Greetings from Personal Protection Academy,
The noise is getting louder about permit-less carry for Wisconsin. There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t receive a couple of gripes about why I’m conspicuously absent when it comes to promoting permit-less carry. So what is my stance, you ask? Here ya go …
The prevailing gripes?
The government shouldn’t be able to impose conditions on our Second Amendment rights!
and
Individuals should be able determine what and how much training they need!
Permit-less carry, a.k.a. constitutional carry, means allowing eligible citizens to carry concealed weapons without requirements for permits or training. Essentially, their goal is to make it possible for anyone who can purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer to already be qualified to carry a gun.
Although I’m quite fond of the thought of more law-abiding folks carrying guns in public places, I’m rather ill at ease about folks carrying them without adequate training. While there’s no doubt bearing arms in the cause of personal defense is certainly a right, it comes with a boatload of responsibilities that your average gun toting neighbor might not be prepared to discharge properly.
Having spent the last six years conducting permit-to-carry and self-defense courses for more than 3000 clients, I have absolutely no doubt there’s value to mandated training before getting a permit. Why? Because I’ve seen first-hand just how unaware MOST people are when it comes to firearms and lawful use of force in self-defense.
I’m talking about good people who make the understandable mistake of confusing what’s “just” with what’s legal. I routinely encounter lots of nice folks who can’t wrap their heads around the idea that they can’t legally shoot a retreating attacker. It’s simply beyond their comprehension that a supposed burglar, robber, mugger, murderer, rapist, or uninvited intruder in their home at two o’clock in the morning should be allowed to get away. I feel quite confident in telling you I’ve witnessed a real mixed bag of woefully inadequate training and understanding of the law among many who professed to having acquired training in NRA and hunter safety classes, in the military, at their local shooting range, on the back forty, or even during law enforcement training.
And there are plenty of wannabe gun slingers that have little intention of becoming skilled with their weapons. For permit-less carry advocates who are confident those who’ll want to carry will also take responsibility for acquiring adequate training, Texas might offer a practical lesson, a state that requires mandated training from a state-certified instructor to qualify for a permit to carry. After years of having this permitting process in place, fewer than 4% of eligible Texans have acquired carry permits. Does anyone really believe that if all-of-a-sudden Texas were to change to a permit-less carry system that all of the many, many others who’d get the inclination to start packing would then all-of-a-sudden decide to get adequate training? Perhaps some will, but I expect most won’t.
For those who need more examples of clueless behavior, please visit a gun show. You’ll promptly notice the many oblivious gun-toting wannabes wandering around with their fingers on triggers, a practice my clients recognize as being responsible for nearly 60% of all negligent discharges! Folks have their heads in the sand if they think unsafe practices aren’t going to be prolific in Wisconsin if permit-less (training-less) folks are handling their blasters in all sorts of public places.
Here’s a surprise. I’m hearing the loudest objections to mandated training coming from many that I believe need it most. There are a bunch of folks who’ve convinced themselves they’re handgun pros and that the legal stuff is nothing more than common sense.
Sadly, the requirements for obtaining a carry permit from some trainers today are no more stringent than attending an elementary three- to four-hour gun safety course and/or an exercise in box checking on a form … sorely inadequate. Here’s an excerpt from an email I received just last week. “I already have my Florida and Utah permits and have undergone the REQUIRED training for Utah and have proven proficiency for Florida with my NRA ‘Expert’ rating. The Utah training was nothing I couldn't have picked up by reading a manual or pamphlet. My Florida ‘proficiency’ is with a service rifle (AR-15) and has nothing to do with proficiency with a handgun. The ‘proficiency’ requirement for Utah was not much more than knowing which end of the gun the bullet came out of.” Those of you who have trained with me know this fellow did not.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one. “A cop told me I’m better off shooting to kill so there won’t be any witnesses or personal-injury and wrongful-death litigation to deal with afterward.” Or this one: “I’ll blast him on the front porch and drag his carcass into the house before the cops get there.” … clear and convincing evidence that he’d been defending his castle.
Hey! Guns are dangerous! If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be of much use. Having a bunch of them in untrained hands, pockets, holsters, purses, whatever, will put our families and fellow citizens at greater risk.
I’m here to tell ya shooting ain’t easy. I know, because I’ve been doing it for decades and still make stupid mistakes like forgetting to disengage my safety on my carbine or shooting targets out of sequence. And if I can screw up in a controlled setting like one of my own courses, with my training and experience, imagine how someone who shoots once or twice a year will do in a lethal force encounter. Sure, they might get lucky and stop the wolf. Then again, that wolf could just as well kill them, or worse … the good guy might miss that wolf and put a bullet into an innocent.
With the stakes so high, doesn’t it make sense for people to get training beyond a basic firearm safety class? I certainly think so.
Besides, we already have too many high-profile tragedies involving firearms in the wrong hands. We just have to be extra cautious about some clueless gunslinger disrupting the current pro-self-defense momentum in this country. We know the anti-gun crowd never rests when it gets an opportunity to exploit anything to advance its agenda. It seems logical that mandatory robust training is one way of reducing the potential for incidents, negligence, and tragedies that they’ll feast upon.
Aside from the utilitarian concern of whether permit-less carry improves or jeopardizes public safety, there are also important philosophical questions to be dealt with. Permit-less carry advocates are irrational about slippage in their Second Amendment rights. I just can’t agree with their representation that mandatory training would simply be another regulatory obstacle that has to be hurdled, a bureaucratic permission slip to exercising Second Amendment rights, and of course the rationale that it’s plainly a profit motive for professional trainers.
But I’ll add that I’m in near-total agreement that bearing of arms is a fundamental, individual right and that the role of government is to defend that right and promote its vibrancy, rather than to seek out opportunities to squelch it as so many anti-gun, anti-self-defense zealots are determined to do.
The aforementioned notwithstanding, I have the feeling that most permit-less carry activists would be in agreement with limiting the rights of convicted felons and the mentally ill. Allowing the government to determine that some people are unfit to possess or carry firearms seems inconsistent with the position that it’s wrong for the government to regulate the bearing of arms.
And I doubt over-the-road truckers would get behind permit-less operation of those big rigs on our highways. I suspect the same is true for other danger-wrought professions and activities. How about you electricians, homebuilders, pilots, HAZMAT pros, and firefighters?
Still others argue that they’re adamantly opposed to mandated training just to exercise a right guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions … no training required to vote, to speak, or to practice religion … so why should carrying guns be any different? I don’t think I’m stretching too much in thinking that voting, speaking and praying pose considerably less risk to me and my loved ones than if training-less voters, speakers, and prayers start loading, unloading, clearing, storing, transporting, and possibly discharging their guns in public places.
I believe advocacy for effective, mandatory training is absolutely consistent with armed self-defense being a natural right that shouldn’t be rationed by an external authority. Training requirements need not serve as a form of “gun control,” in the sense that gun control laws serve as a tool to prevent people from exercising their rights. Instead, mandatory training should be seen as a way of facilitating the responsible employment of those Second Amendment rights.
If it becomes possible for anyone to carry a gun (concealed or otherwise) unless they’re a convicted felon, spouse-beater, addict, or mentally impaired, I have real doubts that same level of commitment to responsible training would exist.
In the REAL world maybe only 5% of Wisconsin citizens really know this stuff. Too many others are unconsciously incompetent. Those who intend to someday get adequate training are consciously incompetent. If you’re one of my graduates, you’re consciously competent, having sought adequate training in how to handle your equipment safely and lawfully. When responsibly implemented, I’ve seen first-hand how mandatory training can be beneficial. My clients are among my heroes, society’s sheepdogs. They have that training. They know those without adequate training don’t know what they don’t know.
So, my stance is that I care that my family and I will feel and be safe among fellow citizens who might be carrying guns in public settings, openly or concealing. I’m going to be happy as a clam if each and every one of them can competently load, unload, clear, store, transport, shoot, and otherwise handle their self-defense equipment in a lawful manner without gruesome negligent discharges, unlawful actions, and harming of innocents. Of course I believe in mandated training!
Now, please go influence our fellow voters.
Let me know questions.
With very best regards,
Michael Bender
Personal Protection Academy
(888) 657-4668
PPA-WI.com
I agree with getting training and carrying for your personal protection is a great responsibility. I disagree with having to go to him or anyone who is a "certified" trainer. How did people learn 50+ years ago? As he thinks states who have gone Constitutional Carry, the people won't want to get training. I guess he hasn't looked at Arizona at all. In fact, since WI went from carry with lots of harassment/DC/etc to open carry, there haven't been issues. I do agree with him that felons should not own firearms, but only the violent ones. Today, there are so many things that can make you felon, such as a scarf suddenly turning red. I'd love to go into more of this, but my blood is still boiling.
The noise is getting louder about permit-less carry for Wisconsin. There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t receive a couple of gripes about why I’m conspicuously absent when it comes to promoting permit-less carry. So what is my stance, you ask? Here ya go …
The prevailing gripes?
The government shouldn’t be able to impose conditions on our Second Amendment rights!
and
Individuals should be able determine what and how much training they need!
Permit-less carry, a.k.a. constitutional carry, means allowing eligible citizens to carry concealed weapons without requirements for permits or training. Essentially, their goal is to make it possible for anyone who can purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer to already be qualified to carry a gun.
Although I’m quite fond of the thought of more law-abiding folks carrying guns in public places, I’m rather ill at ease about folks carrying them without adequate training. While there’s no doubt bearing arms in the cause of personal defense is certainly a right, it comes with a boatload of responsibilities that your average gun toting neighbor might not be prepared to discharge properly.
Having spent the last six years conducting permit-to-carry and self-defense courses for more than 3000 clients, I have absolutely no doubt there’s value to mandated training before getting a permit. Why? Because I’ve seen first-hand just how unaware MOST people are when it comes to firearms and lawful use of force in self-defense.
I’m talking about good people who make the understandable mistake of confusing what’s “just” with what’s legal. I routinely encounter lots of nice folks who can’t wrap their heads around the idea that they can’t legally shoot a retreating attacker. It’s simply beyond their comprehension that a supposed burglar, robber, mugger, murderer, rapist, or uninvited intruder in their home at two o’clock in the morning should be allowed to get away. I feel quite confident in telling you I’ve witnessed a real mixed bag of woefully inadequate training and understanding of the law among many who professed to having acquired training in NRA and hunter safety classes, in the military, at their local shooting range, on the back forty, or even during law enforcement training.
And there are plenty of wannabe gun slingers that have little intention of becoming skilled with their weapons. For permit-less carry advocates who are confident those who’ll want to carry will also take responsibility for acquiring adequate training, Texas might offer a practical lesson, a state that requires mandated training from a state-certified instructor to qualify for a permit to carry. After years of having this permitting process in place, fewer than 4% of eligible Texans have acquired carry permits. Does anyone really believe that if all-of-a-sudden Texas were to change to a permit-less carry system that all of the many, many others who’d get the inclination to start packing would then all-of-a-sudden decide to get adequate training? Perhaps some will, but I expect most won’t.
For those who need more examples of clueless behavior, please visit a gun show. You’ll promptly notice the many oblivious gun-toting wannabes wandering around with their fingers on triggers, a practice my clients recognize as being responsible for nearly 60% of all negligent discharges! Folks have their heads in the sand if they think unsafe practices aren’t going to be prolific in Wisconsin if permit-less (training-less) folks are handling their blasters in all sorts of public places.
Here’s a surprise. I’m hearing the loudest objections to mandated training coming from many that I believe need it most. There are a bunch of folks who’ve convinced themselves they’re handgun pros and that the legal stuff is nothing more than common sense.
Sadly, the requirements for obtaining a carry permit from some trainers today are no more stringent than attending an elementary three- to four-hour gun safety course and/or an exercise in box checking on a form … sorely inadequate. Here’s an excerpt from an email I received just last week. “I already have my Florida and Utah permits and have undergone the REQUIRED training for Utah and have proven proficiency for Florida with my NRA ‘Expert’ rating. The Utah training was nothing I couldn't have picked up by reading a manual or pamphlet. My Florida ‘proficiency’ is with a service rifle (AR-15) and has nothing to do with proficiency with a handgun. The ‘proficiency’ requirement for Utah was not much more than knowing which end of the gun the bullet came out of.” Those of you who have trained with me know this fellow did not.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one. “A cop told me I’m better off shooting to kill so there won’t be any witnesses or personal-injury and wrongful-death litigation to deal with afterward.” Or this one: “I’ll blast him on the front porch and drag his carcass into the house before the cops get there.” … clear and convincing evidence that he’d been defending his castle.
Hey! Guns are dangerous! If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be of much use. Having a bunch of them in untrained hands, pockets, holsters, purses, whatever, will put our families and fellow citizens at greater risk.
I’m here to tell ya shooting ain’t easy. I know, because I’ve been doing it for decades and still make stupid mistakes like forgetting to disengage my safety on my carbine or shooting targets out of sequence. And if I can screw up in a controlled setting like one of my own courses, with my training and experience, imagine how someone who shoots once or twice a year will do in a lethal force encounter. Sure, they might get lucky and stop the wolf. Then again, that wolf could just as well kill them, or worse … the good guy might miss that wolf and put a bullet into an innocent.
With the stakes so high, doesn’t it make sense for people to get training beyond a basic firearm safety class? I certainly think so.
Besides, we already have too many high-profile tragedies involving firearms in the wrong hands. We just have to be extra cautious about some clueless gunslinger disrupting the current pro-self-defense momentum in this country. We know the anti-gun crowd never rests when it gets an opportunity to exploit anything to advance its agenda. It seems logical that mandatory robust training is one way of reducing the potential for incidents, negligence, and tragedies that they’ll feast upon.
Aside from the utilitarian concern of whether permit-less carry improves or jeopardizes public safety, there are also important philosophical questions to be dealt with. Permit-less carry advocates are irrational about slippage in their Second Amendment rights. I just can’t agree with their representation that mandatory training would simply be another regulatory obstacle that has to be hurdled, a bureaucratic permission slip to exercising Second Amendment rights, and of course the rationale that it’s plainly a profit motive for professional trainers.
But I’ll add that I’m in near-total agreement that bearing of arms is a fundamental, individual right and that the role of government is to defend that right and promote its vibrancy, rather than to seek out opportunities to squelch it as so many anti-gun, anti-self-defense zealots are determined to do.
The aforementioned notwithstanding, I have the feeling that most permit-less carry activists would be in agreement with limiting the rights of convicted felons and the mentally ill. Allowing the government to determine that some people are unfit to possess or carry firearms seems inconsistent with the position that it’s wrong for the government to regulate the bearing of arms.
And I doubt over-the-road truckers would get behind permit-less operation of those big rigs on our highways. I suspect the same is true for other danger-wrought professions and activities. How about you electricians, homebuilders, pilots, HAZMAT pros, and firefighters?
Still others argue that they’re adamantly opposed to mandated training just to exercise a right guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions … no training required to vote, to speak, or to practice religion … so why should carrying guns be any different? I don’t think I’m stretching too much in thinking that voting, speaking and praying pose considerably less risk to me and my loved ones than if training-less voters, speakers, and prayers start loading, unloading, clearing, storing, transporting, and possibly discharging their guns in public places.
I believe advocacy for effective, mandatory training is absolutely consistent with armed self-defense being a natural right that shouldn’t be rationed by an external authority. Training requirements need not serve as a form of “gun control,” in the sense that gun control laws serve as a tool to prevent people from exercising their rights. Instead, mandatory training should be seen as a way of facilitating the responsible employment of those Second Amendment rights.
If it becomes possible for anyone to carry a gun (concealed or otherwise) unless they’re a convicted felon, spouse-beater, addict, or mentally impaired, I have real doubts that same level of commitment to responsible training would exist.
In the REAL world maybe only 5% of Wisconsin citizens really know this stuff. Too many others are unconsciously incompetent. Those who intend to someday get adequate training are consciously incompetent. If you’re one of my graduates, you’re consciously competent, having sought adequate training in how to handle your equipment safely and lawfully. When responsibly implemented, I’ve seen first-hand how mandatory training can be beneficial. My clients are among my heroes, society’s sheepdogs. They have that training. They know those without adequate training don’t know what they don’t know.
So, my stance is that I care that my family and I will feel and be safe among fellow citizens who might be carrying guns in public settings, openly or concealing. I’m going to be happy as a clam if each and every one of them can competently load, unload, clear, store, transport, shoot, and otherwise handle their self-defense equipment in a lawful manner without gruesome negligent discharges, unlawful actions, and harming of innocents. Of course I believe in mandated training!
Now, please go influence our fellow voters.
Let me know questions.
With very best regards,
Michael Bender
Personal Protection Academy
(888) 657-4668
PPA-WI.com
I agree with getting training and carrying for your personal protection is a great responsibility. I disagree with having to go to him or anyone who is a "certified" trainer. How did people learn 50+ years ago? As he thinks states who have gone Constitutional Carry, the people won't want to get training. I guess he hasn't looked at Arizona at all. In fact, since WI went from carry with lots of harassment/DC/etc to open carry, there haven't been issues. I do agree with him that felons should not own firearms, but only the violent ones. Today, there are so many things that can make you felon, such as a scarf suddenly turning red. I'd love to go into more of this, but my blood is still boiling.