• 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.

Don't ask, Don't tell

Tweety

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
73
Location
In my pick up truck
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:

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Tweety

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
73
Location
In my pick up truck
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!
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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:

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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?
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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. :D
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
I just don't get it!

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....

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?
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!
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
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
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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:

Tweety

Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
73
Location
In my pick up truck
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!
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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
 
Top