SC CWP instructor caught cheating [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SC CWP instructor caught cheating


cphilip
01-26-2012, 18:08
Good deal. Glad they caught him.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/30307713/detail.html

Rodman24
01-26-2012, 18:14
+1 ^^^

ca survivor
01-26-2012, 18:16
in SC is 8 hour class for cwp, that class should be two hours tops and rage time

Numismatist
01-26-2012, 18:18
freaky...everyone was in on it, it looks like...

kenpoprofessor
01-26-2012, 18:22
What I find sad is you need a permit to carry, much less you guys actually happy that a fellow gunnie is arrested for doing this. :upeyes:

If you like this, you're a very sad person indeed, and maybe should live in Canada or something.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

glockfanbob
01-26-2012, 18:29
in SC is 8 hour class for cwp, that class should be two hours tops and rage time

:rofl::tongueout:

cphilip
01-26-2012, 18:29
The rules are the rules and we all live by them. Regardless of if you like them or not... I obey them while working to change them. No one likes a cheater. Simple as that. The guy was cheating to make money. Less effort and signing off. He knew the rules and he lied. I don't like liars.

Mister_Beefy
01-26-2012, 18:33
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.

cphilip
01-26-2012, 18:33
in SC is 8 hour class for cwp, that class should be two hours tops and rage time

Ours was like 4 or 5 hours classroom (which included a few breaks to take finger prints, photos and quickly to eat something while discussing and reviewing laws too) and then Range qualification was the last 3 hours or so. That's the norm here in SC.

This guy just took the money and signed off (falsification and perjury) and left. Report I hear is for as many as 15 people. Who also then swore in their application they had completed the requirements and knew they hadn't

cphilip
01-26-2012, 18:35
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.

Has nothing to do with ownership... is concealed carry. And I would prefer not to have to have a license either but it is the law.

He applied to be an instructor, went through the process to get bonded and licensed and swore to uphold the law and yet now you say he should get some sort of special treatment?

You do realize he wanted to be an instructor for this don't you? HE wasn't forced to involve himself in it.... he wanted to do it to make money. And, in this case, cheat do it. He agreed to the terms and broke them. I hope they make an example of him.

sixgun2
01-26-2012, 18:36
What I find sad is you need a permit to carry, much less you guys actually happy that a fellow gunnie is arrested for doing this. :upeyes:

If you like this, you're a very sad person indeed, and maybe should live in Canada or something.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
How the ^ell does Canada fit into this fraud. I don't really think that Canadian firearms law or any of the 21 million firearms that are here an the people that own them have any direct relation to commiting acts of public fraud on the residents of SC. Furthermore this criminal act has more potential to have possible deadly results from CWP holders an the public of SC.:wavey:

kenpoprofessor
01-26-2012, 18:37
So glad I live in AZ, the Euphoric state :supergrin::wavey:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1012329.1327596790!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 18:40
What I find sad is you need a permit to carry, much less you guys actually happy that a fellow gunnie is arrested for doing this. :upeyes:

If you like this, you're a very sad person indeed, and maybe should live in Canada or something.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde


This confirms my opinion of you and why we don't see eye to eye.

You look at this situation and see a man cheating the system as a victim somehow?

He committed Perjury and falsified records going to the state.
I guess we see your situational ethics at work again..

Bravo you do not disappoint.


Have a great trying to explain your stance on this day.

sixgun2
01-26-2012, 18:42
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.
Mister Beefy in a few short paragrafs or words desribe the rage, torment or any other feeling that comes to mind how you would feel posting here on GT the fact that someone you love in your family was killed by stray gunfire of an individual who payed $95.00 for a worthless permit.:whistling:

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 18:44
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.

Again this confirms my observations of another practitioner of situational ethics.

If it was a COP doing this your response would be much different.

he is a cheat. liar and thief...

When I instructed classes in Florida for CWPs, the attendees got what they paid for and I stayed after to answer any other questions.

This guy CHEATED the system..

glock_collector
01-26-2012, 18:46
As an instructor you hear some good ones...Once as a student myself the "instructor" told us his opinions on a certain race for the duration of 2.5 hr class, no laws,no info, no paperwork, nothing..SAD. Some will cut corners, I wont even for a good buddy, some of the safety stuff just might save him or his family from an accident and I couldnt live with doing shoddy instruction. I like to see other folks that have taken diff classes because it gives them something to compare my training to. If you are in this for the money my friend you will probably be disapointed.

larry_minn
01-26-2012, 18:49
While I agree that few courses do fill the TOTAL hrs listed. I doubt if 30% of training I have taken for cert has taken the FULL"hrs" listed for it. Most instructors can finish long before "hrs" required. Most classes do "give" you the answers for the exam. Just listen during lecture. Its a poor instructor that does not have answers to final exam either in lecture or required reading.
See the idea is they teach you the info, you show you understood it by marking it on final exam. (yes it does not show understanding most times, just memory)
I recall many varied courses where instructor gives test. "You can go once I grade it or stick around for another hr as we wait for 8 hrs to end" The answer always seems to be "we need MORE HRS OF training" Which wind up being make work.
If this guy had the course go 90% of time I would feel bad for him. As it sounds like he didn't fulfill requirement in any way. Major fail. He ruined it for everyone else.

kenpoprofessor
01-26-2012, 19:00
Again this confirms my observations of another practitioner of situational ethics.

If it was a COP doing this your response would be much different.

he is a cheat. liar and thief...

When I instructed classes in Florida for CWPs, the attendees got what they paid for and I stayed after to answer any other questions.

This guy CHEATED the system..

Open Carry would've prevented this, and also make it unnecessary to have a permit. :wavey:

What's the difference if a person carries a gun in the open, or under their jacket? The laws are the same if you have to use the gun regardless.

Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

glock_collector
01-26-2012, 19:00
My classes run typically 1 -1 1/2 hrs over due to some very good student questions. Some folks put effort out and some dont.

CharlestonG26
01-26-2012, 19:04
What I find sad is you need a permit to carry, much less you guys actually happy that a fellow gunnie is arrested for doing this. :upeyes:

If you like this, you're a very sad person indeed, and maybe should live in Canada or something.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Sorry, Clyde...but just because you think a person is a 'fellow gunnie' isn't an excuse to ignore the fact he violated the rules that other people follow.

Most importantly, he cheated his students out of the frearm safety and legal responsibilities of concealed carry information that is highly important for anyone who decides to carry a concealed firearm.

IMO...the proficiency requirement is a very good idea. In fact, I know several people who have taken the SC CCW class to learn how to handle a handgun.

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 19:11
Open Carry would've prevented this, and also make it unnecessary to have a permit. :wavey:

What's the difference if a person carries a gun in the open, or under their jacket? The laws are the same if you have to use the gun regardless.

Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I think we all know the joke..

I instructed many that came in unsafe, and when they left knew the four basics.. Your ignorance astounds me.

Not everyone grew up around guns many New Yorker's moved to Florida and never dreamed of or saw a gun until in their retirement.

Patchman
01-26-2012, 19:13
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.

There also shouldn't be any gov't intrusion in wanting to have extra spending money. I hope all tax cheats, welfare cheats and financial criminals get their cases dismissed or get the lightest punishment possible.

kenpoprofessor
01-26-2012, 19:18
I think we all know the joke..

I instructed many that came in unsafe, and when they left knew the four basics.. Your ignorance astounds me.

Not everyone grew up around guns many New Yorker's moved to Florida and never dreamed of or saw a gun until in their retirement.

You know, if people are dammed ignorant about firearms when they come to a class, they should be subject to Darwin Awards. If they haven't bothered to educate themselves, they don't need to carry a gun, bottom line. Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have.

But, the 2A says shall not be infringed, and the "rules" are unjust and unlawful according to the 2A. Making someone take a class for a permit is akin to making them take a test in order to vote.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 19:20
You know, if people are dammed ignorant about firearms when they come to a class, they should be subject to Darwin Awards. If they haven't bothered to educate themselves, they don't need to carry a gun, bottom line. Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have.

But, the 2A says shall not be infringed, and the "rules" are unjust and unlawful according to the 2A. Making someone take a class for a permit is akin to making them take a test in order to vote.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Again this is not about the second amendment, it's about a Liar and a cheat..

cphilip
01-26-2012, 19:24
Again this is not about the second amendment, it's about a Liar and a cheat..

Well said... To the point.

kenpoprofessor
01-26-2012, 19:26
Again this is not about the second amendment, it's about a Liar and a cheat..

ďIf a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so.Ē
Thomas Jefferson


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Kith
01-26-2012, 19:27
You know, if people are dammed ignorant about firearms when they come to a class, they should be subject to Darwin Awards. If they haven't bothered to educate themselves, they don't need to carry a gun, bottom line. Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have.

But, the 2A says shall not be infringed, and the "rules" are unjust and unlawful according to the 2A. Making someone take a class for a permit is akin to making them take a test in order to vote.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

You gotta start somewhere. How many people show up here all the time asking where they can find info on a law, or how to look things up?

Some people may very well be showing up to get the keywords and information on how and where to look up what they need to know.

Where do you go to learn things, classes maybe?

Are you now saying that going to class to learn something is a silly idea?

Patchman
01-26-2012, 19:27
Seems like some here don't understand what taking an oath/promise means.

Not surprising.

As a poster already pointed out, this guy was not forced to become a CCW instructor. But he chose to do so. And in doing so either actually or implied an oath/promise to instruct his students to the best of his abilities and to whatever standards the state set.

What about those students who went to his class actually looking forward to or expecting to learn something? A little gun safety perhaps? At least 3 out of the 4 gun safety rules, maybe? They paid their money and got... buctkus.

Clearly he failed his oath/promise.

He came into it to only make $$$$. I'm glad he's somebody's hero.

Barry Anderson
01-26-2012, 19:30
There also shouldn't be any gov't intrusion in wanting to have extra spending money. I hope all tax cheats, welfare cheats and financial criminals get their cases dismissed or get the lightest punishment possible.

This thought is amazing to me. It is the tax cheats, welfare cheats, and financial criminals that cost everyone else. If you break the law, you should pay the price.

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 19:36
This thought is amazing to me. It is the tax cheats, welfare cheats, and financial criminals that cost everyone else. If you break the law, you should pay the price.

you totally missed the context of what he is saying...

Barry Anderson
01-26-2012, 19:37
deleted

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 19:38
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so.”
Thomas Jefferson


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Thomas Jefferson is rolling is his grave that you used that quote to defend the actions of a Liar and a cheat...

To be clear the law he violated was Perjury.. are you saying that lying is a just cause?

Patchman
01-26-2012, 19:43
Again this is not about the second amendment, it's about a Liar and a cheat..

ďIf a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so.Ē
Thomas Jefferson


Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

OMG, how did that slip out? :dunno:

Barry Anderson
01-26-2012, 19:44
you totally missed the context of what he is saying...


I interpreted it as saying that those cheating us should get off easily or completely. Please tell me how you interpreted it.

Misty02
01-26-2012, 19:46
I donít believe one should have to be licensed to carry in self-defense; however, that is not what the issue is here. If I pay for a class, I expect to receive every penny (and then some) worth of knowledge/training I paid for. Of course, the next question could be, how much could one expect for $65?

I read through the Florida application, it doesnít state what the training must consist of and an applicant (even one that read all 40+ pages of the packet) is likely not to know that either. I cannot complain about our class, it was very informative when you consider how short they are here. We also got to fire several rounds from a pistol. The instructor my future daughter-in-law took the class with had them all fire several rounds from both a revolver and a pistol and the class portion was nearly twice as long (like 4 hours or so). They didnít explain what was required to be taught in the class, they just taught it and at the end the application was completed.

Just out of curiosity I went to read the SC application:
http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf (http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf) the question reads: Do you certify successful completion of handgun training (Section 23‐31‐210, SC Code of Laws)?

A person that goes to the class, trusts that the certified instructor is doing what he is required might answer that question ďyesĒ without digging further. I would be mighty ticked if I was one of those people.

.

Kith
01-26-2012, 19:47
I interpreted it as saying that those cheating us should get off easily or completely. Please tell me how you interpreted it.

A sarcastic retort to the quote the poster was responding to, putting the original quote in context so the person who made it could realize what they were saying.

Patchman
01-26-2012, 19:53
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.

There also shouldn't be any gov't intrusion in wanting to have extra spending money. I hope all tax cheats, welfare cheats and financial criminals get their cases dismissed or get the lightest punishment possible.

This thought is amazing to me. It is the tax cheats, welfare cheats, and financial criminals that cost everyone else. If you break the law, you should pay the price.

you totally missed the context of what he is saying...

I interpreted it as saying that those cheating us should get off easily or completely. Please tell me how you interpreted it.

With all due respect to everyone, but my posts sometimes do require some close reading, thinking and application of common sense to what one just read. :)

Misty02
01-26-2012, 20:14
Open Carry would've prevented this, and also make it unnecessary to have a permit. :wavey:

What's the difference if a person carries a gun in the open, or under their jacket? The laws are the same if you have to use the gun regardless.

Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I did, and still do. Why else would I pay for classes if not to learn?

.

Misty02
01-26-2012, 20:19
You know, if people are dammed ignorant about firearms when they come to a class, they should be subject to Darwin Awards. If they haven't bothered to educate themselves, they don't need to carry a gun, bottom line. Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have.

But, the 2A says shall not be infringed, and the "rules" are unjust and unlawful according to the 2A. Making someone take a class for a permit is akin to making them take a test in order to vote.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde


Huh? :headscratch:

Isn’t that the reason people go to classes/training? So they learn and are less ignorant on a particular subject/area?

.

cphilip
01-26-2012, 20:20
Just out of curiosity I went to read the SC application:
http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf (http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf) the question reads: [FONT=Calibri-Bold]Do you certify successful completion of handgun training (Section 23‐31‐210, SC Code of Laws)?

A person that goes to the class, trusts that the certified instructor is doing what he is required might answer that question “yes” without digging further. I would be mighty ticked if I was one of those people.

.

And that person SHOULD dig further because the statement they are signing references the following regulation (law) that they are attesting to, Section 23‐31‐210, SC Code of Laws is...

(a) a person who, within three years before filing an application, has successfully completed a basic or advanced handgun education course offered by a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or a nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety. This education course must be a minimum of eight hours and must include, but is not limited to:

(i) information on the statutory and case law of this State relating to handguns and to the use of deadly force;

(ii) information on handgun use and safety;

(iii) information on the proper storage practice for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that reduces the possibility of accidental injury to a child; and

(iv) the actual firing of the handgun in the presence of the instructor;


Your signing it so you SHOULD know what your signing.

ronin.45
01-26-2012, 20:24
Open Carry would've prevented this, and also make it unnecessary to have a permit. :wavey:

What's the difference if a person carries a gun in the open, or under their jacket? The laws are the same if you have to use the gun regardless.

Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Exactly. There is very little actual teaching or learning going on in these classes. I've seen everything from 8 hours of repetition on the basic safety rules to 8 hours of movies that were loosely firearms related. The class could be completed in a very through manner in about an hour if you didn't waste time on stupid stuff. I'd prefer to see much more range time and no classroom time.

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 20:25
I interpreted it as saying that those cheating us should get off easily or completely. Please tell me how you interpreted it.

he was being sarcastic ....

Misty02
01-26-2012, 20:27
I don't disagree with you. I am one of those anal people that annoy everyone by reading the tiny print in light gray in the back of papers before I sign. Other people are a tad more normal though.

And that person SHOULD dig further because the statement they are signing references the following regulation (law) that they are attesting to, Section 23‐31‐210, SC Code of Laws is...

(a) a person who, within three years before filing an application, has successfully completed a basic or advanced handgun education course offered by a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or a nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety. This education course must be a minimum of eight hours and must include, but is not limited to:

(i) information on the statutory and case law of this State relating to handguns and to the use of deadly force;

(ii) information on handgun use and safety;

(iii) information on the proper storage practice for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that reduces the possibility of accidental injury to a child; and

(iv) the actual firing of the handgun in the presence of the instructor;


Your signing it so you SHOULD know what your signing.

cphilip
01-26-2012, 20:28
I don't disagree with you. I am one of those anal people that annoy everyone by reading the tiny print in light gray in the back of papers before I sign. Other people are a tad more normal though.

Actually... I was agreeing with YOU... but just then taking it out a bit further to what point you made. And it was a good point.

Mayhem like Me
01-26-2012, 20:29
With all due respect to everyone, but my posts sometimes do require some close reading, thinking and application of common sense to what one just read. :)
Eh he's new and does not know you i was trying to help him out...:wavey::wavey:

Misty02
01-26-2012, 20:31
Actually... I was agreeing with YOU... but just then taking it out a bit further to what point you made. And it was a good point.

Oh. Oops. Sorry. :embarassed: Iím a bit dense (often).

.

Patchman
01-26-2012, 20:40
Eh he's new and does not know you i was trying to help him out...:wavey::wavey:

OK, in the future, with the new jacks, when I post, I'll try to use appropriate emoticons as cues. :breastfed:

CharlestonG26
01-26-2012, 20:53
If I enroll in an 8 hour Kenpo class will the 'professor' just take my money and give me a certificate?:dunno:

Glotin
01-26-2012, 21:30
Again this is not about the second amendment, it's about a Liar and a cheat..

Let's assume there were a statutory limitation on the first amendment.

Would a citizen helping others circumvent that limitation be a liar and a cheat?

Just playing devil's advocate...

RussP
01-26-2012, 21:36
What I find sad is you need a permit to carry, much less you guys actually happy that a fellow gunnie is arrested for doing this. :upeyes:

If you like this, you're a very sad person indeed, and maybe should live in Canada or something.Open Carry would've prevented this, and also make it unnecessary to have a permit. :wavey:

What's the difference if a person carries a gun in the open, or under their jacket? The laws are the same if you have to use the gun regardless.

Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke.You know, if people are dammed ignorant about firearms when they come to a class, they should be subject to Darwin Awards. If they haven't bothered to educate themselves, they don't need to carry a gun, bottom line. Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have.

But, the 2A says shall not be infringed, and the "rules" are unjust and unlawful according to the 2A. Making someone take a class for a permit is akin to making them take a test in order to vote.ďIf a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so.Ē
Thomas Jefferson

ClydeTrue, it would be good if all states were Constitutional carry.

You throw out the term, "a fellow gunnie," under the belief we all should befriend and associate ourselves with an alleged liar just because he is involved with firearms, correct? That's interesting.

Clyde, you've made that decision for yourself. What did you base that on other than his association with firearms? Do you know why he decided to shorten his classes, omit a required segment of firearms training, and submit false documentation about his classes?

I find your suggestion that anyone who objects to Mr. Wykel's behavior and his arrest should move to Canada quite laughable.

The last sentence of your next post is interesting, too. " Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke." How else does one learn the basics of firearm safety, gun handling, the laws of their state?

You say, "Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have." So you do believe people carrying guns need training. You just don't believe a one day, 8-hour class is good enough, but you believe people should educate themselves before, and if they do not, they do not need to carry a gun. Isn't that which you said an infringement on their 2nd Amendment Right?

Glotin
01-26-2012, 21:40
It's also worth noting that the people taking this class probably knew what was up...

The filing fee is $50 in SC so this guy was making $15.

A good class here in SC is $130 or more.

RussP
01-26-2012, 21:48
Let's assume there were a statutory limitation on the first amendment.

Would a citizen helping others circumvent that limitation be a liar and a cheat?

Just playing devil's advocate...For what purpose did people attend his classes?
All came to satisfy the State's requirement for a carry permit.


Did some come to learn more about the law, ask questions about the law?


Did some come to learn the basics about safely handling a firearm?


Did some come to learn how to shoot their firearms?
Number 1 is a given, right? How about the rest of the items, are they conceivably part of why they paid $65.

But, the charges against him, and possibly those who willingly took his abbreviated classes, are based on the fact that they lied about the duration and content of the class on their application for the carry permit.

He, as an agent of the state, has a responsibility to provide what the state dictates as to content and duration.

DoubleWide
01-26-2012, 21:53
While I'm not an advocate of government restriction on firearms, I talked to a guy during my CCW that made me question my stance. My class was 4 hours which probably spent to much time on the non-CCW part. There was required by the class presenter, not by law, range test. I felt the standard for the range test was pretty much if you can't pass, you really needed some training and range time anyways.

Back to the guy, let me tell you, not only was I scared that he was going to ccw, I was scared knowing that the guy had driven there. Jethro Bodine was a rocket doctor compared to this guy. This guy asked me seriously if it was legal to carry on school property. A 2 second scan of the brochure and the instructor talking for the last 15 minutes about NOT carrying on school property made it obvious to everyone else that it was a no no.

Just remember, not everyone's dad taught them about guns and there are some real idiots out there.

R*E
01-26-2012, 21:53
If I enroll in an 8 hour Kenpo class will the 'professor' just take my money and give me a certificate?:dunno:
Nice. :supergrin:

RussP
01-26-2012, 21:56
since I don't think there should be any government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership, I hope his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest punishment possible.If the case against him is based on "government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership," I agree. It should be dismissed.

But, since it isn't in any way, since it is based on his willful perjury about the length of time and content of his classes, and since his perjury has direct negative consequences on South Carolinians wanting to carry for self defense, they need to make an example of him, prosecute him to the fullest.

Wait, perhaps you have more facts as to his stated reason(s) for lying to the State about his classes. Do you?

RussP
01-26-2012, 21:57
If I enroll in an 8 hour Kenpo class will the 'professor' just take my money and give me a certificate?:dunno:

Nice. :supergrin:Ditto...:cool:

Glotin
01-26-2012, 21:58
For what purpose did people attend his classes?
All came to satisfy the State's requirement for a carry permit.


Did some come to learn more about the law, ask questions about the law?


Did some come to learn the basics about safely handling a firearm?


Did some come to learn how to shoot their firearms?
Number 1 is a given, right? How about the rest of the items, are they conceivably part of why they paid $65.

But, the charges against him, and possibly those who willingly took his abbreviated classes, are based on the fact that they lied about the duration and content of the class on their application for the carry permit.

He, as an agent of the state, has a responsibility to provide what the state dictates as to content and duration.

None of this addresses my point or answers my question...

Would said "agent of the state" limiting the first amendment have a responsibility to provide what the state dictates?

JuneyBooney
01-26-2012, 22:02
in SC is 8 hour class for cwp, that class should be two hours tops and rage time

I agree.

geoemery
01-26-2012, 22:03
Although I generally disagree with the training requirements, cheating on them doesn't help. It really just gives the antigun people something to support limiting CC and 2a rights. It is unfortunate that some people desired to cut the corner and other were swindled out of their money.

jastroud
01-26-2012, 22:06
I am a SC permit holder. IIRC my class was about 8 hours. The instructor was very good as there were some fairly new folks to shooting in that class. He took plenty of time to answer questions and go over firearm basics of safety and operation.

I remember at the range he nearly tore a guy a new one because he disregarded his very thorough explanation of range safety by proceeding to turn and sweep the people next to him to listen to the instructor (who was behind us on the line at an outdoor range).

I took that class with a 3rd Gen G19. I remember the other students bringing mostly 22s and little 380s. One lady did have a nice 357 smith. I was sitting in the last row when he was going seat to seat to safety check all the weapons. When he got to mine he said, "Finally...a real weapon!" His had two with him that day - an HK USP compact and a G23. He left the HK in the car at the range... ;^)

Now that "instructor" in the article gives all of us a bad name and fodder to people like our local councilman Brown.

RightGlock1
01-26-2012, 22:07
True, it would be good if all states were Constitutional carry.

You throw out the term, "a fellow gunnie," under the belief we all should befriend and associate ourselves with an alleged liar just because he is involved with firearms, correct? That's interesting.

