Texas LTC Instructors Opposing Permitless Carry...

[BigPimping]

That's kind of pathetic, but also not too surprising. They're looking out for themselves and their jobs nothing more.

It's about money. Nothing more.

[Gun Kraft]

Saying everyone has the right to carry but adding "but" conditions doesnt really make it much of a right. Apply that to speech and other important things

Constitutional rights should not be licensed or managed by the Government.

Remember the US Supreme Court's ruling about you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre? The gov't does apply conditions and "manages" (ie. creates limitations regarding) the 1st Amendment.

Many people learn to safely handle and shoot firearms long before they attend paid formal training if they ever do.

Agreed. But there's also lots of people who don't--though ignorance or carelessness--that can be taught. Is that number significant enough to be a concern? It doesn't seem like it to me.

But concealed carry is a different matter because now we're talking about protecting your life and the ones you care about. This is where I'm projecting a little bit--when it comes to my life and the lives of those I care about, I want to be prepared. So if you are also considering personal protection I want you to be prepared as well. How much is enough? That's a tough call. But some is better than none, and more is better than less.

I do LEOSA quals for retired LE. Many instructors charge $50 for that qual. 5-10 minutes to shoot, sign the card and they're done. Easy money. I don't do that. Instead for $75 I spent a full hour with the retiree and after they qual we brush up on drills, techniques and other skills. I do that because even after a full career in LE they can still benefit from refresher training. All of them have been appreciative of the additional time we spend after qual. If all I was interested in was maximizing profits then I'd sign their card and send them on their way. But since they want to protect their life and those they care about, maximizing profit isn't my primary consideration.

Constitutional carry is problematic because everyone should be able to defend themselves, but simply having a gun doesn't mean you know how. Yes people can be self-taught, or be informally taught by others. No you do not have to pay for training to reach a level of competency. But (and again my personal bias is everyone should have training because you want to protect your life as best as possible) how can you ensure everyone who carries has a minimum level of training? And what should that minimum level be? I don't know.

[unusedusername]

GunKraft: as a fellow instructor, I under the desire for folks to be properly trained for carry. I also cringe whenever there is a news story such that someone injured themselves due to not knowing what they are doing. When not during COVID, I tended to run basics safety classes monthly as part of a nonprofit.

Greater then 80% of my students tend to not even have a FSC yet when they attend the class, many are scared of guns, and many have ... creative... ideas about how firearms work and firearm safety. Those folks desperately need training.

The problem with requiring training is that I have yet to see any government required training that isn’t just gatekeeping in disguise. We can’t perpetuate the idea that poor people don’t get access to self defense.

I have found that it takes at least 4-5 full days of training and probably ~1k rounds of ammo to go from “never touched a gun” to “able to safely work a holster when concentrating on the issue”. Folks where a hipoint is the best they can afford can’t take a week off work to go train.

I probably spend ~$5k/ year attending classes including travel costs, course tuition, ammunition, and replacement for equipment that breaks in those costs. I am, and I presume you are, better trained then 99% of shooters out there. Someone who makes $20k/year total can’t be expected to spend 25% of their total income to become that well trained.

Constitutional carry is the way to go. Hard criminals carry today without safety classes, and will continue to do so regardless of any law changes. Existing laws criminalizing negligence will take care of idiots. Social pressure will cause everyone else that cares to be legal to try to carry in a safe way.

[-hanko]

Remember the US Supreme Court's ruling about you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre? The gov't does apply conditions and "manages" (ie. creates limitations regarding) the 1st Amendment.


Agreed. But there's also lots of people who don't--though ignorance or carelessness--that can be taught. Is that number significant enough to be a concern? It doesn't seem like it to me.

But concealed carry is a different matter because now we're talking about protecting your life and the ones you care about. This is where I'm projecting a little bit--when it comes to my life and the lives of those I care about, I want to be prepared. So if you are also considering personal protection I want you to be prepared as well. How much is enough? That's a tough call. But some is better than none, and more is better than less.

I do LEOSA quals for retired LE. Many instructors charge $50 for that qual. 5-10 minutes to shoot, sign the card and they're done. Easy money. I don't do that. Instead for $75 I spent a full hour with the retiree and after they qual we brush up on drills, techniques and other skills. I do that because even after a full career in LE they can still benefit from refresher training. All of them have been appreciative of the additional time we spend after qual. If all I was interested in was maximizing profits then I'd sign their card and send them on their way. But since they want to protect their life and those they care about, maximizing profit isn't my primary consideration.

