Instructor Arrested and Charged - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Instructor Arrested and Charged

  1. The Constitution doesn't say one danged word about concealment, so the difference is only in the "minds' of those who distrust their fellow man. I know full well how few can really handle a gun in a tense situation, but I know that having such problems is better than letting tyrants decide who will be free to defend themselves.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    I have to disagree with you. Since the 10th Amendment says that the states have no jurisdiction on anything granted to the federal government (i.e. the 2nd), then how is it that all these state laws regarding gun rights and permits are not unconstitutional? Some states don't allow CC, some require a permit, some permits accept military training and some don't, some require an eye exam. My point is that it is a right not granted by the state, so how can they add stipulations? IMHO there should be NO state gun laws or permits. It is constitutional right, and ANY regulation limiting that right is an infringement. I don't think the founders considered banning felons from owning guns, because they knew how to deal with felons back then...

    In the instance of the training (or lack thereof) I think that simply trusting that anyone legal to buy a gun is going to be safe with it is ridiculous. Not everyone's dad teaches them about safety, and not everyone has had military training. I don't think licenses or permits are important, but I think the training is imperative! I think "Fitch said hes hoping other instructors will voluntarily offer free classes to Crangles graduates" is stupid. How about you make him pay back everyone that he shortchanged so they don't have to pay twice for the training? Crangle needs to have his permits revoked, have his license to instruct revoked. He's a crook, plain and simple. He charged a fee for a service he did not provide.
    I'd like to add that on top of the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment, which gave the states the right to govern themselves after the civil war, made it clear that although they could pass laws for themselves, they ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT pass any law contradicting the Bill of Rights.

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    Just move to WA, pay your $52 and call it a day. No class required. Or OR where you can do a free class on line in 20 minutes.
    What is the web address of the free on line class?

  5. #24
    I am an NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer and An Endowment Life Member.

    Someone should revoke ALL his NRA membership privileges.

    Reading the story, one bad instructor was pushed to the point of killing himself. Hope that does not happen here.

    While this is serious, it does not go to the extreme of falsifying a Hawaiian birth record, and becoming president of the united states.

    If we are going to straighten out all the falisified paperwork ever submitted, lets start at the top and work down.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lacey, WA
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock20 View Post
    What is the web address of the free on line class?
    MD Firearms Safety Training

  7. #26
    show me in the Bill of Rights or in the writings of our Framers where they said that concealed weapons are not protected by the Constitution. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. ccw requirements are an infringement,and by law, null and void. With RARE exceptions, military "training' doesn't amount to a rat's behind, even with the rifle. I was an MP and fired a whoopee 50 rds with the 1911. I'm sure that things are not any better in today's military. IF you have an infantry MOS, you MIGHT get a bit more work with the rifle than the 200 rds of slowfire that I got, but over a million men of my generaation went to Nam with no more than such basic training with the rifle, (and NONE with the handgun). What training that we got with the pistol was Bullsye bs, and that's all.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by thru View Post
    show me in the Bill of Rights or in the writings of our Framers where they said that concealed weapons are not protected by the Constitution. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. ccw requirements are an infringement,and by law, null and void. With RARE exceptions, military "training' doesn't amount to a rat's behind, even with the rifle. I was an MP and fired a whoopee 50 rds with the 1911. I'm sure that things are not any better in today's military. IF you have an infantry MOS, you MIGHT get a bit more work with the rifle than the 200 rds of slowfire that I got, but over a million men of my generaation went to Nam with no more than such basic training with the rifle, (and NONE with the handgun). What training that we got with the pistol was Bullsye bs, and that's all.
    So basically what you're saying is that CC is an infringement, but waiving that infringement for military makes you mad. Hmmm.
    Chief

  9. Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    So basically what you're saying is that CC is an infringement, but waiving that infringement for military makes you mad. Hmmm.
    I'm confused as to where he was trying to go with that comment. Most of his comments have no point to them they are just random rants. All I got was CC laws are an infringement and the military doesn't train enough with their pistols or rifles.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by thru View Post
    show me in the Bill of Rights or in the writings of our Framers where they said that concealed weapons are not protected by the Constitution. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. ccw requirements are an infringement,and by law, null and void. With RARE exceptions, military "training' doesn't amount to a rat's behind, even with the rifle. I was an MP and fired a whoopee 50 rds with the 1911. I'm sure that things are not any better in today's military. IF you have an infantry MOS, you MIGHT get a bit more work with the rifle than the 200 rds of slowfire that I got, but over a million men of my generaation went to Nam with no more than such basic training with the rifle, (and NONE with the handgun). What training that we got with the pistol was Bullsye bs, and that's all.
    Thru, those on here who believe that ccw requirements are constitutional are very rare and very few and far between. You're preaching to the choir on that bit so you're not really hitting on anything new there. But until you find someone (cause I doubt you'll want to volunteer yourself) who is willing to undergo all the legal procedures and expenses to take that issue to the Supreme Court, then it's a useless argument. Because the fact of the matter is, as the Supreme Court currently stands, they believe that they have the authority to strip us of any rights they see fit as long as it is in the name of "public safety" or "national security". And that's exactly how they get away with it now. So sure, under the 2nd amendment, the fact that South Carolina requires me to go through all that bs to get a CWP is 100% unconstitutional. But unless I can find a dang good attorney who is willing to go for it pro bono, I doubt I would get very far on the (barely) 5-digit-a-year salary I'm making right now.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    The simple answer is they lied on a legal document. Now is the law valid if it violates the 2nd Amendment?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast