• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Getting Ticked with Pistol Course....

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
excuse me?

quote mamaliberity: There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire,....unquote...ps: geeeeezzzz, come on people at least provide some semblance of viable information that can't be readily verified.

She did. Misquoting her does not make it something other than what she said.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
MamaLiberty's statement, "...I stand squarely behind my statement, which has nothing at all to do with the AZ "permit..." is unmistakably and unequivocally correct.

That it has noting to do with the original poster's attempt to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit is just as correct.
No one is denying that range-time is required for Basic Pistol or Fists Steps, we're just saying that NEITHER is a requirement to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit as the original poster is attempting to do.

Falls, you are completely incorrect. The Basic Pistol and First Steps both require live fire.
To get those two certifications, live fire is required. These also fill the requirement for the CC permit as stated, whether the permit requires live fire or not.
Non sequitur, Although those two classes do require live fire, the NRA Home Firearm Safety Course does not.
1) The class is offered by the NRA and as such is an NRA class.
2) IAW the Arizona Revised Statutes, (q.v.), a live fire class is not a requirement.
3) That the classes mentioned by MamaLiberty also meet[/i[ the ARS requirements is immaterial as Hunter Safety course that also do not require live-fire meet the statutory requirement.

That would make me.... completely correct.... as I never made the statement that live-fire wasn't a requirement for NRA Basic Pistol or First Steps. The statement I made was that live-fire was NOT a requirement for obtaining an Arizona non-resident permit and I also provided citations for same.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
MamaLiberty's statement, "...I stand squarely behind my statement, which has nothing at all to do with the AZ "permit..." is unmistakably and unequivocally correct.
Then why did you try to claim that statement was false?
Falls said:
That it has noting to do with the original poster's attempt to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit is just as correct.
No one is denying that range-time is required for Basic Pistol or Fists Steps, we're just saying that NEITHER is a requirement to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit as the original poster is attempting to do.
Actually, EITHER course would qualify for the permit, but so will other courses. The op was attempting to take a course, took it, did the live fire, and the fool instructor tried to tell him he had more requirements. The OP didn't try to claim those were requirements. In fact, he tried to argue that the instructor was wrong, ant those weren't requirements.

Falls said:
Non sequitur, Although those two classes do require live fire, the NRA Home Firearm Safety Course does not.
1) The class is offered by the NRA and as such is an NRA class.
2) IAW the Arizona Revised Statutes, (q.v.), a live fire class is not a requirement.
3) That the classes mentioned by MamaLiberty also meet[/i[ the ARS requirements is immaterial as Hunter Safety course that also do not require live-fire meet the statutory requirement.
No one claimed that only NRA live-fire courses fit, except the fool instructor.
Falls said:
That would make me.... completely correct.... as I never made the statement that live-fire wasn't a requirement for NRA Basic Pistol or First Steps. The statement I made was that live-fire was NOT a requirement for obtaining an Arizona non-resident permit and I also provided citations for same.

...
training is a good thing, but your statement that "...There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire, either basic pistol or first steps..." is factually incorrect.

So, how can her statement be factually incorrect, unless you are claiming that either basic pistol or first steps does not require live fire?

You claimed she was wrong. SHE stated that the Basic Pistol and First Steps required live fire. You argued that some other course didn't. HER statement was completely correct, and the statement you made to attempt to prove her wrong WAS incorrect.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Ahhh, I think I see where your misunderstanding comes from.
MamaLiberty's statement was, and I quote:
MamaLiberty said:
There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire, either basic pistol or first steps."
- emphasis is mine.
That statement is as false as me stating "There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a living thing in your house is related to you, either your dog, or your ficus plant." - it presents a false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy.

I offer the following in rebuttle,
1) The NRA offers classes.
2) One of the courses offered by the NRA is the Home Firearm Safety Course
3) The syllabus of the NRA Home Firearm Safety Course states "Short Description : Non-shooting course and teaches students the basic knowledge, skills, and to explain the attitude necessary for the safe handling and storage of firearms and ammunition in the home.

More Details: This is a four-hour course for safe gun handling that is conducted in the classroom only. Students are taught NRA’s three rules for safe gun handling; primary causes of firearms accidents; firearm parts; how to unload certain action types; ammunition components; cleaning; care; safe storage of firearms in the home; and the benefits of becoming an active participant in the shooting sports. Students will receive the NRA Home Firearm Safety handbook, NRA Gun Safety Rules brochure, Basic Firearm Training Program brochure, course completion certificate. (Lesson Plan 6-90, reprint 12-08).


Therefore:
The statement that there can be no possible way for a legitimate claim that a class is NRA without live fire is demonstrably incorrect.

I did not and do not dispute that NRA Basic Pistol or NRA First Steps require live fire, I am disputing that an NRA class that doesn't offer live fire is illegitimate and not an NRA class.

Had MamaLiberty posted "There is no way to legitimately claim that neither NRA Basic Pistol nor NRA First Steps requires live fire" she would have been correct and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Now, why is it non sequitur?
Because life fire is Not a requirement to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit.
Which are:
N. An applicant shall demonstrate competence with a firearm through any of the following:

1. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class that is available to the general public, that is offered by a law enforcement agency, a junior college, a college or a private or public institution, academy, organization or firearms training school and that is approved by the department of public safety or that uses instructors who are certified by the national rifle association.

2. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Arizona game and fish department or a similar agency of another state.

3. Completion of any national rifle association firearms safety or training course.

4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies or other divisions or subdivisions of law enforcement or security enforcement and that is approved by the department of public safety.

5. Evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces.

6. A valid current or expired concealed weapon, firearm or handgun permit or license that is issued by another state or a political subdivision of another state and that has a training or testing requirement for initial issuance.

7. Completion of any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualification to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties.

8. Completion of any other firearms safety or training course or class that is conducted by a department of public safety approved or national rifle association certified firearms instructor.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Ahhh, I think I see where your misunderstanding comes from.
MamaLiberty's statement was, and I quote:
- emphasis is mine.

Your emphasis makes her statement something it wasn't intended to be. Instead of understanding that, you are arguing against something that wasn't stated, wasting all the forum space and time, seemingly just to attempt to argue against someone.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Your emphasis makes her statement something it wasn't intended to be. Instead of understanding that, you are arguing against something that wasn't stated, wasting all the forum space and time, seemingly just to attempt to argue against someone.
If that statement is not what she intended to say, then I'll be more than happy to apologize after MamaLiberty clarifies it. Perhaps she did indeed mean that a course could legitimately be an NRA course without requiring a live fire exercise.

I will note, however, that I wasn't the one that droned on and on, ad nauseam about life fire exercises when said exercise is not a requirement to obtain the license the original poster was trying to obtain.
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Dreamer said:
You should report him to the NRA Instructors Certification office.
+1 to this.
If he advertised an NRA course, he has to hold to their standards.
If he advertised a non-NRA course as an NRA course, he's in trouble.
If he advertised a non-NRA course & mentioned that he is an NRA instructor, that's kosher.
If the NRA course & non-NRA course were advertised together, the non-NRA course has to be clearly labelled as such. No fine print or other tricks.

MamaLiberty said:
We were talking ONLY about the basic pistol and first steps class.
No, you said: "There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire", then gave 2 examples of NRA classes that require live fire.
As has been shown, that original statement is incorrect.
Speak/write more precisely.
And the OP was talking generally about AZ requiring a safety course, which has been shown (statute & FAQ quotes) not to require live fire.

wrightme said:
Your emphasis makes her statement something it wasn't intended to be.
...you are arguing against something that wasn't stated...
Her statement "is what it is". If she didn't intend to say "There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire", she shouldn't have said that. She should have said what she meant, which was that First Steps & Basic Pistol require live fire... which is true.

ML said:
I seriously discourage novice students from even considering a "permit" until they have completed the basic pistol, self defense in the home, and the self defense OUTSIDE the home classes.
So I still shouldn't be carrying, since I only have Basic Pistol + Pistol Instructor certification + an assortment of non-NRA training?
Why is my right to self-defense limited based on training?
(Answer: it isn't, nor should it be.)
And actually, I had one license after taking a very basic 2-hour private lesson, which was the first time I'd shot a pistol. Not that I thought I was hot stuff, or had any illusions about being able to shoot well, but guns are pretty much point & click.
Now I can point & click considerably better than I could then. :D

ML said:
If the "permit" is such a joke there... and doesn't require any meaningful training, why bother with it at all?
In some states it's illegal to carry w/o a permit.
In most states it's illegal to carry concealed w/o a permit. Wisconsin is one such, with similarly whimpy training requirements.
Another reason would be those pesky "GF"SZ. Until the federal law is changed it's still a crime.

Until citizens make it clear to their elected officials that such bad laws must be removed from play, it's the law.
Not that it's right to infringe the 2A, but that's the current state of affairs.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire, either basic pistol or first steps.

That is exactly what she said. And, she specifically defined it as about the basic pistol or first steps multiple times. If others desire to misrepresent it to argue against her, that isn't useful, other than to show that you can argue.

She could have worded it better. But, the meaning was there, AND repeated as being only about basic pistol and first steps.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Her statement "is what it is". If she didn't intend to say "There is NO possible way to legitimately claim a class is NRA without live fire", she shouldn't have said that. She should have said what she meant, which was that First Steps & Basic Pistol require live fire... which is true.

Her statement "is what it is," but you are being false when you cut the end of her statement off, and ignore her responses where she clearly indicates exactly what she was stating.

She said that 'first steps and basic pistol require live fire;' just not in the sentence structure you use.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
... and you're are ignoring the first half of her statement.
My apologies; but the basic sentence structure of the English language does not support your supposition.

We can of course, always let MamaLiberty explain what she meant by her statement; does she mean there in NO way a class can be a legitimate NRA class without live fire, or does she mean there is no legitimate way a class can be an NRA Basic Pistol or NRA First Steps class without live fire?
And I can't seem to recall anyone disagreeing with the latter.

Should it come to pass that she meant "There is no way a class can be an NRA Basic Pistol or First Steps class without live fire" then we no conflict.
But, the fact that neither NRA Basic Pistol, nor NRA First Steps, nor live fire is required to obtain an Arizona non-resident license (which is the original poster's concern) is beyond contestation.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
... and you're are ignoring the first half of her statement..

No, I am not. But, you are ignoring the information she presented, AND her statement of intent which followed.


She clearly meant that there is a live fire requirement for both "Basic Pistol" and "First Steps." It is simply argumentative to disagree with her statement and her stated meaning to this point.
We can of course, always let MamaLiberty explain what she meant by her statement; does she mean there in NO way a class can be a legitimate NRA class without live fire, or does she mean there is no legitimate way a class can be an NRA Basic Pistol or NRA First Steps class without live fire?

She did.
We were talking ONLY about the basic pistol and first steps class.
 
Last edited:

Sig229

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
926
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
The op was attempting to take a course, took it, did the live fire, and the fool instructor tried to tell him he had more requirements. The OP didn't try to claim those were requirements. In fact, he tried to argue that the instructor was wrong, ant those weren't requirements.

No one claimed that only NRA live-fire courses fit, except the fool instructor.


100% correct! That is exactly what I was saying.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I take it then, that we are in agreement that whether an NRA course does or does not require live fire is immaterial to the original poster's quest to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit as such permit doesn't have a live fire requirement?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I take it then, that we are in agreement that whether an NRA course does or does not require live fire is immaterial to the original poster's quest to obtain an Arizona non-resident permit as such permit doesn't have a live fire requirement?

Yes.

I take it we are in agreement that it is correct to state that the NRA Basic Pistol and First Steps, one of which the OP took BOTH require live fire as part of the course curriculum? And, that upon completion of the course and live fire, a certificate is due the student? And, if that course was "First Steps," as it looks, he was owed a certificate after the 3-4hour course/rangetime?


To get the permit, he may not need to shoot.
To get the cert for the course he took, he needed to shoot.
 
Last edited:

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
wow, i think i will go back to the MATRIX trilogy video as this conversation has spun way out of proportions based on semantics...

and mamaliberity congradulations on the mastery of throwing your thoughts so wrightme defends...i'm truly impressed.

i believe Sig, the original OP, has gotten the point and i am sure the rethoric has gotten olde...

as i stated before Sig, good luck dealing w/your instructor...

wabbit

PS. Fallschirmjäger, had to chuckle as you posted minutes before i could...merry met!!

pps: wrightme, sorry i have the cut and paste down pat...as well as my understanding of english composition and structure...thanks for trying to divert from the obvious obtuse meaning...
 

boutaswell

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Martinsburg, WV
Ok, I couldn't bear to read anymore of this. I know a lot of people hate to throw around names. I for one, would like to know where the heck it was because I would hate to refer someone there for their training with a staff that is jacked up on ego. It's just a personal thing, inquiring minds would like to know.
 
Top