Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Don't ask, Don't tell

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my pick up truck
    Posts
    73

    Don't ask, Don't tell

    Why doesn't this apply for firearms carry?

    Granted if you are open carry, everyone will know. But when you think about it when you are ccw you don't want to advertise it anyway. People don't ask, so don't tell.

    It is just amazing that Wisconsin has taken so long to get in the boat. Well not really.
    Last edited by Tweety; 12-06-2010 at 08:23 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    51
    profiteers are deeply entrenched legislature forum and state gun control organizations

    gun control is control

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    I found an instance very similar to these profit-hungry firearms instructors wanting mandatory training this last spring.

    A large exhaust hood manufacturer saw a decline in their sales, so what did they do, they lobbied the legislators to create a new law which states that all exhaust hoods must now have tempered make-up air. Nothing can be grandfathered in.

    So every single business that uses an exhaust hood (Manufacturing, restaurants, Etc Etc Etc.) must now replace their existing exhaust hood systems with new units that replace the air taken out of the building, with make-up air that is heated or cooled to match the buildings internal temperature.
    It used to be that we could use "Short-Cycle, Non-tempered make-up air" exhaust hoods, almost every restaurant has a hood that fits that description. But now we are being forced to heat or cool that make-up air for it to only be sucked out of the building.
    This will cost every single restaurant in the state to spend at least $20K to be in compliance since the law went retroactive instead requiring this for new installs only.
    So we must now heat the air that is vented outside!! Did Al Gore have something to do with this to support his global warming jag?

    Now I have these greedy firearms instructors pushing for mandatory training just so they can fill their pockets at the misery of other,
    I ask you what dynamic changes so drastically between carrying openly and concealed where concealed requires mandatory training? Does a millimeter of cotton shirt material covering that same handgun change everything?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my pick up truck
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    Now I have these greedy firearms instructors pushing for mandatory training just so they can fill their pockets at the misery of other,
    I ask you what dynamic changes so drastically between carrying openly and concealed where concealed requires mandatory training? Does a millimeter of cotton shirt material covering that same handgun change everything?
    I couldn't have said it any better!

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    I found an instance very similar to these profit-hungry firearms instructors wanting mandatory training this last spring.

    ...
    Now I have these greedy firearms instructors pushing for mandatory training just so they can fill their pockets at the misery of other,
    The greedy/profit-hungry instructors aren't the main problem.

    The main problem is whether there is a societal benefit to mandating some firearms training to non-LE civilians who carry a gun.

    The answer is obviously, "Yes."

    The same problem was considered many years ago with respect to LE who carried a gun. And training was therefore mandated. Good that was done and continues.

    Same with non-LE gun carriers.

    If I were voting in Wisconsin, I would not favor "no training" for gun carriers. That's not a good idea at all.

    I would favor "mandated training." Say, about 10-20% of LE training.

    Unfortunately, the cost does become a significant hurdle at that levefl because it would probably "infringe" on 2A. Of course, there is a solution to that, but it gets difficult . . .

    It seems likely to me that a mandated training component will be included in any new carry law in WI and that it will be of such a small cost so as to NOT be considered an "infringement" on 2A.
    Last edited by HankT; 12-06-2010 at 08:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    The greedy/profit-hungry instructors aren't the main problem.

    The main problem is whether there is a societal benefit to mandating some firearms training to non-LE civilians who carry a gun.

    The answer is obviously, "Yes."

    The same problem was considered many years ago with respect to LE who carried a gun. And training was therefore mandated. Good that was done and continues.

    Same with non-LE gun carriers.

    If I were voting in Wisconsin, I would not favor "no training" for gun carriers. That's not a good idea at all.

    I would favor "mandated training." Say, about 10-20% of LE training.

    Unfortunately, the cost does become a significant hurdle at that levefl because it would probably "infringe" on 2A. Of course, there is a solution to that, but it gets difficult . . .

    It seems likely to me that a mandated training component will be included in any new carry law in WI and that it will be of such a small cost so as to NOT be considered an "infringement" on 2A.
    I agree.

    Parenting classes should be a requirement before having sex.

    First amendment classes should be mandatory before allowing people to speak.

    Religion classes should be required before people allowed to go to church.

    Journalism classes should be mandatory before allowing people to blog.

    Voting classes should be mandatory beofre allowing people to vote.

    Freedom classes should have been held before allowing slaves their freedom.

  7. #7
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    The main problem is whether there is a societal benefit to mandating some firearms training to non-LE civilians who carry a gun.

    The answer is obviously, "Yes."
    I'm with Kwik on this one.

    Thank God you don't vote in WI.

    I don't need training to OC, why do I need training to cc?

  8. #8
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    ..or we could be allowed to take firearms training along side of the LE at teh same time...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    ..or we could be allowed to take firearms training along side of the LE at teh same time...
    No thanks

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    When I was out of state and with some friends, they knew I carried, so they asked if I was carrying (concealed at the moment). I told them yes. None of them seemed concerned, even with my beer in hand.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768

    I just don't get it!

    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    The greedy/profit-hungry instructors aren't the main problem.

    The main problem is whether there is a societal benefit to mandating some firearms training to non-LE civilians who carry a gun.

    The answer is obviously, "Yes."
    Obviously? ok I give up....

    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    The same problem was considered many years ago with respect to LE who carried a gun. And training was therefore mandated. Good that was done and continues.

    Same with non-LE gun carriers.

    If I were voting in Wisconsin, I would not favor "no training" for gun carriers. That's not a good idea at all.

    I would favor "mandated training." Say, about 10-20% of LE training.
    Is the obvious answer that since you had to take training, everybody else must take training too?
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Unfortunately, the cost does become a significant hurdle at that levefl because it would probably "infringe" on 2A. Of course, there is a solution to that, but it gets difficult . . .

    It seems likely to me that a mandated training component will be included in any new carry law in WI and that it will be of such a small cost so as to NOT be considered an "infringement" on 2A.
    And how much is that small cost going to be? The first time around? After a few years?

    I do not understand why the mandated training is going to make any difference. Those that want to learn, will learn on their own. Training could and should be encouraged.

    Mandated training will be a set of hoops to jump through - and then be ignored by those certain people who don't give a rip. I've seen the same attitude in Hunter Safety TRAINING and as a retired high school teacher. Some people only want the "degree" and not what is behind it. They seem to know better regardless of any training.

    The greedy/profit-hungry instructors aren't the main problem.
    No? Well, some sure are working pretty hard to convince the public that concealed carriers need training. Open carriers don't need any training. Just covering the gun makes THAT much difference? I just don't get it!

  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Open carriers don't need any training. Just covering the gun makes THAT much difference? I just don't get it!
    Huh?

    Where was it established that OCers, as a public policy issue regarding what is beneficial to society, don't need any training?

    From the public policy standpoint, the base on training requirements for CCers is NOT (or should not be) the status quo requirement on OCers. It should be based on what is beneficial for society (as constrained by constitutional protections).

    I am not aware of any large organized group of gun-carriers in the United States of America that doesn't have mandated training and standards regarding their carrying in public. That's because it makes mucho undeniable sense from behavioral, legal, moral, psychological and liability perspectives.

    So, that means the present technological level of training for groups of gun carriers will be in the LE experience. I wouldn't expect a group of regular ole citizens to have to do the same training as LE. But, maybe 10-20% would be about right. The problem is the cost of that. If it cost only $100, then I don't see it being an "infringement" of 2A under the law. It'd be "reasonable regulation," and therefore quite permissable.

    But if the training were $2,000, that would be a significant hurdle. I'd say that would violate 2A. I guess that a solution could be, if the level of training necessary for the group is accurately determined to cost $2000 (or more), then maybe we need to get the government to pay that cost or to provide the training--on the premise that our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" by such training requirements.

    I could see the logic in something like that. Might not work. Might, though.
    Last edited by HankT; 12-06-2010 at 11:13 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    I am not aware of any large organized group of gun-carriers in the United States of America that doesn't have mandated training and standards regarding their carrying in public. That's because it makes mucho sunse from behavioral, legal, moral, psychological and liability perspectives.
    Depends what you mean by 'large' and 'organized'.

    Do all the oc/cc people in VT count? How about AK? I do not believe VT has ever required training. AK hasn't for around 20 years. How about all the oc folks in WI, MT, ID, WY, SD, NV, NM, KY, VA, NC? None of those states require training for OC. I'm probably missing some. I believe WA, OR, CO, NE, KS, MO, MI, OH, PA, WV, LA, AL, DE, NH are on that list as well.

