1911Forum banner
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Champ 2

I am a CCDW trainer in the county where the Sheriff was teaching, ( edmonson county )I can tell you some of the things he didn't do and how he got into trouble,,, and yes some of the fine folks that got their license through him, are being required to complete another class at their expense.. it's a bummer, when word get's out about this,,, how many states may reconsider their reciprocity agreement with Kentucky. There is a lot more involved in this than people know,, the bad part is a lot of it will never come out because he is an elected official..:barf:
 
It will be interesting to wait until facts become public.

In Kentucky, a sheriff's department can charge a fee for conducting classes for Carrying Concealed Deadly Weapons Permits, and send a portion of the fee to the State. The rest of the fee becomes department revenue. It may be temping to conduct as many classes as possible in order to get as much revenue as possible. It will be interesting to see if that is the root of the evil.

Billy Joe is no stranger to financial controversy. He and his department were found by an auditor in 2003 to "lack adequate segregation of duties", which means the same guy who collects money is also the one who enters it into department ledgers and deposits it in the bank. No evidence was mentioned that money was misappropriated, but it was noted that the department was financially weak in both management and revenue. It is also fair to note that this is a very small department with few staff. Lack of segregation of duties and weak revenue is typical of small public organizations everywhere, and that isn't going to change.

Trigger,,, I am new on the forum and catching up on all of the good information.. You seem to be in the know,,,, The one thing I would point out,, is the money from the classes does not become, department revenue,, it goes into his pocket. His teaching of the CCDW classes is not related to the Sheriff's Office, it is his personal business. I set up on the forum to receive e-mail, if you want to communicate..
 
Anyone that took a course from this guy should be worried. If the class they took doesn't meet the state requirements, the CCW will be void.
Mark,,, you got it right,,, I have had two people attend one of my classes, they had a CCDW license, but were given a specific time frame to get recertified ( at an additional expense )or loose the license.
 
Just goes to show the difference between "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" states. When one individual has all the power, corruption shall soon follow.
Kind of a "catch 22". I'm totally in favor of "Shall Issue" as we have in KY. It prevents a lot of games being played by those that issue the permits. However, when they have to issue I think it creates some laziness on the part of the instructors. Many years ago (things may be different now) when I took the course the only range requirement was to put a few rounds inside the black outline of a full size body at 7 yds. A chimpanzee could do that! I know I walked out of that session glad to have my license but wondering how many people were going to be out there packing but still didn't know how to shoot!:(
 
What is the difference?

How many people are out there that don't really know how to drive?
This is exactly the same thing.
I live in KY and am constantly amazed at the number of people that don't know the basic rules for driving.
Just because people have a CCDW permit doesn't mean that they actually do carry.
I would estimate the percentage of people that have a permit and actually carry at 50%
Because it is a right, people are going to continue to obtain a permit.

If you think that your requirements should be imposed on everyone, you are the same as the group that wants to ban your guns.

Just be glad that the people that choose to obtain a permit are on our side!
 
Timm said:
I took a course in Maine a few years ago to get a CC permit and there were several inexperienced people in my class. We spent about 3 hours in class and then after lunch we each shot 6 rounds with the instructor's revolver. It didn't matter that several couldn't hit the target from ten feet. Everyone passed anyway. It scared me to think that this was all that is required here. I've taken several advanced handgun classes since then from instructors who were police training instructors and SWAT members and the courses were very well taught. It happens all over the country I bet. -Tim
Where does either the United States or the Maine constitution say anything about having to fire any rounds or hit anything with them before being "allowed" to carry a weapon for self-defense?

I should state that I'm not a fan of anyone having to get a permit to carry. What actually bothers me is knowing that the government set up this program and students "graduate" thinking that they are qualified to shoot. -Tim
I doubt it. I think students probably think they are now legally allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Even stupid people know when they miss the target six out of six times. They know they're not "qualified" -- but since the requirement for qualification is an unconstitutional requirement anyway, I choose not to concern myself with it. At least this way they know they're a lousy shot, and maybe down the road they'll practice or take some training. In a purely Constitutional world, everyone could buy and carry a belt-mounted blaster and never fire a single shot to even see if they know how to load the fool thing.
 
If you think that your requirements should be imposed on everyone, you are the same as the group that wants to ban your guns.

