Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Concealed Weapons License Qualification Course/ON LINE!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Black River Falls, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post


    When seconds count...[size=]

    ...help is just minutes away![size=]

    Online/Home study Coursesthat teach the safe and lawful use of firearms for self-defense!

    http://OurSafeHome.net

    Concealed Weapons License Qualification Course.

    Use Discount Code: JPR for 10% off on the CCW Course

    Good for 32 States!

    Contact: J.R. at:jrousey@centurytel.net[/b] or (715) 284-7045 for additional details.

  2. #2
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320

    Post imported post

    twodogs wrote:
    When seconds count...[size=]

    ...help is just minutes away![size=]

    Online/Home study Coursesthat teach the safe and lawful use of firearms for self-defense!

    http://OurSafeHome.net

    Concealed Weapons License Qualification Course.

    Use Discount Code: JPR for 10% off on the CCW Course

    Good for 32 States!

    Contact: J.R. at:jrousey@centurytel.net[/b] or (715) 284-7045 for additional details.

    Sir Spam-a-lot!!!

    How does one qualify for a CCP on line?

    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Through righteous faith justified by our savior and lord Emperor NRA and his ever new suit of clothes.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    This just goes to prove the tactics of the Money Pit CCW Instructors.
    It is nothing more than a money game. They want your money and you willingly give it to them. Why? Because you think they have something you want.

    You can learn anything these CCW Instructors teach by simply researching the information. You do not need and special training to OC why do you need it for CCW?

    Falling prey to these CCW Instructors does nothing more than confirm their statements that training must be mandated. It is ridiculous.

    If you do not believe that you are responsible enough to carry a firearm than don't carry one. It is as simple as that.

    We do not need mandated training or Permits and fees.

    AZ, AK and VT all have proved that Constitutional Carry is possible. There does not have to be a step by step process involved. The only thing a step by step process will do is get the money mongering legislators stuck on the money issue. Permits, Fees, training. From there they will insist that those revenues are needed to balance the budget and the fees should never be removed. Then they will go on to insist that there be mandated training and that the state should receive some of those funds as well. Therefore the mandated training will never go away either. And of course there will be a reason for them to continuously increase the fees. Not only will it give them more money in their greedy little hands but it will also be a great deterent to decrease the amount of people carrying firearms. Come on people we all know how things work here in Wisconsin. It is not like every other state, everything here is focused on money, money, money. Why even give them that leverage? It is a foolish mistake we should never make.

    As I stated before the other three states have already tested the process and they ended up with Constitutional Carry and could have had that all along. The step by step process is not needed. There have been no blood baths in the streets, no wild west gun fights, no girl scouts being gunned down while delivering cookies.

    All there is is common sense folk going about their daily business and nothing more.

    We here in Wisconsin can have the same without jumping through all the hoops.
    The first thing we need to do is refuse any legislation for a CCW bill that these candidates are claiming they will sign. It is all hog wash and a compromise of OCW for CCW period.

    Fight for Constitutional Carry and nothing more. Why should we the tax payers have to pay out money for these legislators to pass legislation on all of these other steps and then turn around and say OK now we want Constitutional Carry and then have to argue with these crooked politicians for another 50 years before any one of them consider it.

    No, No, No. No permits, No fees, No training, period.

    If Van Hollen is so in favor of CCW or OCW then why hasn't he given an OPINION instead of issuing a memo. They are not the same and an OPINION is binding to the state. IMHO his support is shallow and only a campaign gimmick to get votes.

    Same with the rest of the candidates.

    The truth is after the SCOTUS decision comes down we won't be needing them to get Constitutional Carry it will happen all by itself.

    So that still leaves the big question that none of the legislators or CCW Instructors want to answer, " What is the difference between OCW and CCW that constitutes training?

    I will answer that question for you since none of them will.

    The answer is...........Nothing!

    You do not need training to lift your shirt, just practice.


    Carry On! and Constitutional Carry Always!

  5. #5
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    twodogs wrote:
    When seconds count...[size=]

    ...help is just minutes away![size=]

    Online/Home study Coursesthat teach the safe and lawful use of firearms for self-defense!

    http://OurSafeHome.net

    Concealed Weapons License Qualification Course.

    Use Discount Code: JPR for 10% off on the CCW Course

    Good for 32 States!

    Contact: J.R. at:jrousey@centurytel.net[/b] or (715) 284-7045 for additional details.

    Great, it is good in 32 states, and none of them are mine... Thanks for the free ad...

    I am in agreement with J. Gleason on this one. This is an Open Carry Site. Not a CCW site.We arefighting to see a non-permit CCW LAW in Wisconsin, not a permission slip system. If you feel the need to advertise on this web site, I would recommend that you do so on the "32" states forums that your permission slips are valid in.

    It sure is sad when the first three posts you have, are nothing but adds for your "in-home" classes. I guess we all know what your intentions are... MONEY... Do you also have any snake oil to sell?


  6. #6
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    bigdaddy1 wrote:
    twodogs wrote:
    When seconds count...[size=]

    ...help is just minutes away![size=]

    Online/Home study Coursesthat teach the safe and lawful use of firearms for self-defense!

    http://OurSafeHome.net

    Concealed Weapons License Qualification Course.

    Use Discount Code: JPR for 10% off on the CCW Course

    Good for 32 States!

    Contact: J.R. at:jrousey@centurytel.net[/b] or (715) 284-7045 for additional details.

    Sir Spam-a-lot!!!

    How does one qualify for a CCP on line?
    Florida has a bare bones training requirement which accepts nearly any basic firearm course.

    This does not appear to be a verygood value for the dollarsspent. By my count, a Florida Non-resident permit is only recognized by 27 States. All that is required for training in order toqualify for aFlorida Non-resident permit is to be active or prior duty military or have taken a hunters' safety course.

    For what this course is charging you can take a AACFIcertified course which will qualify you forUtah, MN, FL and New Hampshire permits.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    AZ, AK and VT all have proved that Constitutional Carry is possible. There does not have to be a step by step process involved.
    The truth is after the SCOTUS decision comes down we won't be needing them to get Constitutional Carry it will happen all by itself.
    !
    Fat chance... All the SCOTUS ruling will effect is the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the States. It will effect WI relatively little since we already have a right to bear arms affirmed by our State Constitution.

    The SCOTUS has ruled over and over in favor of "reasonable" restrictions on the manner of carry.

    AK and AZ have proven that a step by step process is most often necessary...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Constitutional Carry with a $5.00 out of state Resiprocity Permit give you more bang for your buck. As it should be.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Constitutional Carry with a $5.00 out of state Resiprocity Permit give you more bang for your buck. As it should be.
    We can't even get the DOJ to do a handgun background check for less than $13. MN is only $75. I do not see that as totally unreasonable. Of course I would like to see WI do it for less, but WI is most excellent at creating a bureaucracy and wasting money so I am not holding my breath.

  10. #10
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    i think this year will be historic for us, and am quite willing to wait. things are going to change, until then i'll sit tight. got my penn-nonres. that will do for now. oh yeah.....................bender was here (snicker).

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    AZ, AK and VT all have proved that Constitutional Carry is possible. There does not have to be a step by step process involved.
    The truth is after the SCOTUS decision comes down we won't be needing them to get Constitutional Carry it will happen all by itself.
    !
    Fat chance... All the SCOTUS ruling will effect is the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment to the States. It will effect WI relatively little since we already have a right to bear arms affirmed by our State Constitution.

    The SCOTUS has ruled over and over in favor of "reasonable" restrictions on the manner of carry.

    AK and AZ have proven that a step by step process is most often necessary...
    So all the attorneys including D.A. Chisholm who have stated that once the SCOTUS decision is handed down, the days are numbered for the Wisconsin Gun Laws, are wrong and you are right?

    Only in your mind. I think I will listen to them and believe their opinion over yours. Thanks anyway.

    As far as AK and AZ they have proven that those steps are not necessary. All the step by step process does is waste tax payers dollars on unnecessary legislation.
    Now I realize that you will just keep arguing because you couldn't possibly agree on any statement I make, however, it is people such as yourself who are so willing to compromise for your CCW permit that have caused this issue to continuously be held up in legislation. Just so you can carry a permit in your pocket.

    You are so hell bent on getting it that you will pay money for it, accept mandated training if necessary, and pay ridiculous fees as well. You would probably accept restrictions on how large the caliber may be or how many round capacity as well. Just as long as you get your Permit.

    It is your way of thinking that creates the obstacles for a Constitutional Carry system here in Wisconsin. It is people such as yourself who can not see Wisconsin just following along and recognizing the efforts of other states and simply acknowleding that all of the extra legislation is not necessary and is only a waste of tax payers money, people like that have caused this issue to be stalled for years.

    Are you sure your not running for office?

    It is as simple as this, the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions state that it is our right and that is all that matters.

    Carry on and Constitutional Carry Always!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    So all the attorneys including D.A. Chisholm who have stated that once the SCOTUS decision is handed down, the days are numbered for the Wisconsin Gun Laws, are wrong and you are right?

    Only in your mind. I think I will listen to them and believe their opinion over yours. Thanks anyway.

    As far as AK and AZ they have proven that those steps are not necessary. All the step by step process does is waste tax payers dollars on unnecessary legislation.

    Neither AK nor AZ got their current systems overnight....

    Read the Heller decision once again and then tell me where the SC Justices said that all gun laws are unconstitutional...:?

    Chisholm feels that our current CCW Statute is unconstitutional, not that all laws are uncaonstitutional.


    Chisholm:
    I’m going to make a prediction right now because I don’t know if we have the will and the foresight to do this but I predict that nothing will happen and that Chicago vs. McDonald will hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the 14th Amendment [and call into question other state and local gun laws]. Then 20 seconds later the NRA will file a challenge to [Wisconsin’s concealed carry statute] and they will win. And at that point in time we will be left with no CCW and no regulatory scheme at all. That’s what I think will happen.
    Interview with Chisholm





  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    All the SCOTUS ruling will effect ... effect WI ...
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect#Usage_notes

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    So all the attorneys including D.A. Chisholm who have stated that once the SCOTUS decision is handed down, the days are numbered for the Wisconsin Gun Laws, are wrong and you are right?

    Only in your mind. I think I will listen to them and believe their opinion over yours. Thanks anyway.

    As far as AK and AZ they have proven that those steps are not necessary. All the step by step process does is waste tax payers dollars on unnecessary legislation.
    Neither AK nor AZ got their current systems overnight....

    Read the Heller decision once again and then tell me where the SC Justices said that all gun laws are unconstitutional...:?

    Where did I say that? You making a mountain out of a mole hill.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Where did I say that? You making a mountain out of a mole hill.
    Doing as he is bid by bosses.



  16. #16
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Where did I say that? You making a mountain out of a mole hill.
    J.Gleason wrote:
    So all the attorneys including D.A. Chisholm who have stated that once the SCOTUS decision is handed down, the days are numbered for the Wisconsin Gun Laws, are wrong and you are right?
    Chisholm is not concerned that the incorporation of the 2nd will make any WI law magically unconstitutional. He recognizes that there are already issues with our current Statute in light of our State Constitution and he is worried about the NRA filing a suit against the State once its resources are freed up after the current SCOTUS issue.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Where did I say that? You making a mountain out of a mole hill.
    Doing as he is bid by bosses.
    Once again you make statements which are unsubstantiated. For someone eager to demand a cite, you are obviously clueless on the present matter at hand.:?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    All the SCOTUS ruling will effect ... effect WI ...
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect#Usage_notes



    Looks like proper usage according to your wiki wiki wiki "cite"...
    Synonyms

  19. #19
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post

    ahem......

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    (influence or alter): Doug Huffman wrote: [/b]
    All the SCOTUS ruling will effect ... effect WI ...
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect#Usage_notes
    Looks like proper usage according to your wiki wiki wiki "cite"...
    Synonyms
    You can lean an ass to water but you can't make him think.
    Usage notes Effect is often confused with “affect”. The latter is used to convey the influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities; the former indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas or entities:


  21. #21
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    (influence or alter): Doug Huffman wrote: [/b]
    All the SCOTUS ruling will effect ... effect WI ...
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect#Usage_notes
    Looks like proper usage according to your wiki wiki wiki "cite"...
    Synonyms
    You can lean an ass to water but you can't make him think.
    Usage notes Effect is often confused with “affect”. The latter is used to convey the influence over existing ideas, emotions and entities; the former indicates the manifestation of new or original ideas or entities:


    Get out now before things really go down hill for you..and your wiki wiki wiki fail.......

    Effect


    1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
    2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.

    The SCOTUS rulingwill have relatively little effect on WI.....


    There you goDoug. A slightly edited version just for you. I would hate for you to have an aneurysm...

    What a guy... Moreworried about grammar and fabricating personal insults than the substance of a post or thread...






  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    What a guy... Moreworried about grammar and fabricating personal insults than the substance of a post or thread.
    The words are the substance unless you would have the thought be substance - and that is a reach even ..
    ..

    Anony Mouse cannot be personally praised or denigrated - because he is anonymous.

    And your straw-herring motives may be a reflection of your motives but they are not my motives. Thank you very much. LOL


  23. #23
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Anony Mouse cannot be personally praised or denigrated - because he is anonymous.

    And your straw-herring motives may be a reflection of your motives but they are not my motives. Thank you very much. LOL
    Your motives are a reflection of your self. A man who is insecure and refuses to debate substance but instead chooses childish antics, not the least of which is a feeble attempt at claiming a moral high ground because you chose to register with your legal name. Nobody here is hiding anything. I believe we all know each others' legal names. Get over it Doug and try to post with substance if you are capable of doing so...:?

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    The last word.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thank you, Don, but he didn't get beyond the picturebooks for substance.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •