CCW Class online? What is this... I don't even...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/12/317045/race-to-bottom-concealed-handguns/

John Crewdson was able to acquire a concealed weapons permit in Florida even though he doesn’t live there and has never held a gun in his life. All it took was watching a 30 minute online safety video and sending some documents and $117 to Tallahassee.

Click to expand...

Where is this 30 minute online safety video? I want my wife to apply soon for her permission slip to be an american, but I don't feel like paying for a class. She is already an experienced shooter.


The video does go onto say that

The spokesperson later told him the permit’s approval was an accident, but only after he called them inquiring about it.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't specifically say why the approval was an accident. Is it because of the online safety video?


Can anyone clarify here?

Schlitz said:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/12/317045/race-to-bottom-concealed-handguns/



Where is this 30 minute online safety video? I want my wife to apply soon for her permission slip to be an american, but I don't feel like paying for a class. She is already an experienced shooter.


The video does go onto say that

But it doesn't specifically say why the approval was an accident. Is it because of the online safety video?


Can anyone clarify here?

Click to expand...

Like Google is so difficult to use? Or are you one of those entitlement children who demands that everything be provided for them by someone else?

But because I'm in a generous mood this morning I'll give it to you: "online CCW class" brings it up as the very first item.

Go forth and become self-actuated.

If you bothered to do yout own research you would have found out how his application was falsified. Saying the application approval "was an accident" is just someonr's way of avoiding mentioning the crime that was committed.

stay safe.

Schlitz said:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/12/317045/race-to-bottom-concealed-handguns/



Where is this 30 minute online safety video?

Click to expand...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=online+CCW+class

Schlitz said:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/12/317045/race-to-bottom-concealed-handguns/



Where is this 30 minute online safety video? I want my wife to apply soon for her permission slip to be an american, but I don't feel like paying for a class. She is already an experienced shooter.


The video does go onto say that

But it doesn't specifically say why the approval was an accident. Is it because of the online safety video?


Can anyone clarify here?

Click to expand...

See my article here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...ury-to-obtain-fl-concealed-firearms-license-1

The 30-minute video is a Maryland Police Training Commission video that allows the viewer to print out a certificate of completion. According to the MPTC, it is intended to satisfy ONE of the requirements to OWN a firearm in Maryland. The Florida DOACS has suspended Crewdson's license and is considering charging him with a violation of s. 873.06 Florida Statutes (making a false official statement).

FWIW....I could get a FL license without ever touching a gun too. PA's Hunter Safety course does not have a live fire section.

mrjam2jab said:

FWIW....I could get a FL license without ever touching a gun too. PA's Hunter Safety course does not have a live fire section.

Click to expand...

Very true. However the requirement for an instructor attesting to observing a student safely handle and discharge a firearm does not apply to hunter safety courses. See 790.06(2)(h) below:

(2) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall issue a license if the applicant:
(h) Demonstrates competence with a firearm by any one of the following:
1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency of another state;
2. Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
4. Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
5. Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
6. Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state or a county or municipality of this state, unless such license has been revoked for cause; or
7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor;
A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught said course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this paragraph; any person who conducts a course pursuant to subparagraph 2., subparagraph 3., or subparagraph 7., or who, as an instructor, attests to the completion of such courses, must maintain records certifying that he or she observed the student safely handle and discharge the firearm;

Click to expand...

The author of the article got his training under subparagraph 3. A hunter's safety course is covered in subparagraph 1, therefore no documentation attesting to observation of the student safely handling and discharging a firearm is required.

Rich7553 said:

Very true. However the requirement for an instructor attesting to observing a student safely handle and discharge a firearm does not apply to hunter safety courses. See 790.06(2)(h) below:



The author of the article got his training under subparagraph 3. A hunter's safety course is covered in subparagraph 1, therefore no documentation attesting to observation of the student safely handling and discharging a firearm is required.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many people don't get that...and insist that FL does not require live fire at all. When I point out the law like you did, they claim things must have changed recently.

skidmark said:

Like Google is so difficult to use? Or are you one of those entitlement children who demands that everything be provided for them by someone else?

But because I'm in a generous mood this morning I'll give it to you: "online CCW class" brings it up as the very first item.

Go forth and become self-actuated.

If you bothered to do yout own research you would have found out how his application was falsified. Saying the application approval "was an accident" is just someonr's way of avoiding mentioning the crime that was committed.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

This is a message board. I post here to talk to other people and get their opinions. Maybe OCDO shouldn't have a forum and when anyone asks a question about anything we should respond with: LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU IF YOU COULD JUST BOTHER TO USE GOOGLE WE WOULDN'T BE WASTING SPACE ON THE INTERWEBS

Rich7553 said:

Very true. However the requirement for an instructor attesting to observing a student safely handle and discharge a firearm does not apply to hunter safety courses. See 790.06(2)(h) below:



The author of the article got his training under subparagraph 3. A hunter's safety course is covered in subparagraph 1, therefore no documentation attesting to observation of the student safely handling and discharging a firearm is required.

Click to expand...

Rich, your intelligent input is constructive and appreciated. Perhaps skidmark could learn a thing or two from you.

Schlitz said:

Rich, your intelligent input is constructive and appreciated. Perhaps skidmark could learn a thing or two from you.

Click to expand...

I very much appreciate that, Schlitz.

Rich

skidmark said:

Like Google is so difficult to use? Or are you one of those entitlement children who demands that everything be provided for them by someone else?

But because I'm in a generous mood this morning I'll give it to you: "online CCW class" brings it up as the very first item.

Click to expand...

I call it being the 'fact welfare' and I refuse to do it. When people ask for citations of what they could easily find for themselves, they're not looking for anything but a fight...

ixtow said:

When people ask for citations of what they could easily find for themselves, they're not looking for anything but a fight...

Click to expand...

Sometimes, yea. Sometimes, even often on forums such as this, people are just lazy and unwilling to find answers for themselves to learn the truth to a subject. Actually, it goes deeper than that, often, people are just unwilling to admit they really don't know what the heck they are talking about.

However, there are times when one does need to be able to back up a claim or statement they make with a legitimate source, otherwise, it's not a fact, it's opinion.
If someone makes an argument that I don't believe is correct, it's not up to me to prove them right, that burden falls upon the one making the statement of fact. My job would be to prove my own position and/or disprove yours with my own facts.

That's how a debate works. You can't argue a point that you aren't willing to back up with hard facts. Otherwise, you lose the argument by forfeiture.

If you're the one trying to convince someone to change their position. The burden lies with you. However, that road goes both ways. BOTH sides of an argument needs to be able to come up with sources to back up their position, otherwise, their position will fail the test of debate.

Googling is HARD.

I mentioned someplace that I had a certain type of training. Someone posted they did not BELIEVE me and that this kind of training was not available.

All they had to do was enter said training in Google and the whole field of endeavor would be laid out for them books by my instructor on Amazon, and lots of posts about it.

I've even laid out the HOW TO do it in exquisite detail, garnered from 30 years of thought and training on another forum. I've pointed out in elaborate detail how 99% of the 'professional' guys are doing it wrong, how to spot these fakes and why my approach works and it's self-evident.

Yet people will not see it, particularly these pro-guys because it undermines their wrong approach. I've had posts deleted as confrontational to these pros, because it embarrassed the heck out of them. Well, duh, if you're wrong and it's evident, it's embarrassing to see it laid out in front of you.

Anyway, Googling is hard, Reading is hard and putting words in someone's mouth is much easier.

but where the fun in taking a shooting class where theres no shooting??

skidmark said:

Like Google is so difficult to use? Or are you one of those entitlement children who demands that everything be provided for them by someone else?

Click to expand...

ixtow said:

I call it being the 'fact welfare' and I refuse to do it. When people ask for citations of what they could easily find for themselves, they're not looking for anything but a fight...

Click to expand...

JeepSeller said:

people are just lazy and unwilling to find answers for themselves to learn the truth to a subject. Actually, it goes deeper than that, often, people are just unwilling to admit they really don't know what the heck they are talking about.

Click to expand...

I came to a forum for a discussion on the topic... that's what we do on forums....

ixtow, how in the world is this "looking for a fight?" I don't even see the logic there. Ask a question on the forums? ZOMG HE WANTS A FIGHT IGNORE! IGNORE! lol

JeepSeller, the I suppose the fact that you have an account on these forums means you're too lazy to google things and learn? Why discuss things with people when you can just google them?

Schlitz said:

JeepSeller, the I suppose the fact that you have an account on these forums means you're too lazy to google things and learn? Why discuss things with people when you can just google them?

Click to expand...

Go back and read my post again and come back when you understand what I wrote vs. picking a piece out of context. If you actually READ what I wrote, you'll see we're actually in agreement.

JeepSeller said:

Go back and read my post again and come back when you understand what I wrote vs. picking a piece out of context. If you actually READ what I wrote, you'll see we're actually in agreement.

Click to expand...

Sorry to take your post out of context when I read it, but with your wording it is pretty hard to get the jist of what you're saying. (maybe it's just me, i read it like four time) I assumed you were agreeing with those two knuckleheads. I bow my head in shame.

Schlitz said:

Sorry to take your post out of context when I read it, but with your wording it is pretty hard to get the jist of what you're saying. (maybe it's just me, i read it like four time) I assumed you were agreeing with those two knuckleheads. I bow my head in shame.

Click to expand...

No need for shame. It's the one true flaw for these forums and their discussions. It's impossible to always pass on our message in exactly the way we mean them every time.

I probably came off as a little snarky myself, easy to do.

In summary, I agree that the whole "google it yourself" is actually quite lazy IMHO.

I was agreeing with ixtow to the point that, occasionally, there are people who are just speaking from their ***, and aren't really looking for the truth, but, looking for a fight. However, in a mature, logical discussion, if you make a point, and can't back it up with facts, you not only kill the discussion, you look like a fool talking out of his ***.

JeepSeller said:

Sometimes, yea. Sometimes, even often on forums such as this, people are just lazy and unwilling to find answers for themselves to learn the truth to a subject. Actually, it goes deeper than that, often, people are just unwilling to admit they really don't know what the heck they are talking about.

However, there are times when one does need to be able to back up a claim or statement they make with a legitimate source, otherwise, it's not a fact, it's opinion.
If someone makes an argument that I don't believe is correct, it's not up to me to prove them right, that burden falls upon the one making the statement of fact. My job would be to prove my own position and/or disprove yours with my own facts.

That's how a debate works. You can't argue a point that you aren't willing to back up with hard facts. Otherwise, you lose the argument by forfeiture.

If you're the one trying to convince someone to change their position. The burden lies with you. However, that road goes both ways. BOTH sides of an argument needs to be able to come up with sources to back up their position, otherwise, their position will fail the test of debate.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem with that though: Everyone online has gotten so used to relying on links of ,some kind or other,to some form of "documented fact". Problem is, not everything gets documented,much less ends up becomming a link somewhere.Everything that happens is this world doesnt always end up online somewhere. And some of the things that do dont always become publicly available to everyone who wants it.
And now, when forumites demand "proof" of something that cant always be proven or dis-proven, they refuse to accept the fact.

j4l said:

, when forumites demand "proof" of something that cant always be proven or dis-proven, they refuse to accept the fact.

Click to expand...

Well....yea. Again, it's simple, if you make a statement, representing that statement as a fact and you cannot defend where you got that fact or formed that thought, it's not a fact, it's your opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions, that certainly makes to entertaining discussions as well, however, not much good for logical debate.

I say all Glocks are unreliable. Unless I can provide some cited facts to back up that statement, it's not only just my opinion, it's trollish in behavior on a gun forum. IMHO

In other words, you certainly don't HAVE to cite your sources, but, if you want your statements of fact to be taken seriously, it's in YOUR interest to provide where you get your facts. If I you disagree with the "Glocks are unreliable" statement, it's not up to you to PROVE I'm right by doing your own search, that would be stupid. It's up to me to PROVE my point. IT would, then, be up to you to PROVE I'm wrong with your own sources.

In other words, without sources to back up positions in any discussion, or, specifically, debate, it's not really much of a discussion or a debate. It's really a "no it's not, yes it is..not it's not..yes it is" schoolyard beef.

It's OK that you don't provide (or cant' find) sources to cite proving your statements of fact. But, it's silly to expect those who don't share your views to accept those views without those facts in evidence on just the word of some stranger behind a keyboard on a forum. You make yourself look like you're hiding something when you refuse to provide proof. That's not forum elitism, that's just human nature.

NOTE: I do not believe that Glocks are unreliable. I used that statement for demonstration purposes only. *grin*