• 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.

I just took the CCW class with Micheal Bender

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
It seems that they are similar courses with similar costs (PPA vs NRA), the difference is that he has broken his up for cost effectiveness. Am I wrong here?

I get the impression that most of his students are just getting their first gun and want to know more. His coarse really seemed suited to that. If you like what you are learning and want more, get the next course. If not, why pay for the rest of the course?

The cost is based on an average for the NRA PPOTH course. As far as bender, it is quite the opposite, about 99% of what he covers in all of his courses is covered in just the 1 NRA course. For that reason it should be known that what he teaches over several classes is the same as you SHOULD learn in just one class. Also, the cost is up to the instructor, the NRA has no cost requirement on any of their courses, they just encourage you to charge a standard amount. That is why I have developed my own courses and am getting certified outside the NRA, because I don't like being given strong suggestions that someone's personal safety and security SHOULD cost a certain amount.

Wow...uh, where do I start.

CalicoJack10, The NRA's Personal Protection Outside the Home course sounds like a nice course. I don't have $250 to throw at a course anytime soon, but it looks like a good one to squirrel some cash away for. Thanks for the suggestion.

I would also suggest taking the PP Inside the home course before you take the PPOTH one. This is just because the difference in dynamics between the two kind of go hand in hand. The PPITH course lays a great defensive foundation for the PPOTH. And between the two, you will still save a great deal of money over taking bender's courses.

Also, I have to STRESS the fact that personal protection has an aspect that most people never think about, and even fewer can teach effectively. That is the psychological effects related to self defense. I personally am far more versed in this than even a great deal of psychologists and court officials. This is something that, according to my understanding of bender's classes, he barely covers if at all. This is also something that an instructor needs a serious amount of first or second hand knowledge to teach effectively.

The opposition to bender is the idea that someone who is an effective instructor SHOULD be able to tailor each item they teach to the student. Whether it is in a group class, or one on one. That is the primary reason I teach privately, because the needs and abilities of each person differs greatly. And the best way to get someone to be good at what they need to do, it to devote one on one attention to them. This also provides instructors like me to be able to do something that PPA can't effectively do.

Remain focused on the safety and security of our students, their friends, their loved ones, and anyone else who might have to be defended by that students use of a firearm for protection.

NOTE: My course prices are based on the acceptable cost for group classes despite the fact that I teach private classes. This is something that several instructors, in several states (Including myself) have agreed (With Each Other) to do in order to allow people who want to be safe to get the biggest bang for their buck.

Personal safety is not about making money. It is about PERSONAL SAFETY. If I happen to make a few bucks in the process, OK. If not, I am not concerned with that. A majority of the money I make from doing this goes into events like the "Fun Shoot and Fundraiser" i am putting together for Special Olympics on May 1st.

Now if you will excuse me, I have a kids safety class to teach. :dude:
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
I disagree. Owning a firearm, having the right to carry it are inalienable rights. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a right, it's a privilege.

If he was not an instructor and believed that the class should be required, would he still be the enemy?

I have to drop a note on this one too.

If carrying a firearm is an "Inalienable Right", then how can you alienate certain parts of it. If I have a right to carry, why don't I have the right to carry how I choose? Also, does this mean that I have a right to carry a firearm, but in the winter, if my jacket covers it, I do not have a right to wear that jacket? Seems to me you would like to see restrictions on our rights, NOT COOL.

And YES, if he was not an instructor and believed that a class should be required, then he would be against our rights. The thing of this is, if you put requirements and restrictions on something, it is no longer a "Right" and is then nothing more than a privilege. We are fighting for our Rights, not for the OK from politicians. We can make up our own minds, we don't need others to do it for us.

I am an INSTRUCTOR, and I approve this statement.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Please remember Bender's negative predisposition toward Open Carry. Did he back up his thoughts with statistics? If not, then he is just perpetuating the myths.

His remark that I remember most is that "open carrying of a firearm is an invite to getting a pipe to the back of the head." I've asked this before here: "Has anybody been piped yet?"

The short answer is yes it has happened... Once...
A man in Milwaukee had his (OC) firearm taken at gun-point. BUT, as Protias pointed out, that is the only one I know of. With the numbers that carry, I would say this is a super rare thing to even be able to read about.
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
There is only one instance where this has happened to a regular person.

There you have it, it CAN and HAS happened.

So if statistics can lie, how do you know if he is telling the truth?

How do I know he's not lying about his opinion? I guess I just have to take his word for it. :)


If he can make money from it, good. However, the beef many of us have with him is that he would rather have a license in WI with required training so he can make money. What he doesn't realize is, if Constitutional Carry passes, he will most likely see more business like the instructors in AZ are seeing.

Why do you believe this is about him making money and not about his personal beliefs? Has he said that he wants these classes to be law so that he can make more money? If what your saying is true about instructors making more money in AZ, then clearly his beliefs directly conflict with his potential income.



That only proves that it HAS prevented a fight. It doesn't prove that it always will. Look at every time an open carrier has used their firearm. That alone proves that open carry does not necessarily prevent a fight.

neither the state nor federal law stipulate the method of carry.

Exactly, and that leaves room for interpretation.



Again, I am not required by law to help anyone. Please show me in any statute/case law where I am required to help my fellow man.

No one said you were. I never said "legally obligated" I said obligated. There is certainly a difference.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Thanks for those statutes Captain. The words privilege allows us to help, but does not require us to. In good conscience, I do not see why someone would not want to help another in distress.

I for one would have a very hard time "helping" others with my gun. I carry a gun for self protection, and the protection of my family members. The way I look at it, most people that will not carry, just must not think that the life given to them is worth protecting.
On top of this, I do not have the cash to fight a court battle.
Now don't get me wrong. I would not be able to just stand by and watch some (bad) crime take place. I just would not "help out" unless I was sure that a life was in true danger. I would not be happy at all about it. Think about it like this, this person needs me to risk my life because he/she did not feel the need to carry any form of protection...
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
Seems to me you would like to see restrictions on our rights, NOT COOL.


HAHAHAHAHAHA! I have been accused of a lot of things in my life, but restricting the rights of any American has NEVER been one of them. I think the reason you said that is because I said concealed carry is a privilege. If that's the reason you think that, you are mistaken about me. If it's something else, please enlighten me.

Concealed carry IS a privilege in WI that only some police have the privilege of doing legally. If it's not a privilege, then why aren't the concealed carry crowd doing it legally? I'm not talking about what should be, I am talking about what is. In WI the law is that you have the right to carry openly, and you will be arrested for concealed carry. I know this first hand, twice.

Should you take a class and educate yourself before carrying? Of course! Should it be mandatory? I don't know. Does me not knowing make me the enemy?
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Concealed carry IS a privilege in WI that only some police have the privilege of doing legally.

Join us in changing that.

If it's not a privilege, then why aren't the concealed carry crowd doing it legally? I'm not talking about what should be, I am talking about what is. In WI the law is that you have the right to carry openly, and you will be arrested for concealed carry. I know this first hand, twice.

Two more reasons to join WC, Inc. It will not be illegal much longer.

Should you take a class and educate yourself before carrying? Of course! Should it be mandatory? I don't know. Does me not knowing make me the enemy?

I haven't met one person who doesn't think classes are a good idea. As far as not knowing... this is a constant educational experience for me. The more I get involved the more I learn. There is no crime in not knowing. The crime is in not changing that.
 
Last edited:

Trip20

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
526
Location
Wausau Area
<snip>Concealed carry IS a privilege in WI...
<snip>...I'm not talking about what should be, I am talking about what is.
You were not making the privilege claim in this context before. Here you're simply stating a fact... a fact with which we're all too familiar. Yes, concealed carry is illegal as of right now. So what?

We are talking about beliefs here. Bender's beliefs, and now yours I guess.

In your earlier posts you were using the word privilege as though it was your belief, and it was the belief that was being challenged.


Should you take a class and educate yourself before carrying? Of course! Should it be mandatory? I don't know. Does me not knowing make me the enemy?

Not knowing means you do not share/support my beliefs. I could fairly say you're not my ally in the fight for true freedom that is Constitutional Carry. We then find ourselves in opposing positions. If you choose to call that "enemy", that's your prerogative.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I for one would have a very hard time "helping" others with my gun. I carry a gun for self protection, and the protection of my family members. The way I look at it, most people that will not carry, just must not think that the life given to them is worth protecting.
On top of this, I do not have the cash to fight a court battle.
Now don't get me wrong. I would not be able to just stand by and watch some (bad) crime take place. I just would not "help out" unless I was sure that a life was in true danger. I would not be happy at all about it. Think about it like this, this person needs me to risk my life because he/she did not feel the need to carry any form of protection...

Agreed

HAHAHAHAHAHA! I have been accused of a lot of things in my life, but restricting the rights of any American has NEVER been one of them. I think the reason you said that is because I said concealed carry is a privilege. If that's the reason you think that, you are mistaken about me. If it's something else, please enlighten me.

Concealed carry IS a privilege in WI that only some police have the privilege of doing legally. If it's not a privilege, then why aren't the concealed carry crowd doing it legally? I'm not talking about what should be, I am talking about what is. In WI the law is that you have the right to carry openly, and you will be arrested for concealed carry. I know this first hand, twice.

Should you take a class and educate yourself before carrying? Of course! Should it be mandatory? I don't know. Does me not knowing make me the enemy?

There is no permit to carry concealed in WI, therefore it is not a privilege. Article 1, Section 25 does not specify method of carry. 941.23 prohibits conceal carry. Legally, in WI, we cannot carry concealed per 941.23. However, the Constitutional Amendment in Article 1, Section 25 says we can carry.

I'm not debating the value of training here, only speaking of the law.
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
You were not making the privilege claim in this context before.

In your earlier posts you were using the word privilege as though it was your belief

Are you talking about this post? I need to clarify.

As for constitutional carry, I'm on the fence. On one hand I believe that concealed carry is a privilege, not a right.

As in a privilege that can/should be taken away from violent offenders, yep I sure do believe that. Privileges can be taken, rights can not be taken, even from criminals.

Not knowing means you do not share/support my beliefs. I could fairly say you're not my ally in the fight for true freedom that is Constitutional Carry. We then find ourselves in opposing positions. If you choose to call that "enemy", that's your prerogative.

Sounds a lot like "your either with us or against us". Very sad.


There is no permit to carry concealed in WI, therefore it is not a privilege. Article 1, Section 25 does not specify method of carry. 941.23 prohibits conceal carry. Legally, in WI, we cannot carry concealed per 941.23. However, the Constitutional Amendment in Article 1, Section 25 says we can carry.

I'm not debating the value of training here, only speaking of the law.

As I understand rights, they are protected by the state's constitution. If they are not protected by the state's constitution, then they are privileges like driving. I could be wrong here, it certainly wouldn't be my first time. :)
 
Last edited:

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
HAHAHAHAHAHA! I have been accused of a lot of things in my life, but restricting the rights of any American has NEVER been one of them. I think the reason you said that is because I said concealed carry is a privilege. If that's the reason you think that, you are mistaken about me. If it's something else, please enlighten me.

Concealed carry IS a privilege in WI that only some police have the privilege of doing legally. If it's not a privilege, then why aren't the concealed carry crowd doing it legally? I'm not talking about what should be, I am talking about what is. In WI the law is that you have the right to carry openly, and you will be arrested for concealed carry. I know this first hand, twice.

Should you take a class and educate yourself before carrying? Of course! Should it be mandatory? I don't know. Does me not knowing make me the enemy?

Concealed carry is not a privilege. The constitution of the state of Wisconsin clearly defines (Though restrictive) that there are circumstances in which someone IS allowed to carry concealed without being charged. (something Bender doesn't teach)

I agree that you SHOULD take a class, but the mandate of a class is a whole different story. The idea that you should have to take a class to cover a gun with a shirt or coat is outrageous in my opinion.

And simply put, the reason that the concealed carry crowd does not carry concealed legally is simple. Bureaucracy!

The fact that I pointed out that it would SEEM that you are in favor of restricting our rights is because you (Like the Anti Gunners) made an uneducated statement based on either poor training, or an assumption, that insinuated that people should not be able to carry concealed because it is a Privilege and not a Right.

Wisconsin DOES have the right of concealed carry, it is just the manner and circumstances that are actually the items that allow people to be arrested and charged.

As far as Enemy, I never used the word, but it is my opinion that anyone who would choose to force their beliefs on another (For firearms or anything else) is someone who is willing to attack the very freedom that this country was founded on. Training should be the choice of those who carry, just like the carrying of a firearm itself, and with it comes the choice to deal with the consequences of poor or no training. It is up to us to choose to do what is right or wrong, not up to the king to decide for us.

It would seem taht you should read the whole article, so here it is.

Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created
Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
[1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]
The state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental, but it is not absolute.
This section does not affect the reasonable regulation of guns. The standard of
review for challenges to statutes allegedly in violation of this section is whether the
statute is a reasonable exercise of police power. State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264
Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, 01−0350.
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms
are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public
benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual’s
need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an
otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and
bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry,
and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately
operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises.
State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed
weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may
raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant’s
interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep
and bear arms substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing the concealed
weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment
was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his
or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665
N.W.2d 785, 01−0056.
Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen’s desire to
exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in
the citizen’s home or in his or her privately−owned business. It logically and necessarily
follows that the individual’s interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of
security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations.
An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear
arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121,
714 N.W.2d 495, 04−2989.
The most natural reading of “keep arms” in the 2nd amendment is to have weapons.
The natural meaning of “bear arms” is to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the
person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready
for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Putting
all textual elements together, the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual right
to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights,
the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 128 S. Ct. 2783, (2008).
The 2nd amendment right to bear arms, is fully applicable to the states. The due
process clause of the 14th amendment incorporates the 2nd amendment right recognized
in Heller. However, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___
(2010).
 
Last edited:

phred

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
768
Location
North Central Wisconsin, ,
Where I read/heard this before, I don't know, but it makes sense.
Constitutions were/are written (by the people) to prevent the government from doing certain things to the people as well as upholding or recognizing certain rights.
Statutes were/are written (by the government) to prevent people from doing certain things either against the government or other people. There may be some exceptions to this, but I just can't think of any now.
So, both the Federal and Wisconsin Constitutions affirms our right to defend ourselves and to keep and bear arms. The statutes prevent us from exercising those rights in certain places and fashions. The WI State supreme Court has pretty much said that statute 941.23 is unconstitutional, but deferred it to the legislature to fix the problem. They didn't
Defending ourselves with a firearm is a right, not a privilege. Privileges are granted by the government to do certain things. What we here want to do is for Wisconsin government to recognize the error of their ways and abolish those statutes that step (infringe) on our rights. Somebody screwed up long time ago and it needs to be fixed. We are tired of waiting.
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
A Utah Concealed Firearm Instructor's Perspective

I do not wish to become embroiled in some of the sub-topics in this thread, but I do have my $0.02 to contribute.

Any Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor who offers opinions of Wisconsin Law during a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Class is in violation of Utah law and may have his Utah Instructor credentials revoked. PERIOD. Any such instructor who varies from the required course materials without prior written approval of the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification finds him/her self in the same situation.

The Utah course is in three (3) nodules. 1) Administrative stuff about the Utah Permit including interstate reciprocity. 2) Handgun familiarity and fundamentals of safety with respect to handguns (think NRA First Steps Pistol Course), and 3) Utah and Federal (NOT WISCONSIN) Firearms Laws.

I concur with Calico Jack that taking the NRA personal protection series will teach as much as many other outside classes. Personal Protection in the Home involves tactical shooting from cover inside a building. Personal Protection outside the home is remarkably similar, but substitutes trees and other outdoor cover for building walls. Both teach situational awareness, but from their respective perspectives.

I also agree with Jack about tailoring classes to target audiences. Three weeks ago I taught a group of Elementary School teachers who want to carry concealed in their (Utah) classrooms. Firearm safety training centered around the classroom and I had a guest speaker who was a Utah Certified Teacher and competitive shooter who spoke after the class was over about the unique considerations of carry in a class room.

Last Saturday I taught a group from the local Chamber of Commerce. The emphasis there was concealed carry within a small business setting and in the home. - This was done using the specifics of Utah Law and the realities of small business settings.

My Feelings On Rights: I concur with others that the "right" to carry, open or concealed, is God-Given. And, with any Right, comes responsibility. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded building. And, any person exercising the "right" to carry, open or concealed, has a social responsibility to know the law and to receive marksmanship and safe firearm handling and storage training. If Wisconsin citizens get the right to carry open or concealed, and they as a group also accept the responsibility to become trained, then a permit system is cumbersome and intrusive. If there are numerous events that were the result of others not accepting this responsibility, then I would understand if the State forced education through a permit system. (Kids under 18 cannot apply for a Driver License without taking Driver Ed in WI.)
 

cleveland

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
289
Location
West Allis, WI
Any Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor who offers opinions of Wisconsin Law during a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Class is in violation of Utah law and may have his Utah Instructor credentials revoked. PERIOD. Any such instructor who varies from the required course materials without prior written approval of the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification finds him/her self in the same situation.

The UT carry class and the H1 class were run consecutively. I may have mistakenly put the open vs concealed discussion with the UT class info. Frankly, I don't recall if it was during the UT portion of the class or the H1 portion.

I will say this though, it seems he has quite the fan club here. I had no intention of starting this type of discussion. I expected this discussion to move into.."So, you think the UT class will cover WI when it passes?" or "The next class you should take is XYZ, that will bring you up to speed on cases with permit holders using their firearms in defense." etc..

I took the class for two reasons. To obtain my permit, and learn more about proficient use of my firearm. I got one of those things out of the class.
 

civilwarguy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
197
Location
elkhorn wi
ok so after reading all this and now wishing i had not wasted my time doing so it sound a lot to me like Mr. Bender created a new name to get attention again

Just my .02
 
Top