[TBO]

http://lexington.wistv.com/news/crim...our-hour-class

[Brucev]

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.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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 don’t 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, I’ve attended training classes that have been longer than advertised. I truly appreciate the instructor’s 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 don’t cover what was in the course outline properly and we’ll have issues.

.

[eracer]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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.

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.

[LoadToadBoss]

From the article:

"Four hours is not enough time to even cut the surface with how to operate a firearm safely, where to store it safely, and how to operate the gun," Phillips said.

Really? You need 8 hours to teach these things?

[RussP]

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...

[ithaca_deerslayer]

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?

[poodleplumber]

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.

[Brucev]

Originally Posted by eracer

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.

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?

[smokin762]

I would be ticked, if I paid for a CCW Class and the Certificate was no good.

[dosei]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

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?

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.

[cowboy1964]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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.

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.

[cowboy1964]

Originally Posted by Brucev

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?

The 1st Amendment isn't absolute either. It doesn't give one the right to induce panic or slander people, for example.

[kensteele]

"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.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

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.

That is the way I see it as well, perception is everything. This man promised to do a job he didn’t 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 don’t inform themselves well in these matters), the certificate he signed attesting he had provided the required course did.

Like you, I don’t 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.

.

[Sharkey]

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.

[Rev.357]

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.

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by kensteele

"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.

We discussed this one a while ago. This is the link of the application to be completed by the student, posted in the state’s 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 don’t know if this is a required or suggested certificate for use.

From the previous thread:

Originally Posted by Misty02

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?

.

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 I’m 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 won’t go into how long the closing of either home took since I had to read every piece of paper they gave me to sign).

.

[cole]

Originally Posted by cowboy1964

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.

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.

[Arc Angel]

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.

[SpringerTGO]

Originally Posted by Sharkey

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.

I used to teach a motorcycle safety class. On rare occasions, I might get a group of experienced riders taking the class so they could get their licenses. I could speed up the riding portion of the class because they all knew how to ride, and didn't need 20 minutes of learning where controls were, shifting, etc. I thought I was doing them a favor, since they all knew this stuff and would pass the class anyways.
It turned out, they wanted their riding time regardless, and I was told to have them ride for the entire time stated in the course outline.

[Sharkey]

Originally Posted by SpringerTGO

I used to teach a motorcycle safety class. On rare occasions, I might get a group of experienced riders taking the class so they could get their licenses. I could speed up the riding portion of the class because they all knew how to ride, and didn't need 20 minutes of learning where controls were, shifting, etc. I thought I was doing them a favor, since they all knew this stuff and would pass the class anyways.
It turned out, they wanted their riding time regardless, and I was told to have them ride for the entire time stated in the course outline.

As a rider for 10 years and being new to it, I did appreciate the MSF class. No doubt I benefited by using the enitre time of the class. That said, maybe the students were experienced, maybe not. I will sayt there is a bit more skill required to ride than shoot.

All that being said, how do we go to an undercover op with an arrest for something that is a crime only because it's written as law. I would consider it more of a state licensing regulation. If he was a problem instructor, there were a lot better ways to handle it. Heck, worse case, pull his instructor license.

[Arc Angel]

Originally Posted by Sharkey

As a rider for 10 years and being new to it, I did appreciate the MSF class. No doubt I benefited by using the enitre time of the class. That said, maybe the students were experienced, maybe not. I will sayt there is a bit more skill required to ride than shoot.

All that being said, how do we go to an undercover op with an arrest for something that is a crime only because it's written as law. I would consider it more of a state licensing regulation. If he was a problem instructor, there were a lot better ways to handle it. Heck, worse case, pull his instructor license.

You're not really serious, are you?

I rode for about a decade, too. Pretty crazy stuff! I got to the point where I thought 75 mph was, 'cruising speed'. True story: I knew my, 'love affair' with bikes couldn't possibly last forever.

The morning my son was born I left the hospital, went home, and took my bike out of the garage. Then I drove rode it over to a local bike shop and accepted less money for it than I had into the custom features, alone. Why did I do that? I did it because I wanted to live long enough to see my boy grow up; and in my, 'heart of hearts' I knew that bike and me had, at some point in the not too distant future, a date with doom.

Still is bike riding more difficult to do than shooting? Well, in a way, yes it is; but I'd say this applies more to simple shooting rather than any of the really fast and accurate things you can do with a gun. Perhaps you mean there's more of a potential, 'rush' to riding a bike than there is to just standing on a line and pulling the trigger?