Clyde, you've made that decision for yourself. What did you base that on other than his association with firearms? Do you know why he decided to shorten his classes, omit a required segment of firearms training, and submit false documentation about his classes?

I find your suggestion that anyone who objects to Mr. Wykel's behavior and his arrest should move to Canada quite laughable.

The last sentence of your next post is interesting, too. " Thinking that people actually go to the class to learn how to handle a firearm, well, that's a joke." How else does one learn the basics of firearm safety, gun handling, the laws of their state?

You say, "Going to a day class is not going to give them the training they should have." So you do believe people carrying guns need training. You just don't believe a one day, 8-hour class is good enough, but you believe people should educate themselves before, and if they do not, they do not need to carry a gun. Isn't that which you said an infringement on their 2nd Amendment Right?

Winner, Winner, best post of the thread. +1

RussP
01-26-2012, 22:15
None of this addresses my point or answers my question...

Would said "agent of the state" limiting the first amendment have a responsibility to provide what the state dictates?So you want to know, if the state had set the exact same requirements for the right to speak, an understanding of the laws and the civil and criminal consequences of certain speech, and required applicants for the permit to practice speaking, you want to know would anyone object to another person, a person responsible for instructing those people, not providing the required instruction?

Speech, and hopefully responsible speech, is taught from birth. It is taught in the home, in schools, in the neighborhood. Can you say the same about firearms? I cannot remember not having firearms starting with cap pistols, pellet guns, BB guns, a .22, some gun around me. I knew more about guns in the first grade than I did about using language.

I believe your 'speech' analogy is off base.

cphilip
01-26-2012, 23:55
It's also worth noting that the people taking this class probably knew what was up...

The filing fee is $50 in SC so this guy was making $15.

A good class here in SC is $130 or more.

No... the guy was not paying the $50 fee for them. He was charging $65 for the class. The $50 fee was still theirs to pay.... as well as submit the application.

The instructor does not submit the application. He simply signs off on the application as the instructor. SLED then looks at that certification and verifies that instructor is certified to sign off. The student takes a copy of that application home with him and puts a check in with it and sends it in.

holesinpaper
01-27-2012, 03:49
Again this confirms my observations of another practitioner of situational ethics.

If it was a COP doing this your response would be much different.

he is a cheat. liar and thief...

When I instructed classes in Florida for CWPs, the attendees got what they paid for and I stayed after to answer any other questions.

This guy CHEATED the system..

Most of life is about situational ethics. It's wrong to kill. Except for... well, and also... and yes then too.

It's wrong to steal, but even John Locke made an exception.

It's a small mind that sees the world in stark black and white.

Patchman
01-27-2012, 04:57
It's a small mind that sees the world in stark black and white.

Yes, spot on!

Such as advocating that so long as something is legal, it's always appropriate to do. Anytime, anyplace, regardless of situation or anything else.

:dunno:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Misty02
01-27-2012, 05:09
Let's assume there were a statutory limitation on the first amendment.

Would a citizen helping others circumvent that limitation be a liar and a cheat?

Just playing devil's advocate...

My opinion: If as an individual person I go to someone and pay for services I need, not providing what I paid for (in this case the class needed to obtain a license) would qualify that person to fall in the category of being a liar, a cheat and a thief.

It is about consumers not getting what they believed they were paying for. Of course, consumers bear some responsibility in being informed; however, there are many areas were we turn to certified/licensed individuals to assist us because we donít know any better.

How different is this than billing another for services/products rendered that were never provided?

Now, if I knowingly went to an individual and wanted to pay them to circumvent certain requirements, it would be different. I would no longer have been cheated, couldnít claim I was lied to nor was the other person a thief. I would just be someone trying to get around the system and if caught my actions would be just as illegal as that of the person that facilitated it.

My question to the investigator would be: Did the instructor at any point hint that they were paying just for the certificate and he would make it painless by not having to sit through the 8 hours, or were the instructorís actions and words have led him to believe he was actually taking the required class? To me that would have a great impact on how to proceed with others present and whether or not they were entitled to any reimbursement.

.

Misty02
01-27-2012, 05:31
If the case against him is based on "government intrusion or regulation on gun ownership," I agree. It should be dismissed.

But, since it isn't in any way, since it is based on his willful perjury about the length of time and content of his classes, and since his perjury has direct negative consequences on South Carolinians wanting to carry for self defense, they need to make an example of him, prosecute him to the fullest.

Wait, perhaps you have more facts as to his stated reason(s) for lying to the State about his classes. Do you?

It also appears that an investigator went in because someone complained. Was the complaint by a previous student that believed they were cheated?

I have personally attended 3 of the classes required to obtain a certificate; my own (attended with the oldest of the boys), the one my youngest took a year or so later and the last the one we paid for as a gift to my (hopefully) future daughter-in-law. They were all given by different teachers, they were all good classes but the last one went far beyond any requirements (which we liked and appreciated). Knowing what I know today, if I thought I was cheated out of my money in any of them, I too would have filed a complaint and expected something to be done about it. It doesnít matter that I believe no license should be required, what would matter is that I didnít get what I paid for and was led to believe I would get.

Whether we like it or not, there are laws about professionals that are licensed/certified to provide certain services/products cheating people that rely on such credentials to ensure they receive what they paid for.

.

dosei
01-27-2012, 08:57
With all the people that have made the news lately, getting caught carrying into places that they cannot legally carry into, I've been convinced that there must be a slew of "Permit Mills" out there just taking money. Good to know at least one of them has been shut down.

jastroud
01-27-2012, 09:03
No... the guy was not paying the $50 fee for them. He was charging $65 for the class. The $50 fee was still theirs to pay.... as well as submit the application.

The instructor does not submit the application. He simply signs off on the application as the instructor. SLED then looks at that certification and verifies that instructor is certified to sign off. The student takes a copy of that application home with him and puts a check in with it and sends it in.

Unless things have changed, we also sent in our targets as well which this gentleman would not have been able to do. After the firing was over, we put make, model, caliber, and round count on the corner of our targets and autographed them with a Sharpie. That, the check, application, and test were put in ONE envelope and mailed in.

Gunnut 45/454
01-27-2012, 10:23
Yep what is really sad you have to get permission to actually utilize your God given right! Sad just sad!:faint: Of course he'll be charged with a felony right!!:steamed:

Mayhem like Me
01-27-2012, 10:25
Most of life is about situational ethics. It's wrong to kill. Except for... well, and also... and yes then too.

It's wrong to steal, but even John Locke made an exception.

It's a small mind that sees the world in stark black and white.

Some things are black and white swearing on a document that it is the truth is not debatable and not a small mind concept.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TBO
01-27-2012, 14:41
Some things are black and white swearing on a document that it is the truth is not debatable and not a small mind concept.
:goodpost: Says a lot about character.

CharlestonG26
01-27-2012, 17:11
Prior to taking my South Carolina CCW class at ATP in Summerville, SC...I held permits from two other states (VA and FL). I've been involved in shooting sports for over 40 years. I'm a Life Member of the NRA and took the VA CCW class at NRA headquarters. I think I have a reasonable background to judge the content and instructor quality of a CCW class.

The ATP instructor was very professional and covered a comprehensive list of relevant information. He was also patient and thorough in answering the many questions that came up during the all-day class. It was quite obvious that several of the class participants had little or no understanding of the responsibilities and consequences associated with carrying a concealed firearm. There was very little 'down time' in the class schedule.

The same level of patience and thoroughness was evident in the practical segment of the class when we went to the shooting range. Scores were recorded and submitted with the application. All details, including finger print cards and mailing, were handled by ATP.

FWIW...I've been involved in boating for as long as I've been involved with firearms. I believe people who operate boats should pass a boating course. I also believe that people who want to carry a concealed firearm should do the same. Furthermore, I don't think that a 1 hour class is sufficient to address the issues associated with this responsibility.

RussP
01-27-2012, 17:24
kenpoprofessor, Clyde, did you miss this question?If I enroll in an 8 hour Kenpo class will the 'professor' just take my money and give me a certificate?:dunno:

xmanhockey7
01-27-2012, 18:23
I really hope the people who went to this guys class and got the permit don't get in too much trouble. I feel they got put in a bad situation.

