Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by TBO, Mar 8, 2012.
The class and its requirements are without any basis in the COTUS. There is no reason supportable in the Constitution for any government to be allowed to restrict by such regulation a citizen's exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights. It matters not if the "class" is 4 minutes long or 4 hours or four weeks. Picture the exact same restriction by regulation of a citizen's 1st Amendment rights to free speech by requiring attendance at a govt. mandated training class, etc.
While I dont disagree with you, as a student, I would expect to receive what I paid for. If I pad for the required class to get my license and that class is required to be 8 hours, giving me anything less than that (in my eyes) it would be fraud and theft.
As a student, Ive attended training classes that have been longer than advertised. I truly appreciate the instructors dedication to answer all our questions and go beyond what I actually paid for, that is neither required nor expected, they have just been willing to freely give more of their time. That would yield a very sincere thank you!. However, give me less than 5 minutes of what I paid for or dont cover what was in the course outline properly and well have issues.
There are lots of things that flow from the Constitution, but are not explicitly delineated within it.
There is a difference between speech and guns.
From the article:
Really? You need 8 hours to teach these things?
Regardless of the Constitutionality of the law, it exists, the requirements within the law exist.
The instructor violated the law.
He was arrested.
He is charged with illegal instruction.
Now, if you want to use this as a springboard to challenge the law in court...
Hmm, wonder if the law actually specifies exactly 8 hours, in some legally binding way that a defense lawyer can't challenge.
NYS permit courses are typically not allowed to be live fire (because the counties don't want them to be). 4 hours is long enough for a safety course.
If including live fire and the shooting instruction that goes with that, then 8 hours would be needed for sure (depending on size of class and number of instructors).
Was this guy supposed to be instructing live fire?
I guess I am really old fashioned, but to me this is a matter of integrity. The instructor signed off that he gave an eight hour class, and he didn't. That is what I call a lie. If he disagrees that eight hours are required, he can and should work to have the requirements changed, but a lie is a lie.
Who gets to decide which Constitutional right is to be restricted and which one is to be granted special status? How is speech to be considered a privileged Constitutional right while the right to keep and bear arms is qualified?
I would be ticked, if I paid for a CCW Class and the Certificate was no good.
SC laws spec out the minimum requirements for the course. Instructors can go "above & beyond" if they chose to (the good ones do). Generally, the largest chunk of class time is consumed by covering and clarifying the laws...which should come as no surprise to anyone here. After all, "what if/can I" scenarios & questions run pretty rampent here as well.
What does that have to do with this story?
This isn't a 2nd Amendment story, it's a story about breaking laws and scamming people.
The 1st Amendment isn't absolute either. It doesn't give one the right to induce panic or slander people, for example.
"The students in Hill's class, who only went through 4 hours of training, could also face perjury charges if they submit their permit application to SLED indicating they took an 8-hour class."
Doesn't this imply the students were culpable? I am asking WITHOUT reading the permit application.
That is the way I see it as well, perception is everything. This man promised to do a job he didnt do. He charged people for a required class that had specific parameters. He broke the law by not doing the job he was licensed to do and stole from those that paid him for it. While the revised application that his students signed might not have had all the wording about the 8 hour certificate (not really an excuse, but I know most people dont inform themselves well in these matters), the certificate he signed attesting he had provided the required course did.
Like you, I dont see what this has to do with whether or not training should be mandatory or whether or not requiring a license/permit is constitutional or not.
If they covered the required material and the students passed the written portion of the test, I really don't see the need to arrest him. If it was an issue they could have talked to him rather than send an undercover in to arrest him.
I can't tell you how many classes I've attended that ended early. I guess I'm a cheat too because I took the certificate.
It's sad!! I know these guys & Cap. Chris is a great christian man that wants to help people. For someone like Hill to be more interasted in getting the money & a quick class just to run these people through is just bad. We know it takes much longer than 8hrs of gun training to be where you need to be.
We discussed this one a while ago. This is the link of the application to be completed by the student, posted in the states website: http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf
This is a copy of the training certificate: http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWP/CWPTrainingCertificate.pdf I dont know if this is a required or suggested certificate for use.
From the previous thread:
People often have the nasty habit of signing on the dotted line without questioning or fully understanding what they are signing. Although, I can almost understand how someone might answer yes after paying an NRA certified instructor for a class.
I like showing my family things like this and use it as a reminder when they believe Im being unreasonable in taking the time to read the fine, light gray print on the back of sales contracts and converting a 10 minute vehicle purchase into a one hour inquisition. (we wont go into how long the closing of either home took since I had to read every piece of paper they gave me to sign). :embarassed:
This is correct. Too often, IMO, folks look for any opportunity, however far-fetched, to further their agenda and spread their message. However, when they stretch and fabricate an unrelated scenario to fit their agenda, I feel it undermines what is otherwise a very important message and makes them, and those that support the message, appear fanatic. Guns, CCW/OP and 2A gets this a lot IMO. And, both sides do it.
If only 4 hours of instruction were provided when 8 hours were, both, paid for AND required then somebody's got to make up the difference. I mean, imagine what it must be like to have your first pistol, your first CCW permit, and turned loose on the street! Some people, probably the more rational ones, are going to be upset; and, in my opinion, they have every right to be.
As has already been said: This thread isn't about Second Amendment rights; instead it's all about taking advantage of the system and scamming people out of important information they might, someday, genuinely need.