    You argument just doesn't hold water.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Huh?

    Where was it established that OCers, as a public policy issue regarding what is beneficial to society, don't need any training?

    From the public policy standpoint, the base on training requirements for CCers is NOT (or should not be) the status quo requirement on OCers. It should be based on what is beneficial for society (as constrained by constitutional protections).

    I am not aware of any large organized group of gun-carriers in the United States of America that doesn't have mandated training and standards regarding their carrying in public. That's because it makes mucho sunse from behavioral, legal, moral, psychological and liability perspectives.

    So, that means the present technological level of training for groups of gun carriers will be in the LE experience. I wouldn't expect a group of regular ole citizens to have to do the same training as LE. But, maybe 10-20% would be about right. The problem is the cost of that. If it cost only $100, then I don't see it being an "infringement" of 2A under the law. It'd be "reasonable regulation," and therefor quite permissable.

    But if the training were $2,000, that would be a significant hurdle. I'd say that would violate 2A. I guess that a solution could be, if the level of training necessary for the group is accurately determined to cost $2000 (or more), then maybe we need to get the government to pay that cost or to provide the training--on the premise that our right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" by such training requirements.

    I could see the logic in something like that. Might not work. Might, though.
    For many people, $20 is a hurdle. Many people are having a hard time affording to live, let alone a firearm AND training. Just because one person can afford $100 mandatory training does not mean everyone can. That would be like requiring to pay $10,000. Sure, some can pay, but many cannot. Where do we draw the line? There is nothing in either state or federal Constitutions that say we can bear arms as long as we prove we are proficient. If that is the bar, then no one will ever been good enough unless they are in the military, police, etc.

    Oh, and last I check, VT, AK, AZ, and IN do not require any type of training.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,140
    A problem in Wisconsin in regard to training is a lack of public firearm ranges, anyone know of an indoor public one? Pittman Robertson money is supposed to be used for public ranges but in Wisconsin this money seems to have been sucked into the black hole that is the Wisconsin DNR, never to be seen again.

    http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/pitmann.asp
    When in danger you can dial 911 and hope for the police to arrive a few minutes later armed with guns.
    Why do police carry guns?

    The Joyce Foundation funded firearm control empire:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lFundingR1.png

    "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." - Martin Luther King Jr.

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I agree.

    Parenting classes should be a requirement before having sex.

    First amendment classes should be mandatory before allowing people to speak.

    Religion classes should be required before people allowed to go to church.

    Journalism classes should be mandatory before allowing people to blog.

    Voting classes should be mandatory beofre allowing people to vote.

    Freedom classes should have been held before allowing slaves their freedom.
    OK. I've got it now, kwik.

    And classes in rhetoric should be mandatory for posters before they are allowed to use logical fallacies...

    Hey..... this is fun!
    Last edited by HankT; 12-06-2010 at 11:19 PM.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my pick up truck
    Posts
    73
    So the title of this threads fits then. When it comes to the question of whether or not you have had firearms training......
    Don't ask, Don't tell!

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    OK. I've got it now, kwik.

    And classes in rhetoric should be mandatory for posters before they are allowed to use logical fallacies...

    Hey..... this is fun!
    Does the fact that it's rhetoric make it wrong? No.

    How about something a little closer. Do I need mandatory training to operate a kitchen knife? A katana? A chainsaw? The answers are no again, yet you can indeed kill someone (or yourself) with all three quite easily. I could argue that the "benifit to society" would be fairly strong for mandatory training with a knife or a chainsaw. Getting someone to wear kevlar chaps and safety glasses while using their chainsaws would put less burden on emergency rooms and insurance.

    One could also argue that speech poses a greater danger than firearms, yet as kwik said, we don't regulate it via prior restraint. Speech can incite riots, hate crimes, and bring whole countries into war yet it's a freedom that we hold dear. With speach, at least, we recognize that with the right comes a responsibility. If it's not exercised responsibly, there should be consequences. That's no different in theory than the responsibility each individual has to use his RKBA in a responsible manner.

    This all boils down to liberty vs. security. Some people; like you Hank, think that your security or society's security (are you a collectivist?) is more important than individual liberty at least in the case of RKBA. Most of us disagree. It is the only one of our enumerated rights, that for some reason, is saddled with prior restraint. That's even before any mandatory training requirments which would burden it with more prior restraint.