Patchman
01-27-2012, 18:43
I really hope the people who went to this guys class and got the permit don't get in too much trouble. I feel they got put in a bad situation.

No question it will be his students who are going to get the shaft.

And who put the students into that situation?

For their CCW, did they sign statements "acknowledging" they completed the required classroom hours and shooting, etc...?

Hopefully, at best, the CCW issuing agency will only require his students to retake the class again from another instructor. At worst, the students will have their CCWs revoked.

So SOMEBODY, please remind me again how this instructor's actions helped his students with their 2A rights?

Patchman
01-27-2012, 18:51
If I enroll in an 8 hour Kenpo class will the 'professor' just take my money and give me a certificate?:dunno:

If I don't have to break a sweat, I'd gladly pay $65 for a certificate stating I am a 8th degree master in Kenpo Ka-ra-te.

Misty02
01-27-2012, 19:06
No question it will be his students who are going to get the shaft.

And who put the students into that situation?

For their CCW, did they sign statements "acknowledging" they completed the required classroom hours and shooting, etc...?

Hopefully, at best, the CCW issuing agency will only require his students to retake the class again from another instructor. At worst, the students will have their CCWs revoked.

So SOMEBODY, please remind me again how this instructor's actions helped his students with their 2A rights?

The application doesnít ask if they took an 8 hour class and they fired a weapon, it merely asks ďDo you certify successful completion of handgun training (Section 23-31-210, SC Code of Laws)? It requires a Yes/No answer.

What would be the assumption of the average person after paying a certified instructor for a class?

.

CharlestonG26
01-27-2012, 19:38
If I don't have to break a sweat, I'd gladly pay $65 for a certificate stating I am a 8th degree master in Kenpo Ka-ra-te.

Maybe this is how one becomes a 'professor' of Kenpo.

BTW...when you get your 8th degree master in Kenpo...don't forget to always wish everyone: 'have a great gun carrin' Kenpo day'. :rofl:

Patchman
01-27-2012, 19:45
Maybe this is how one becomes a 'professor' of Kenpo.

BTW...when you get your 8th degree master in Kenpo...don't forget to always wish everyone: 'have a great gun carrin' Kenpo day'. :rofl:

Ahhhh, young grasshopper. When I'm an 8th degree master, for $200 I'll certify you as a 7th degree novice.

:rofl:

CharlestonG26
01-27-2012, 19:48
The application doesnít ask if they took an 8 hour class and they fired a weapon, it merely asks ďDo you certify successful completion of handgun training (Section 23-31-210, SC Code of Laws)? It requires a Yes/No answer.

Sorry...but this is incorrect information. Both the trainer and applicant sign the application after they read this statement:

Documentation of Training: (To be completed by the training instructor)
This will certify that this applicant has satisfactorily completed a training program, lasting not less than eight (8) hours and has met all requirements of Section 23-31-210, related statutes and SLED Regulations concerning Concealable Weapons Permit training.
EXEMPTION FROM TRAINING REQUIREMENTS: An applicant is exempt from the training requirement if he or she: (a) is an instructor certified by the NRA or another SLED-approved national organization promoting safe use of handguns; (b) is an active duty police handgun instructor; (c) has a SLED-certified or approved competitive handgun shooting classification; (d) is a member of the active or reserve military, or of the National Guard who has had handgun training in the last 3 years; (e) can demonstrate to the Chief of SLED or his designee a proficiency in both the use of handguns and state laws pertaining to handguns. No other exemptions exist.

Patchman
01-27-2012, 20:07
The application doesn’t ask if they took an 8 hour class and they fired a weapon, it merely asks “Do you certify successful completion of handgun training (Section 23-31-210, SC Code of Laws)? It requires a Yes/No answer.

What would be the assumption of the average person after paying a certified instructor for a class?

.

The answer for the average person will be "yes. I successfully completed the training."

This is similar to students who attend trade schools and/or colleges that are NOT accredited by the college board (or whatever the accrediting agency is called) or that state's Education Department. I believe the state will give those students compassion, but not relief.

Rick O'Shay
01-27-2012, 20:20
Has nothing to do with ownership... is concealed carry. And I would prefer not to have to have a license either but it is the law.

He applied to be an instructor, went through the process to get bonded and licensed and swore to uphold the law and yet now you say he should get some sort of special treatment?

You do realize he wanted to be an instructor for this don't you? HE wasn't forced to involve himself in it.... he wanted to do it to make money. And, in this case, cheat do it. He agreed to the terms and broke them. I hope they make an example of him.

I beg to differ. My class, and the requirement, is 8 hrs classroom, and THEN range time. One of the longest days I've spent doing ANYTHING! Actually, when I attended, we were in classroom 8 hr 15 minutes, and even though it was summer, didn't finish at the range until after sundown. This was one of the most active instructor teams in the midlands of SC.

Misty02
01-27-2012, 20:48
Sorry...but this is incorrect information. Both the trainer and applicant sign the application after they read this statement:

Documentation of Training: (To be completed by the training instructor)
This will certify that this applicant has satisfactorily completed a training program, lasting not less than eight (8) hours and has met all requirements of Section 23-31-210, related statutes and SLED Regulations concerning Concealable Weapons Permit training.
EXEMPTION FROM TRAINING REQUIREMENTS: An applicant is exempt from the training requirement if he or she: (a) is an instructor certified by the NRA or another SLED-approved national organization promoting safe use of handguns; (b) is an active duty police handgun instructor; (c) has a SLED-certified or approved competitive handgun shooting classification; (d) is a member of the active or reserve military, or of the National Guard who has had handgun training in the last 3 years; (e) can demonstrate to the Chief of SLED or his designee a proficiency in both the use of handguns and state laws pertaining to handguns. No other exemptions exist.

I stand corrected then. I went to the state’s website and retrieved the application posted. It yielded a single page document with no mention of the 8 hours (but it mentions the applicable code number). http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf (http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWPApplicationForm.pdf) Am I accessing the incorrect documents?

I just did a bit a more digging and did find the actual certificate: http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWP/CWPTrainingCertificate.pdf (http://www.sled.sc.gov/documents/CWP/CWPTrainingCertificate.pdf) the certificate itself does mention the 8 hours but there is no space for the applicant to sign.

Where is that statement you mention (it's not in the application itself)?

“Both the trainer and applicant sign the application after they read this statement”. How would the average applicant know the trainer is supposed to read that statement with them before signing the application? The statement also doesn’t mention anything about actually firing a weapon. And where in the application does the trainer sign?

Please understand that I’m not trying to release the applicant from their own responsibility. Everyone should know what each and every of those codes mentioned in the application say before signing the application. Many will take the application, if that is all that is provided by the certified instructor, and complete it assuming or believing many things that aren’t true.

Most people shy away from the FL application because the packet is 40+ pages; however, the application itself ins’t, you just have to read through all those requirements before you get to the actual application. It is how you download it as well.

.

Mister_Beefy
01-28-2012, 00:08
Mister Beefy in a few short paragrafs or words desribe the rage, torment or any other feeling that comes to mind how you would feel posting here on GT the fact that someone you love in your family was killed by stray gunfire of an individual who payed $95.00 for a worthless permit.:whistling:

this statement is so absurd it is humorous.

Again this confirms my observations of another practitioner of situational ethics.

If it was a COP doing this your response would be much different.

he is a cheat. liar and thief...

When I instructed classes in Florida for CWPs, the attendees got what they paid for and I stayed after to answer any other questions.

This guy CHEATED the system..

since you are such an expert on me, what exactly would be my "much different" response if it was a COP?

There also shouldn't be any gov't intrusion in wanting to have extra spending money. I hope all tax cheats, welfare cheats and financial criminals get their cases dismissed or get the lightest punishment possible.

that's a very well formed strawman argument you have there.


"a good, law abiding citizen not convicted of a felon, the second amendment of our bill of rights is my concealed weapons permit. period." - Ted Nugent.

any laws demanding paid training or permission from an elected official to possess a firearm in my book constitutes infringement.