True I've never come off a firing line reeling from an, 'adrenaline high' in the same way I, once, did after riding a bike through, let's say, the long sinuous curves on a Laurentian highway; or after canting the bike through repeated, right and left, 'knee scrapes' along the high cliffs above Port Jervis; but, that's not to say it's easy to put down a whole row of steel plates at 300 + yards, or to stand back at 15 yards and rapidly dump an entire pistol magazine into the center of a 9" paper plate in only 4 or 5 seconds!

Shooting like this can be a, 'rush' too; and, in my experience, very few of the shooters you're ever going to meet will be able to handle a firearm like this. In my opinion, 'the law is the law' because: (1) Somebody took the time to stop and really think about things; and (2) whether you're on a bike or shooting a gun, certain talents and safety skills are necessary in order to avoid mishap (or even death) to both yourself and others.

Cutting the time period for that firearm safety and handling course by half was a very dishonest thing for that fellow to do. He reminds me of the complete jerk who taught my Florida CCW license class; and I got 'a tell you: What an absolute scam that course was! (Everyone who did NOT shoot themselves in the foot while they were at the range passed!)

[Misty02]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

Cutting the time period for that firearm safety and handling course by half was a very dishonest thing for that fellow to do. He reminds me of the complete jerk who taught my Florida CCW license class; and I got 'a tell you: What an absolute scam that course was! (Everyone who did NOT shoot themselves in the foot while they were at the range passed!)

Most people with little or no exposure to the licensing process and requirements may be quick to state that the course they attended to in Florida is a scam. The fact is that our requirement is not the same as what may be required in other states. In Florida you don’t have to put a hole in a silhouette size piece of paper, as long as you safely handle and discharge the firearm, you pass.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/forms/Temp/T044097522.pdf#page=1 as stated in the application the only requirement (bottom of page 5) is that the instructor observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm.

Because the requirement is low and because most people desire to get the most value for their money, it is important that those of us that understand it better provide some guidance to friends and acquaintances that have expressed an interest in going through the process.

I’ve heard of people paying $90 and getting the bare basic requirements (a lot of money for little value). I’ve also attended (in addition to my own) 2 other classes (the one for my youngest son and my future daughter-in-law) that were $70 and below, they offered a comprehensive classroom class (laws, review of the statutes, etc) as well as safety and some basic shooting training. In the last one I attended the instructor taught the actual shooting part with both a revolver (38 special) and a pistol (9mm). He taught the students how to hold the firearm, use of the sights, etc. Of the three I’ve personally attended, this was the most comprehensive. Even the classroom part was nearly 4 hours with the instructor answering every question students posed. Mine wasn’t bad, but it was taught using a .22 pistol and that short part of the class was only geared to safe handling, not how to properly hold the firearm, aim and the like.

The one thing consistent in every course I’ve personally attended was the instructor’s comment that the class for the certificate was just the beginning, that additional training was necessary to safely/accurately handle one’s firearm.

.

[Sharkey]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

You're not really serious, are you?

Still is bike riding more difficult to do than shooting? Well, in a way, yes it is;

In my opinion, 'the law is the law' because: (1) Somebody took the time to stop and really think about things; and (2) whether you're on a bike or shooting a gun, certain talents and safety skills are necessary in order to avoid mishap (or even death) to both yourself and others.

Cutting the time period for that firearm safety and handling course by half was a very dishonest thing for that fellow to do. He reminds me of the complete jerk who taught my Florida CCW license class; and I got 'a tell you: What an absolute scam that course was! (Everyone who did NOT shoot themselves in the foot while they were at the range passed!)

Am I not serious about what? I made a couple points in my post.

I am comparing the MSF class to a State regulated CCW class. Yes, you need more skill to ride the cycle. If we were to compare a Gunfighting class to a MotoGP class my answer would be the same - riding takes more skill than shooting.

"The law is the law" is a slippery slope. There are thousands of "regulatory" laws by the feds where breaking them could mean jail time. That should not be the case nor should you arrest the guy because he cut the class in half (I agree it wasn't a smart thing to do).

Every regulatory law that includes the possibility of arrests basically makes criminals out of citizens.

Another example: You roll thru a 4 way stop on a county road at 5am going to work. No other cars are out but the Sheriff sees you and writes you. You broke the law, He was within his right to cite you but perhaps better discretion could have been used.