Instructor Arrested and Charged - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Instructor Arrested and Charged

  1. #31
    so what else do you THINK that I was pointing out, hmm? What's everyone's problem with somebody who DOES post and DOES start interesting new threads? Do I make you feel ignorant/lazy, or what? :-) This is a gun/shooting/survival, etc, forum. That's what I post about, and what you do is CRY about it. Why is that the case, hmm? Why aint YOU starting gun topics and posing questions and pointing out solutions? Why not come on out on the field, with the real "players", instead of merely jeering from the sidelines?

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by thru View Post
    so what else do you THINK that I was pointing out, hmm? What's everyone's problem with somebody who DOES post and DOES start interesting new threads? Do I make you feel ignorant/lazy, or what? :-) This is a gun/shooting/survival, etc, forum. That's what I post about, and what you do is CRY about it. Why is that the case, hmm? Why aint YOU starting gun topics and posing questions and pointing out solutions? Why not come on out on the field, with the real "players", instead of merely jeering from the sidelines?
    Not sure who you're referring to in that vague post, since you obviously haven't learned how to use the quote button. But everyone I've seen that you could be referring to, including myself, post and and questions and answer questions on a regular/daily basis. You're right, this is exactly that type of forum. The information people take from this site could possibly determine whether or not they survive in a life or death situation. I haven't seen any comment you've made yet that would actually help somebody out. I've only seen you do 2 things: boast and talk down to people. That isn't what this forum is about.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by ohiocycler View Post
    Hmmm. I think we are past arguing the 2nd amendment. The question is that if the students were told that he was creating a shortcut and that they were supposed to lie about it then it is wrong. We all have the right to bear arms.. We do not however have the right to conceal carry without the proper training and credentials. I think that there are a couple of issues here. I am an instructor who had to go through many many hours to get my certifications. I would not jeopardize my license to make a quick buck and put people out on the street with insufficient knowledge about safety and the law. It is however great to be an American. A lot of crap going through the house and senate that scares me, but I do uphold the law. It's just better in my personal situation.
    Really? We don't have the right to concealed carry? Let me reread that ... "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Wait a minute. I think you are wrong. It says right there that the right to keep your arms and to bear them shall not be infringed. If you have to ask permission and go through mandatory training before you bear them in a certain fashion, that surely sounds like an infringement. However, I've been wrong before... my government told me that.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  5. Quote Originally Posted by ohiocycler View Post
    Hmmm. I think we are past arguing the 2nd amendment. The question is that if the students were told that he was creating a shortcut and that they were supposed to lie about it then it is wrong. We all have the right to bear arms.. We do not however have the right to conceal carry without the proper training and credentials. I think that there are a couple of issues here. I am an instructor who had to go through many many hours to get my certifications. I would not jeopardize my license to make a quick buck and put people out on the street with insufficient knowledge about safety and the law. It is however great to be an American. A lot of crap going through the house and senate that scares me, but I do uphold the law. It's just better in my personal situation.
    Definitely have to agree with wolf here...concealed carry falls under the word "bear". "Keep" means the actual owning of a gun. "Bear" applies to carrying something about your person. So if I have a cell phone on a holster on my belt, I am bearing a cell phone. But you don't think I am still bearing a cell phone if I put it in my pocket and it's now concealed? Nah, the only way you could make the argument work that we don't have the right to carry is if you completely misinterpret the word "bear". But honestly, I don't see how you could do that because I wouldn't even know where to get a pair of bear arms, and I doubt I'd like the fact that they were being killed just for their arms...

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    18
    This may make me wildly unpopular, but I will say it anyway.

    This story has zero to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with falsifying documents.

    The NRA, in an attempt to remove fear and stigma of gun ownership/public carry developed a minimum safety course. It is the NRA's own standard.

    Having made no bones about the facts as they exist for me - that until I took that course last month, I never even held a gun before that class.

    And here is where I am going to be unpopular. I don't think it was enough. I would like to see it be a 16 hour class. The NRA gave me a certificate that says I am qualified to own, carry, and shoot a gun. I think the first 8 hours of the course should cover the laws, the basics - etc. The second 8 hours should be proper handling, and actual handling.

    Despite the fact that I took that class, I still feel wholly inept as far as proper loading, unloading, clearing the chamber - etc. But according to the safety guidelines set by the NRA itself, I still qualify for a CCW.

    Some places already have that 16 hour course set and those are places who statistically have lower and less serious "accidental shootings". I think everyone can agree a great number of instances where someone has been shot comes two ways----criminals and in experienced gun owners making big mistakes.

    I think that everyone can agree that if there were less of the inexperienced owners, we will see a lot less accidental shootings. I'm not talking about the people who operate outside the law and have a gun to protect their drug stash or to exact a turf war. I'm talking about the guy who thought that he had to do nothing else but slip the magazine out of his gun, but didn't clear the chamber and ended up shooting a member of his family.

    The worst parts of this story is that this guy was trusted by the NRA, by the State, and by the Federal government to perform certain duties. He was trusted by every day, normal citizens who wanted to do things the correct way - to learn how to be safe and competent. He defrauded everyone. The duties which he was entrusted to do, he did not do. People who thought they were doing it right are now faced with the fact that they didn't, that they handed over their hard earned money to a huckster. And they certainly did not get what they paid for.

    It is things like this that weaken the 2nd amendment arguments and strengthen the gun control lobbyists because it paints all gun owners in a bad way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

  7. Quote Originally Posted by ChristiAnne Elkins View Post
    This may make me wildly unpopular, but I will say it anyway.

    This story has zero to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with falsifying documents.

    The NRA, in an attempt to remove fear and stigma of gun ownership/public carry developed a minimum safety course. It is the NRA's own standard.

    Having made no bones about the facts as they exist for me - that until I took that course last month, I never even held a gun before that class.

    And here is where I am going to be unpopular. I don't think it was enough. I would like to see it be a 16 hour class. The NRA gave me a certificate that says I am qualified to own, carry, and shoot a gun. I think the first 8 hours of the course should cover the laws, the basics - etc. The second 8 hours should be proper handling, and actual handling.

    Despite the fact that I took that class, I still feel wholly inept as far as proper loading, unloading, clearing the chamber - etc. But according to the safety guidelines set by the NRA itself, I still qualify for a CCW.

    Some places already have that 16 hour course set and those are places who statistically have lower and less serious "accidental shootings". I think everyone can agree a great number of instances where someone has been shot comes two ways----criminals and in experienced gun owners making big mistakes.

    I think that everyone can agree that if there were less of the inexperienced owners, we will see a lot less accidental shootings. I'm not talking about the people who operate outside the law and have a gun to protect their drug stash or to exact a turf war. I'm talking about the guy who thought that he had to do nothing else but slip the magazine out of his gun, but didn't clear the chamber and ended up shooting a member of his family.

    The worst parts of this story is that this guy was trusted by the NRA, by the State, and by the Federal government to perform certain duties. He was trusted by every day, normal citizens who wanted to do things the correct way - to learn how to be safe and competent. He defrauded everyone. The duties which he was entrusted to do, he did not do. People who thought they were doing it right are now faced with the fact that they didn't, that they handed over their hard earned money to a huckster. And they certainly did not get what they paid for.

    It is things like this that weaken the 2nd amendment arguments and strengthen the gun control lobbyists because it paints all gun owners in a bad way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
    I think you are partly right. Yes, everyone should WANT to be educated on how to handle a gun if they intend to do so. However mandating it absolutely is a violation. In my opinion, the courses emphasize the fact that carrying a gun is taboo. If accidental shootings is the concern, be concerned no more. Statistically there are less than 1,000 accidental gun deaths per year. That's less than 3 people per day out of about 315,000,000 people. Being the country that accounts for the majority of all gun ownership in the world, I'd say that's a pretty darn good statistic. You'll never eliminate them all.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    18
    AndeyHall

    I am not disagreeing with you - but my argument relates specifically to the fact that this guy committed fraud.