Constitutional carry is problematic because everyone should be able to defend themselves, but simply having a gun doesn't mean you know how. Yes people can be self-taught, or be informally taught by others. No you do not have to pay for training to reach a level of competency. But (and again my personal bias is everyone should have training because you want to protect your life as best as possible) how can you ensure everyone who carries has a minimum level of training? And what should that minimum level be? I don't know.

Looks to me like the above speech can be simplified by simply saying you follow the money.

[mossy]

It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to this (and I certainly did on first read) but it could also be more nuanced as well. I don't know. But here are some thoughts to consider, both pro and con:

• While getting my Utah CCW instructor cert renewed the presenter repeated an anecdote about a previous class where an instructor asked her if Utah BCI could limit the number of instructors that were certified. Apparently teaching the class was a cash cow and he didn't want competition driving down prices. That didn't sit very well with the presenter, whose goal was to get as many instructors certified as possible.
• It's likewise possible income is Krieger's primary motivation and safety the false flag he's waving. Hard to say.
• I wonder how many students Krieger had to fail or were marginal? Could that be influencing his decision?
• Is it possible some potential students never even thought to sign up for a class or apply because they knew they couldn't meet the (probably low) standards of the class? And constitutional carry would now allow them to skip even that low bar.
• You don't know what you don't know. Is a four hour class that unreasonable a burden, and if something taught in the class helps save your life or avoid a legal mess, isn't that worth it?

As a CCW instructor I admit I'm biased. I think there's important training everyone carrying concealed should have. But I'm also conflicted because I don't know what the minimum should be because how do you put a value on your life? I reconcile that difference by trying to put as much material into my required hours classes so students get the best possible value. That and trying to keep the price low as well.

As for the question of constitutional carry, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand I think every state should be shall issue. On the other, I think everyone who carries should do so safely and responsibly. Constitutional carry by definition doesn't include any means to ensure safe and responsible CCW, which means there has to be other mechanisms to ensure that. Yes there are states like Arizona that have constitutional carry and it seems to be working well. Does that mean it can work well for all states? I don't know. Everyone should have the right to carry, but only if they do so safely and responsibly.

Constitutional carry is problematic because everyone should be able to defend themselves, but simply having a gun doesn't mean you know how. Yes people can be self-taught, or be informally taught by others. No you do not have to pay for training to reach a level of competency. But (and again my personal bias is everyone should have training because you want to protect your life as best as possible) how can you ensure everyone who carries has a minimum level of training? And what should that minimum level be? I don't know.

Remind me to never spend money at your establishment.....people that play gatekeeper are part of the problem. Everyone should have the right to carry. If they fail to do so safely they have to deal with the civil/criminal charges that result from their actions.

[ACfixer]

And what should that minimum level be? I don't know.

Well I know.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now you know, Clear?

[LongLiveTheRepublic]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Now you know, Clear?

According to the 9th circus, we have no right to bear arms.

[ACfixer]

According to the 9th circus, we have no right to bear arms.

Unfortunately we seem to have several members of the circus crowd right here on the forum.

[FalconLair]

you know what i learned when i took my CCW class after moving to NV - NOTHING

seriously, i carried for over 20 years when i lived in CA - that's on me

what you pay for is a lot of common sense talk, basic self protection laws and where you can and cannot legally carry in certain buildings - things you can look up online

other than that the whole course was a big HO-HUM

and, if you think one 8 hour class is really gonna put everything into proper perspective for people and suddenly make them well trained CCW carriers then it mustn't be that difficult in the first place

i'll take common sense over an 8 hours class anyday

[bohoki]

i think training is good and it is good to have people carrying that are in the right mindset

but the thing is that permits only have an effect on the law abiding so crazies and criminals will just do it anyway so all it does in reality is limit armed good guys

[mshill]

Responsible people will get training whether it is required or not. Irresponsible people will be irresponsible regardless of training being required or not. My wife is going to take the CCW class even though it won't be required in three weeks here in Utah.

The instructors should have a lot more business, not less. Since people aren't having to pay for permits they can afford training.

[Mute]

I'm an instructor and believe everyone could benefit from more quality training and should seek it out, but I absolutely oppose making it mandatory for any reason. Period.

[Robert1234]

Umm, history lesson,

Back in the day, almost all FFLs were hooting and hawlering that all PPTs must go thru the FFLs.
How are those FFLs behaving now when you walk in to do a PPT?

These same LTC instructors who are against constitutional carry will come up with some dog and pony show to make citizens' lives miserable and impose some bull crap later.

Never trust anyone who is in favor of an infringement on your rights.

[pepsi2451]

Keep in mind Gun Kraft is a cop who has admitted he will draw on you if you happen to print and have not disclosed to him you have a CCW.

[tawadc95]