The general public has been taught, for decades, to believe that they can not be as smart, as brave, as well trained, or as capable as those that have been appointed to rule over them.

it is a myth, and a lie, and needs to die.

Mayhem like Me
01-28-2012, 06:31
this statement is so absurd it is humorous.



since you are such an expert on me, what exactly would be my "much different" response if it was a COP?



that's a very well formed strawman argument you have there.


"a good, law abiding citizen not convicted of a felon, the second amendment of our bill of rights is my concealed weapons permit. period." - Ted Nugent.

any laws demanding paid training or permission from an elected official to possess a firearm in my book constitutes infringement.

The general public has been taught, for decades, to believe that they can not be as smart, as brave, as well trained, or as capable as those that have been appointed to rule over them.

it is a myth, and a lie, and needs to die.
You just don't get it. The simple concept that it's not okay to chest and lie...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CharlestonG26
01-28-2012, 08:13
Where is that statement you mention (it's not in the application itself)?

This is page 2 of the form I referenced:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgpiK_vE9Ycq7JRo-bUUG0b2qtMc1P76j2Qi6oWqEZKhFDWb_vgB3QeRzqjbZK_OZCrWc9qgCfvjuijd4fFgwmXO0co43khGjl_qbTa1baeXDQvsMH3iz-1c0AGHMkx9BuSlorS&q=cache%3At0rC_iSvdY0J%3Awww.sled.sc.gov%2Fdocuments%2FCWPPermit.doc%20south%20carolina%20concealed% 20weapons%20documentation%20of%20training%20pdf&docid=fa6b3f945d77ef0a8c3a3a14ac3dba39&a=bi&pagenumber=2&w=800

Misty02
01-28-2012, 08:28
I see! Thank you for taking the time to explain it better, CharlestonG26. I enjoy learning; it appears I misinterpreted what was posted in the state site.

So the applicant has to sign a statement that clearly reflects they took a course that lasted no less than 8 hours?

.

glock_collector
01-28-2012, 08:38
We have no other logical choice in which to deal with this poor instructor............Get a rope....

jellis11
01-28-2012, 09:05
I know of a group of guys that took a class that ended up being shortened a bunch and nobody even shot. I've told them that they should probably be careful and look into it further because if anything happened they would possibly get in trouble or at the least not be protected.
They all said I was just jealous that I paid way more than their $35 and had to sit in a class for eight hours and they didn't.
I would sit in that class every year if I had to, most professional class I've ever been in. I am frustrated that people get away with this crap that could possibly jeopardize *our* legitimate cwp here in SC. Glad this guy got caught.

And as far as needing a class to be able to carry. I'm all for it. There was a young woman in my class that had no idea how to handle a firearm and it didn't work correctly. The instructors were very nice to her and helped as much as they could. I'm not sure if she passed the shooting part because of it though. But I'm glad there was a check system to stop someone who has no idea what they are doing and is able to educate them further.

CharlestonG26
01-28-2012, 09:13
So the applicant has to sign a statement that clearly reflects they took a course that lasted no less than 8 hours?

Unless the form has changed from the version I posted...that's the case.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 09:47
Unless the form has changed from the version I posted...that's the case.

Itís not in the one I found online from the state, but governmental entities are well known for not being up-to-date often or updating their site. You are in SC and would likely know better, definitely more than me. :)

.

CharlestonG26
01-28-2012, 09:57
It’s not in the one I found online from the state, but governmental entities are well known for not being up-to-date often or updating their site. You are in SC and would likely know better, definitely more than me. :)

.

SC does a pretty good job in keeping internet stuff current. The form that is posted on the sled.sc.gov website has a later date than the one I previously referenced (3/27/09 one page version vs 9/15/06 two page version). I stand corrected. Thanks for getting me up to date, Misty02.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 10:10
SC does a pretty good job in keeping internet stuff current. The form that is posted on the sled.sc.gov website has a later date than the one I previously referenced (3/27/09 two page version vs 9/15/06 one page version). I stand corrected. Thanks for getting me up to date, Misty02.

Heck, you mean I actually helped someone with something firearm related? :) Now youíre just making me feel good! Thank you! With my knowledge level I donít get the opportunity to do that often.

Iíll go enjoy my temporary trip to cloud 9 for a few minutes before someone bursts my bubble! :wavey:

.

LApm9
01-28-2012, 11:28
When sit through my renewal classes, I am never bored. Despite my haunting this forum, there is always something that comes up that prompts me to think "yeah, I need to remember that". The newbies' questions are often thought provoking, too.

Besides, the newbies always like to chat up us renewals during the breaks about weapons and holsters, etc. It is fun to help.

Those of us that frequent this medium are the "1%" that have a quest for knowledge. There are a lot of folks out there who exist in a firearms knowledge vacuum who want to carry a weapon because they perceive a threat. The class may be their only exposure to the SD laws and tactics, as well as firearms safety.

mdsn969
01-28-2012, 11:49
The guy is a criminal and should be treated as such, he was committing fraud.

Having said that I believe the intent of the founders was not to limit firearms. I firmly believe in constitutional carry and would like to see a federal mandate overriding state and municipality limitations.

Here is a good video showing why good instruction is an imperative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8-j0FkDAiI

PS. I am a gun toting, meat eating, liberal from the heartland (actually a moderate republican but in todays climate that is a liberal)

Mister_Beefy
01-28-2012, 14:19
You just don't get it. The simple concept that it's not okay to chest and lie...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


No, you just don't get it.

Never said what he did was "okay". Nor did I say he was a swell guy that is being wrongfully accused.

I said that I hoped his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest sentence possible.

RussP
01-28-2012, 15:18
No, you just don't get it.

Never said what he did was "okay". Nor did I say he was a swell guy that is being wrongfully accused.

I said that I hoped his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest sentence possible.Why do you hope that? Do you believe everyone should be allowed to perjure themselves without penalty?

Patchman
01-28-2012, 16:27
I said that I hoped his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest sentence possible.


I'm not surprised Beefy is extending his personal 'best wishes' to this lier.

Why am I not surprised? Because this lier is not LE. :upeyes:

Mister_Beefy
01-28-2012, 17:54
Why do you hope that? Do you believe everyone should be allowed to perjure themselves without penalty?


because I don't like laws that force people to spend money to exercise their constitutional right, and what he did doesn't really bother me much.

no, I do not believe everyone should be allowed to perjure themselves without penalty.

Mister_Beefy
01-28-2012, 18:12
I'm not surprised Beefy is extending his personal 'best wishes' to this lier.

Why am I not surprised? Because this lier is not LE. :upeyes:


the "well you're just a cop hater" line is getting very old.

I have been critical of police for doing things that I feel are out of line.

I feel that because the police are given the authority to enforce the law, an officer's violation of the law is more harmful to society than a violation by joe crackhead.

the "cop hater" label has been given to me because after sharing my opinion of these incidents committed by officers I feel are out of line, I clash with those here who are so pro LEO they seem determined to defend any officer's actions, no matter what.

if I have such a blind hatred for police, I challenge you to provide links to posts where I have made hateful comments to or about police.

the fact is I only criticize police when I think they deserve it. otherwise I am just as thankful and respectful of police as any of you are, and I am just as saddened by the loss of any officer that dies in the line of duty.

now, if an officer gets caught breaking the law and kills himself.. yeah, not so much.

the "you're a cop hater routine" doesn't even reach the level of a strawman argument. it's just childish name calling.

so please spare me and everyone else the schpiel, and keep this thread on topic.

Patchman
01-28-2012, 18:18
the "well you're just a cop hater" line is getting very old.

I have been critical of police for doing things that I feel are out of line.

I feel that because the police are given the authority to enforce the law, an officer's violation of the law is more harmful to society than a violation by joe crackhead.

the "cop hater" label has been given to me because after sharing my opinion of these incidents committed by officers I feel are out of line, I clash with those here who are so pro LEO they seem determined to defend any officer's actions, no matter what.

if I have such a blind hatred for police, I challenge you to provide links to posts where I have made hateful comments to or about police.

the fact is I only criticize police when I think they deserve it. otherwise I am just as thankful and respectful of police as any of you are, and I am just as saddened by the loss of any officer that dies in the line of duty.

now, if an officer gets caught breaking the law and kills himself.. yeah, not so much.

the "you're a cop hater routine" doesn't even reach the level of a strawman argument. it's just childish name calling.

so please spare me and everyone else the schpiel, and keep this thread on topic.

