
Wow. I did not know a issuing agency requires a credit check for ccw. Which county does this?

Mine did not ever ask for it. But then again I live in a county that will give them out pretty easily

Don't forget the counties like Alameda that require you maintain a a million dollar personal liability insurance policy in addition to your health/life/car/home/etc. insurance. Can't say that I've heard of a credit report required for CCW though(but it wouldn't surprise me if some agency did ask for it).

dieselpower 11-19-2012 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSet (Post 9751000)
This thread shows how character judgments over the internet are often wrong. I invite you both to a local match or training class to see how wrong you both are.

What does taking a class have to do with the class requiring ANYTHING other then a desire to learn tell me? ZERO...thats what it tells me. I can ask you what the cost of gasoline in your area is...what does that prove?

You are not reading what our objection is..and I know a wonderful, loving and extremely well educated person who says owning a firearm = criminal intent to murder... so what does your Customer service have to do with this issue...again...ZERO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mute (Post 9751086)
It seems some of you people are just waiting to be offended. No one is being subjected to any slippery slope of infringement, since this is a PRIVATE business and not the government. If you don't like their policies, don't do business with them. That is your prerogative. However, I suggest before flying off the handle you actually contact them with your concerns. You'd may find yourself surprised by the some good customer service and that your overreaction was for naught. As another poster has already mentioned, a receipt for the purchase of a firearm within the last two years will suffice to meet this portion of the requirement for attending a class. Try doing just a little research before going ballistic, especially over non-issues.

You are missing the point. The requirement should be, "a desire to learn"... period end of story, no other requirement at all, all citizens have a right to self-defense.

Food for Thought...There are an estimated 100,000 active gang members serving in the US Military...and over 1.5 MILLION TOTAL gang members by an FBI study.

My last post here, I promise.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.