Just be glad that the people that choose to obtain a permit are on our side!
....just where did you read "my requirements"???? And, don't ever, ever accuse me of being in the gun banning group!!!
I don't think law abiding American Citizens should even have to have a permit or license to carry arms. BUT, I do firmly believe that if one is going to carry a lethal weapon one should know how to use it.
Be careful in your judgements!
 
....just where did you read "my requirements"???? And, don't ever, ever accuse me of being in the gun banning group!!!
I don't think law abiding American Citizens should even have to have a permit or license to carry arms. BUT, I do firmly believe that if one is going to carry a lethal weapon one should know how to use it.
Be careful in your judgements!
Don't jump him, as he got precisely the same impression that I did from your post.
You seem to have cleared it up a little with your second post, however.
 
Don't jump him, as he got precisely the same impression that I did from your post.
You seem to have cleared it up a little with your second post, however.
Sorry, to you and him! I admit to getting defensive when accused of agreeing with gun banners. I would love it if we were like Vermont or Alaska but I'm glad for what we do have. Let me try to clear it up just a little bit more...I don't believe there should be "requirements" to carry except for some types of convicted felons and mentally challenged persons. However when I got my license many years ago there was a person in the class that was unable to keep the rounds in the target at 7 yds. AND after the instructor had called "all clear" and was talking to us that same person turned around and discharged a round into the ceiling of the range. The instructor still passed the individual!!!!:confused: I certainly think at the very least the instructor should have let them know they weren't ready to start carrying.
 
I have a CWP here in Colorado. When I took the class, my instructor was a retired LEO and SWAT instructor, and he was very thorough and no-nonsense. I'd have to look it up, but I believe the Colorado "training requirement" is just an NRA-approved firearms safety class, and not really any specific "CCW" training, although that's what the classes are all billed as.

After the classroom time, he took us to a private range to shoot for a couple hours. There was NO requirements to "qualify", just his personal desire to see that we all could handle the guns safely and make 'em go BANG in the right direction. Our targets were sheets of white printer paper. Didn't matter if we could hit 'em or not, it was all about handling the guns safely per his instructions.
 
I know you guys are being very careful in your posts. You recognize that there is a big difference between choosing to take extensive training and being required to take extensive training. There is nothing in the Second Amendment requiring classes in marksmanship, drawing a weapon from a concealment garment, surgical speed shooting, or anything else. The Constitution doesn't even talk about concealed carry. It simply asserts the right to Keep and Bear Arms. In 230 years we've gotten pretty far from that simple assertion.
Then how do you interpret the "well regulated militia" clause? If you don't want it to mean "restricted" then we should accept it's meaning in the old sense as in "well trained". "Well regulated militia" and RTKBA appear in the same sentence for a reason. We are armed so as to protect the security of a free state - that's the most logical interpretation of the single sentence that makes up the second amendment. Weapons training therefore becomes a constitutional obligation of all able-bodied American men. I see nothing wrong with such an obligation. You could even make an argument that weapons training must be tought in public schools.
 
Then how do you interpret the "well regulated militia" clause? If you don't want it to mean "restricted" then we should accept it's meaning in the old sense as in "well trained". "Well regulated militia" and RTKBA appear in the same sentence for a reason. We are armed so as to protect the security of a free state - that's the most logical interpretation of the single sentence that makes up the second amendment. Weapons training therefore becomes a constitutional obligation of all able-bodied American men. I see nothing wrong with such an obligation. You could even make an argument that weapons training must be tought in public schools.
I disagree.
"Well regulated" is referred to as a reason for the RKBA to not be infringed, not a requirement for it.
Proficiency is a desirable and necessary result, not a prerequisite of RKBA.

p.s., I agree that weapons training should be a part of curriculum.
 
I agree that weapons training should be a part of curriculum.
It wasn't in school, but when I was 10 or so my parents signed me up for a shooting class/team ran by The Police Athletic League at the local LEO indoor range. Mid-60's era, it was wayyyyy cool! I loved it! Single-shot Remingtons w/peep sights, it was great! I take my 10-yr. old grandson out shooting whenever we can and he loves it.
 
The one thing I would point out,, is the money from the classes does not become, department revenue,, it goes into his pocket. His teaching of the CCDW classes is not related to the Sheriff's Office, it is his personal business.
That sounds like a conflict of interests to me. If the Sheriffs in KY issue the CCW permits like they do here in OH, then he should not have been teaching any CCW classes, unless he was teaching under official capacity and the funds went to the county. I think all those who took his class should be asking him for refunds or asking him to pay for the required "qualified" instruction.