    Even if it did collectively make society a tiny bit safer (of which there is no proof what so ever) I would still disagree with prior restraint on the right. Why? No matter how much a person lacks training he or she should be able to pick up the best tool availlable for self defense. They should never need your permission or governments permission to do so.

    Furthermore, prior restraint puts more power back into the governments hands and in the case of RKBA this is specifically bad juju. There was a resaon the founders used the term "shall not be infringed", judicial activism and unconstitutional laws be damned. The english BoR used the term "as allowed by law". If they would have intended our goverment to have any power over RKBA at all, they would have used similar language. Believe me, they were quite familiar with the english bill of rights and Blackstone.

    All of that being said, most of us have training. Most anyone who buys a firearm will electively get the training they require. Lastly, training should be encouraged, as it used to be even by the government in programs like the CMP.

    Part of a free society is trusting your fellow citizen to do the right thing. Liberty can be scary. I've got to trust my fellow citizens to not swerve into my lane while I'm driving down the road. Most of us never give that a second thought. We've got to trust them to do the right thing with their firearms as well. I'll take a little scary over living in a perfectly safe cage for the rest of my life.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post

    Part of a free society is trusting your fellow citizen to do the right thing. Liberty can be scary. I've got to trust my fellow citizens to not swerve into my lane while I'm driving down the road. Most of us never give that a second thought. We've got to trust them to do the right thing with their firearms as well. I'll take a little scary over living in a perfectly safe cage for the rest of my life.

    Very Good, Brass

    What Hank fails to realize is that our Founding Fathers noted that we are all equal and that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a person does not have training, then Hank's logical outcome is that his/her life is not as equal (valuable) and thus does not deserve the right to defend it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    Very Good, Brass

    What Hank fails to realize is that our Founding Fathers noted that we are all equal and that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a person does not have training, then Hank's logical outcome is that his/her life is not as equal (valuable) and thus does not deserve the right to defend it.
    +1

  21. #21
    Regular Member Archangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OTP, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    The greedy/profit-hungry instructors aren't the main problem.

    The main problem is whether there is a societal benefit to mandating some firearms training to non-LE civilians who carry a gun.

    The answer is obviously, "Yes."

    The same problem was considered many years ago with respect to LE who carried a gun. And training was therefore mandated. Good that was done and continues.

    Same with non-LE gun carriers.

    If I were voting in Wisconsin, I would not favor "no training" for gun carriers. That's not a good idea at all.

    I would favor "mandated training." Say, about 10-20% of LE training.

    Unfortunately, the cost does become a significant hurdle at that levefl because it would probably "infringe" on 2A. Of course, there is a solution to that, but it gets difficult . . .

    It seems likely to me that a mandated training component will be included in any new carry law in WI and that it will be of such a small cost so as to NOT be considered an "infringement" on 2A.
    You should not have a training requirement to exercise a RIGHT. Period.

    Is training beneficial and a good idea? Of COURSE it is!

    Should it be REQUIRED in order to exercise a RIGHT? Absolutely NOT.

  22. #22
    Guest
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    in your pants
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    You should not have a training requirement to exercise a RIGHT. Period.

    Is training beneficial and a good idea? Of COURSE it is!

    Should it be REQUIRED in order to exercise a RIGHT? Absolutely NOT.
    well said. +1000!

  23. #23
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    You should not have a training requirement to exercise a RIGHT. Period.

    Is training beneficial and a good idea? Of COURSE it is!

    Should it be REQUIRED in order to exercise a RIGHT? Absolutely NOT.
    Well said.
    "To sin by silence, when we should protest makes cowards out of men."
    Ella Wheeler Cox


    We must contact our lawmakers today, tomorrow and the next day to remind them of Constitutional Carry.
    Laws are not written because of the actions of many, they are wrtiten because of the inactions of many.

  24. #24
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    You should not have a training requirement to exercise a RIGHT. Period.

    Is training beneficial and a good idea? Of COURSE it is!

    Should it be REQUIRED in order to exercise a RIGHT? Absolutely NOT.
    Amen to that!!

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my pick up truck
    Posts
    73
    I know I can't afford training right now that is for sure. Not even sure if I could afford a permit to be honest with you. Although I think I did read something in here about someone giving free training if the law passes. That would be nice.
    Last edited by Tweety; 12-07-2010 at 12:28 PM.

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
  •