    He advertised that he was providing a service in exchange for money. He did not provide that service.

    To take it in a different light, let us change the profession and service offered.

    Mr X advertises in various publications that he is a mechanic, and he specializes in brakes.

    Dozens and dozens of people go to Mr X to have their brakes fixed. Mr X does not fix their brakes but he says he did.

    Mr X has committed fraud. He certified he did something in exchange for money. That is the theory of the law under which this person was arrested. Mass media is the one that is shouting from the rooftops about the fact that it was gun instruction fraud as opposed to auto repair fraud. It's a hot button issue. It sells news.

    Like I said - the arrest really has zero to do with 2nd A -- and everything to do with fraud


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristiAnne Elkins View Post
    AndeyHall

    I am not disagreeing with you - but my argument relates specifically to the fact that this guy committed fraud.

    He advertised that he was providing a service in exchange for money. He did not provide that service.

    To take it in a different light, let us change the profession and service offered.

    Mr X advertises in various publications that he is a mechanic, and he specializes in brakes.

    Dozens and dozens of people go to Mr X to have their brakes fixed. Mr X does not fix their brakes but he says he did.

    Mr X has committed fraud. He certified he did something in exchange for money. That is the theory of the law under which this person was arrested. Mass media is the one that is shouting from the rooftops about the fact that it was gun instruction fraud as opposed to auto repair fraud. It's a hot button issue. It sells news.

    Like I said - the arrest really has zero to do with 2nd A -- and everything to do with fraud


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
    I cannot argue your point. You are correct. However, I think this thread got convoluted that we have missed each other's points.

    If a law that violates our Constitutional rights is enacted, should anyone be arrested, charged and prosecuted under that law? The answer is a vehement NO.

    You are correct, he defrauded his clients. But the necessity to perform the training for a permit is un-Constitutional. Therefore, the other side of the coin is should he even be prosecuted? My answer is no.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  10. Quote Originally Posted by ChristiAnne Elkins View Post
    AndeyHall

    I am not disagreeing with you - but my argument relates specifically to the fact that this guy committed fraud.

    He advertised that he was providing a service in exchange for money. He did not provide that service.

    To take it in a different light, let us change the profession and service offered.

    Mr X advertises in various publications that he is a mechanic, and he specializes in brakes.

    Dozens and dozens of people go to Mr X to have their brakes fixed. Mr X does not fix their brakes but he says he did.

    Mr X has committed fraud. He certified he did something in exchange for money. That is the theory of the law under which this person was arrested. Mass media is the one that is shouting from the rooftops about the fact that it was gun instruction fraud as opposed to auto repair fraud. It's a hot button issue. It sells news.

    Like I said - the arrest really has zero to do with 2nd A -- and everything to do with fraud


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
    I understand where you're coming from but I'm trying to open it up to a bigger picture. Like wolf said, yes he did fraudulently certify that he was doing something he wasn't. But the documents he fraudulently signed were documents that unconstitutionally existed in the first place. So what does that mean if you break a law that shouldn't exist in the first place?

    The best example I can come up with is during the 30's in Europe when the Nazis made it illegal to harbor Jews. Were the people who were harboring Jews criminals or were they simply breaking the law that they knew violated their basic human rights to help someone else out? I know this is an extreme example but it's the best case I can pull from the top of my head.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    The way I see it, unfortunately, is that in this instance you have to take the Constitution out of it. This is about business. Period. He didn't decide to make the law requiring the class. He just profited from it. The customer did not come up with the requirement for training either, but the government has deemed the class necessary and we haven't beaten them yet.
    -
    Simple facts - the customer paid for a service/product that did not satisfy the requirements that the seller promised. The seller knew this and didn't care about anything but the profit, for as little effort as possible (Obama voters would love it...). Regardless of constitutionality this guy is a fraud and a thief and should go to jail. Think about if you were on the "trainee" side of it.
    Chief

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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