I took my CCW class from a trio of Deputy sheriffs (and assistants). They made it very clear that their company/CCW training class was in no way shape or form affiliated with our county's sheriff's dept, even though all three owners/partners were active deputy sheriffs/SWAT members.

Before taking my $75, 12 hour CCW class, I was informed that for $100 (CASH ONLY), I could get a "completed CCW instruction certificate" from a guy in a parking lot... all that was needed was 4 other people who wanted these certificates. :barf: I declined... I actually had a good time taking the CCW class (10 hours classroom and 2 hours range time). The only "issue" I had with the class I took... you did not have to bring and shoot the gun(s) you planned on actually carrying. For example... my buddy brought a SA .22LR revolver to class. :biglaugh: I asked him if that was what he planned on carrying... he said "No way, I'll probably carry my 357 snubby or Colt Commander (.45)." So why bring your Bisley to class? "cause I know I can hit the target with it" :eek:
I told him the class would go through 100 rounds of ammo... I think he only had .22LR on hand and didn't have time to go out and buy center fire ammo for class (they didn't allow hand loaded ammo). Quite a few others also brought .22LR to class.
 
I disagree.
"Well regulated" is referred to as a reason for the RKBA to not be infringed, not a requirement for it.
I see your point.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To me it sounds like "shall not be infringed" means neither the militia nor the RTKBA should be infringed. Also, to me, it sounds like it's assumed that the states will make sure that their militias will be well regulated, though the federal government has no authority to infringe on state militias. So the right to form and regulate (train) a militia is left upto each individual state. It follows that the constitution does not prevent a state from passing what ever CCW laws it deems fit to pass so long as they (the laws) (1) serve the purpose of training (regulating) the individuals who would make up the state militia and (2) preserve the RTKBA.
 
I see your point.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To me it sounds like "shall not be infringed" means neither the militia nor the RTKBA should be infringed. Also, to me, it sounds like it's assumed that the states will make sure that their militias will be well regulated, though the federal government has no authority to infringe on state militias. So the right to form and regulate (train) a militia is left upto each individual state. It follows that the constitution does not prevent a state from passing what ever CCW laws it deems fit to pass so long as they (the laws) (1) serve the purpose of training (regulating) the individuals who would make up the state militia and (2) preserve the RTKBA.
Except that "the militia" is not a state run entity. It is comprised of all able bodied males, I believe aged 18-45.(somebody correct me if I'm wrong on age)
So it's not "their militia", it's us. And it's a personal responsibility issue to seek training and become "well regulated". The state's only part is to not "infringe" our RKBA so as to empower us for "regulation" to be achieved.
 
Except that "the militia" is not a state run entity. It is comprised of all able bodied males, I believe aged 18-45.(somebody correct me if I'm wrong on age)
So it's not "their militia", it's us.
To my knowledge, this assertion has little basis in reality. Since the time of ratification there have never been any combat viable military units in this country that were not subject to state government control (save for indian tribes :)). Local militias executed policing functions autonomously from state goverment oversight, to be sure, but ultimate control rested with the state; for the single fact that all municipalities in a given state exist at the pleasure of state government. Municipal officials were in charge of calling up a militia and supplying a militia with materials that individuals could not supply themselves. If municipalities are under state control, it follows then that militias are under state control as well. The best example of that is mobilization of local militias in the beginning of the civil war, on both sides.
SistemaTodd said:
And it's a personal responsibility issue to seek training and become "well regulated".
based on where gun legislation stands today, I couldn't agree more.
 
To my knowledge, this assertion has little basis in reality. Since the time of ratification there have never been any combat viable military units in this country that were not subject to state government control (save for indian tribes :)). Local militias executed policing functions autonomously from state goverment oversight, to be sure, but ultimate control rested with the state; for the single fact that all municipalities in a given state exist at the pleasure of state government. Municipal officials were in charge of calling up a militia and supplying a militia with materials that individuals could not supply themselves. If municipalities are under state control, it follows then that militias are under state control as well. The best example of that is mobilization of local militias in the beginning of the civil war, on both sides.
To me, this rings more like an early form of the National Guard than a true "militia", as other writings of Jefferson referred to it.

Oh well, I could be wrong(though it would be the first time :D ).
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top