Damn, that a long winded way of saying "that's a strawman argument."

You've become irrevelant, except as a punchline to a joke.

Mister_Beefy
01-28-2012, 18:37
Damn, that a long winded way of saying "that's a strawman argument."

You've become irrevelant, except as a punchline to a joke.


more name calling. :rofl:

I'm done with this thread, these interactions always end with me receiving an infraction.

have a nice day, officer.

RussP
01-28-2012, 18:46
because I don't like laws that force people to spend money to exercise their constitutional right, and what he did doesn't really bother me much.You don't like them, so you say it is excusable to violate them, because violating those laws really doesn't bother you. Are you suggesting others do the same as this man did?no, I do not believe everyone should be allowed to perjure themselves without penalty.If this man had been a law enforcement officer conducting the abbreviated classes, would you say the same thing, that you hope the charges would be dismissed?

Patchman
01-28-2012, 18:54
more name calling. :rofl:

I'm done with this thread, these interactions always end with me receiving an infraction.

have a nice day, officer.

Your excuses of breaking off because of of possibly receiving an infraction is a strawman excuse.

I'm a florist. You should see my garden. Always glad to remove a weed.

cphilip
01-28-2012, 19:22
I beg to differ. My class, and the requirement, is 8 hrs classroom, and THEN range time. One of the longest days I've spent doing ANYTHING! Actually, when I attended, we were in classroom 8 hr 15 minutes, and even though it was summer, didn't finish at the range until after sundown. This was one of the most active instructor teams in the midlands of SC.

No... its not

The requirement is as follows (note, you can exceed 8 hours doing all of it but it MUST be a minimum of 8 hours... for all the listed ingredients. Firing is one of the listed components within the minimum of 8 hours)

(a) a person who, within three years before filing an application, has successfully completed a basic or advanced handgun education course offered by a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or a nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety. This education course must be a minimum of eight hours and must include, but is not limited to:

(i) information on the statutory and case law of this State relating to handguns and to the use of deadly force;

(ii) information on handgun use and safety;

(iii) information on the proper storage practice for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that reduces the possibility of accidental injury to a child; and

(iv) the actual firing of the handgun in the presence of the instructor;

I am glad your instructor went beyond the minimum... but he didn't have to. Note the "but not limited to". But not required to.

RussP
01-28-2012, 20:28
No... its not

The requirement is as follows (note, you can exceed 8 hours doing all of it but it MUST be a minimum of 8 hours... for all the listed ingredients. Firing is one of the listed components within the minimum of 8 hours)

(a) a person who, within three years before filing an application, has successfully completed a basic or advanced handgun education course offered by a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or a nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety. This education course must be a minimum of eight hours and must include, but is not limited to:

(i) information on the statutory and case law of this State relating to handguns and to the use of deadly force;

(ii) information on handgun use and safety;

(iii) information on the proper storage practice for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that reduces the possibility of accidental injury to a child; and

(iv) the actual firing of the handgun in the presence of the instructor;

I am glad your instructor went beyond the minimum... but he didn't have to. Note the "but not limited to". But not required to.What do you mean, "But not required to?" Are you saying the part (iv) is not required?

PlasticGuy
01-28-2012, 20:38
...Most importantly, he cheated his students out of the frearm safety and legal responsibilities of concealed carry information...
I agree.

While I don't think there should be any requirements for firearms ownership or carry beyond being of age and not being a convicted felon, this is a different issue. He had a class full of people wanting to ccw, and 8 hours to teach them as much as possible about law, safety, skills, tactics, and common sense. He just shoved them out the door and cashed the checks. He didn't screw the system. He screwed the students.

cphilip
01-28-2012, 20:44
What do you mean, "But not required to?" Are you saying the part (iv) is not required?

No... not referring that to that part.

What I am saying is that its not required that it ONLY be 8 hours.

It can be more than 8 hours... if that's what it takes to cover all the points then it may indeed be more than 8 hours. Section 5, iv being one of the points that has to be covered.

But it MUST be at a minimum 8 hours. Even if you can cover all points in less than 8 hours.

That was in response to another poster insisting it had to be 8 hours of Classroom and THEN shooting or iv...

If it takes 10 then so be it. If its takes 12 the so be it... but it must, at the very least, be 8 hours. According to the way the law is written. Which I copied and pasted the pertinent section of from the SLED site.

And "not required to" also brings up the point that one can cover more than just those points required in the law. You are also not required to simply stop there if you chose. This is why they also say "but not limited to".

References here:

SECTION 23-31-210. Definitions. (5)
http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx?MenuID=CWP#6

Mayhem like Me
01-28-2012, 21:24
No, you just don't get it.

Never said what he did was "okay". Nor did I say he was a swell guy that is being wrongfully accused.

I said that I hoped his case gets dismissed or he gets the lightest sentence possible.

More backpedaling . Whatever the fact that you don't admit your double standard is amusing.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Rev.357
01-28-2012, 22:48
It's just sad!

Misty02
01-29-2012, 04:19
I agree.

While I don't think there should be any requirements for firearms ownership or carry beyond being of age and not being a convicted felon, this is a different issue. He had a class full of people wanting to ccw, and 8 hours to teach them as much as possible about law, safety, skills, tactics, and common sense. He just shoved them out the door and cashed the checks. He didn't screw the system. He screwed the students.

I see it the same way, PlasticGuy. Then again, I’m looking at it from the perspective of the student. His issue with the state are his problem (which unfortunately can end up being mine as well by default), but if I pay for something (in this case a class to meet certain requirements) and I find out I was not provided what I thought I was buying, I would be mighty ticked off.

.

RussP
01-29-2012, 05:59
I see it the same way, PlasticGuy. Then again, Iím looking at it from the perspective of the student. His issue with the state are his problem (which unfortunately can end up being mine as well by default), but if I pay for something (in this case a class to meet certain requirements) and I find out I was not provided what I thought I was buying, I would be mighty ticked off.

.Wonder if he will be forced to pay restitution to those attending the abbreviated classes.

Misty02
01-29-2012, 06:45
Wonder if he will be forced to pay restitution to those attending the abbreviated classes.

I might press the issue if I was one of the students, not before taking another class that qualified though. I wouldnít want to lose my license because of him, but I would likely do my part to ensure he canít do it to others again.

However, Iím not unselfish. If there was a possibility of me being charged for carrying illegally for the period of time between the date I got my license and the day I discovered the fraud, it is highly likely I would get legal advice on how to proceed. I would know that I have to retake the class to be legal; I would need legal guidance in determining if reapplying after taking the class was wise and/or necessary.

Come to think of it, that person would have given me at least a few restless nights worrying about the legalities where Iím concerned. Even if I donít get a penny back I would not want him to go free without any consequences!

.

Mister_Beefy
01-29-2012, 07:13
More backpedaling . Whatever the fact that you don't admit your double standard is amusing.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


please explain how I backpedaled.

Mister_Beefy
01-29-2012, 07:14
You don't like them, so you say it is excusable to violate them, because violating those laws really doesn't bother you. Are you suggesting others do the same as this man did?

nope.

If this man had been a law enforcement officer conducting the abbreviated classes, would you say the same thing, that you hope the charges would be dismissed?

yup.

Mister_Beefy
01-29-2012, 07:19
Your excuses of breaking off because of of possibly receiving an infraction is a strawman excuse.

I'm a florist. You should see my garden. Always glad to remove a weed.


fine, I'm back. if only just to spite you.

since I posted a well thought out, coherent, non-insulting reply and all you could come back with was "you're a punchline" I'll consider the discussion over, unless you want to come up with something besides name calling (of which I highly doubt you are capable of doing)... so tell the coptalkers I said hello

RussP
01-29-2012, 07:51
No... not referring that to that part.

What I am saying is that its not required that it ONLY be 8 hours.

It can be more than 8 hours... if that's what it takes to cover all the points then it may indeed be more than 8 hours. Section 5, iv being one of the points that has to be covered.

But it MUST be at a minimum 8 hours. Even if you can cover all points in less than 8 hours.

That was in response to another poster insisting it had to be 8 hours of Classroom and THEN shooting or iv...

If it takes 10 then so be it. If its takes 12 the so be it... but it must, at the very least, be 8 hours. According to the way the law is written. Which I copied and pasted the pertinent section of from the SLED site.

And "not required to" also brings up the point that one can cover more than just those points required in the law. You are also not required to simply stop there if you chose. This is why they also say "but not limited to".

References here:

SECTION 23-31-210. Definitions. (5)
http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx?MenuID=CWP#6Thanks for clearing that up for me. :thumbsup:

RussP
01-29-2012, 07:59
You don't like them, so you say it is excusable to violate them, because violating those laws really doesn't bother you. Are you suggesting others do the same as this man did?nope.Good, so you are limiting yourself to simply condoning and supporting such acts when done against laws you object to. That fits.If this man had been a law enforcement officer conducting the abbreviated classes, would you say the same thing, that you hope the charges would be dismissed?yup.Okay...

Mayhem like Me
01-29-2012, 08:02
please explain how I backpedaled.

Please try and keep up with your own inconsistant posts.
Its not my job to help you.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
01-29-2012, 08:40
Please try and keep up with your own inconsistant posts.
Its not my job to help you.Perhaps if you mentioned totality of circumstances...not one post or one thread, that would be understandable, not liked, but understandable.

It's like understanding not just that Mr. Wykel committed perjury, but his actions will have consequences, perhaps dire consequences, for the victims of his crimes. I might press the issue if I was one of the students, not before taking another class that qualified though. I wouldn’t want to lose my license because of him, but I would likely do my part to ensure he can’t do it to others again.

However, I’m not unselfish. If there was a possibility of me being charged for carrying illegally for the period of time between the date I got my license and the day I discovered the fraud, it is highly likely I would get legal advice on how to proceed. I would know that I have to retake the class to be legal; I would need legal guidance in determining if reapplying after taking the class was wise and/or necessary.

Come to think of it, that person would have given me at least a few restless nights worrying about the legalities where I’m concerned. Even if I don’t get a penny back I would not want him to go free without any consequences!

.Again, Misty02 states the case very simply. It will be interesting to see just how many people are affected by his actions, his crimes, which M_B is willing to forgive and forget, but those students probably will not.

RussP
01-29-2012, 09:26
Folks, lets keep the language clean, please.

cphilip
01-29-2012, 09:30
Its quite possible that all of his students that can be proven took his abbreviated class in which no weapon was even fired could not only have their permits revoked but also be charged with perjury.

He had some close ties with Law Enforcement it appears. He is listed as a Firearms Instructor for the Corrections Department which is what qualified him to receive certification to be a CWP instructor. His qualifications instilled a certain amount of trust by SLED which now appears misplaced. I would expect they will want to limit the damage to their reputation by making an example out of everyone involved.

RussP
01-29-2012, 09:51
Its quite possible that all of his students that can be proven took his abbreviated class in which no weapon was even fired could not only have their permits revoked but also be charged with perjury.

He had some close ties with Law Enforcement it appears. He is listed as a Firearms Instructor for the Corrections Department which is what qualified him to receive certification to be a CWP instructor. His qualifications instilled a certain amount of trust by SLED which now appears misplaced. I would expect they will want to limit the damage to their reputation by making an example out of everyone involved.Everyone, you mean the students, too? That's a tough one. There may be some students drawn to him because of the abbreviated classes. There may be some who came expecting the required 8-hours, but knowingly took the certification even though the hours were not used. Then, there may be some who just got sucked in, did not fully understand the 8-hours were mandatory - didn't educate themselves prior to the class, and innocently took the certificate and submitted it.

cphilip
01-29-2012, 11:18
Yes... I mean the students too. At least the ones that SLED can uncover as having taking an abbreviated and incomplete class. Some they may never be able to prove but if they ask each student and one in each class admits it.. then the others are going to be suspected of FURTHER Perjury.

They were given the citation to go to right in the statement that they signed swearing to. It clearly tells them it must be 8 hours and must include firing the gun. So they were given one last opportunity to go look at the requirement they were swearing to have obeyed and followed. Its not like they can say I didn't know where to look. Or that they didn't know it was important to know what they were swearing to. The Application provides the citation of the reg at the end of the statement.

Anyone who took the class that did not both meet for 8 hours and include firing the gun, even if they simply didn't know before hand, should have no excuse for not knowing what they are signing and swearing to.

In another section of the application they are warned that falsifying any portion will result in denial of the application. Some have been denied for forgetting to mention an arrest. Not a conviction but an arrest! It asks. And you have to tell. You then can tell you were not convicted but... if they uncover that you were arrested and didn't disclose, it results in denial. Even if its a misdemeanor. Its a falsification to omit it. So... I expect nothing but hard nose on this one. I wouldn't be surprised.

However it may turn out that he didn't do this to all classes. Perhaps it was a recent practice?

RussP
01-29-2012, 14:48
Folks, please, lets get back on topic and stay there. Take the personal problems and issues to Private Messages.

Thanks.

Mister_Beefy
01-30-2012, 15:14
Please try and keep up with your own inconsistant posts.
Its not my job to help you.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


you say I backpedaled and am inconsistent.

I disagree, and I challenge you to prove your assertions, if you can.

Mayhem like Me
01-30-2012, 15:15
you say I backpedaled and am inconsistent.

I disagree, and I challenge you to prove your assertions, if you can.

Already did.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
01-30-2012, 15:51
Back on topic or else...

HoldHard
01-30-2012, 16:20
I agree.

While I don't think there should be any requirements for firearms ownership or carry beyond being of age and not being a convicted felon, this is a different issue. He had a class full of people wanting to ccw, and 8 hours to teach them as much as possible about law, safety, skills, tactics, and common sense. He just shoved them out the door and cashed the checks. He didn't screw the system. He screwed the students.

I see it the same way, PlasticGuy. Then again, I’m looking at it from the perspective of the student. His issue with the state are his problem (which unfortunately can end up being mine as well by default), but if I pay for something (in this case a class to meet certain requirements) and I find out I was not provided what I thought I was buying, I would be mighty ticked off.

.
And the people that may be harmed by these uninformed, untrained "rubber stamped" students.

Let me be the first to say I don't want someone that can't hit the broad side of a barn shooting a weapon around my family. It's simply asking for tragedy. You can't whistle a bullet back.

In Michigan, the competent Concealed Pistol License (CPL) training covers two (2) days. The one that I attended used the NRA Home Defense course book which in itself was an eight (8) hour class. We also were instructed by a lawyer about the ramifications of obtaining a CPL. He covered the aspects of what is required by law when interacting with police, handgun transportation regulations, restricted locations, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, criminal and civil liabilities and about fifty other things. That segment alone was over three hours and had the longest question and answer period.

The instructor went into great detail about how a CPL holder is held to a "higher standard" regarding laws in general and specifically all gun laws.

After the class, we spent over two hours on the range and every student was evaluated on their firearms handling proficiency and accuracy. There were two students that did not pass the range portion and their money was refunded.

After successfully passing the course, you also have to pass a background check that is conducted by the county sherriff to obtain the CPL.

I have also heard of "certificate mills" that are run to simply collect money and hand out paper. They are the ones that are held at gun ranges close to or in the inner-city. At least that is how it appears in Detoilet.

It's sad that these people are legally carrying a gun and may ruin their lives when they shoot and kill someone because their instructor didn't cover the law. It will be even sadder for the family of the person murdered.

As far as the OP, it appears that he will be judged based on what he did (or in this case, didn't do). If I had taken his class, you bet I'd be signing up for another one with a different instructor as fast as possible before my carry permit is revolked.

HH