No Formal Training Required - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Events and Meetups > State Forums > South Dakota Gun Forum > No Formal Training Required

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2012, 02:47 AM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: wyoming
Posts: 1,799
Liked 61 Times on 55 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Scott Williams runs a very expensive training program at Watertown, SD. He starts his CCL Trng. at $350 per person. It goes up from there. Yes he is a retired Texas Police Officer. The folks in SD are not going to let him and his company fleece them. This is about forcing gun owners to pay for their right to keep and bear arms.

__________________
Durangokid is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 03:20 AM   #12
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,749
Liked 5801 Times on 3029 Posts
Likes Given: 397

Default

If i had the hint that there was any selling going on outside the classifieds section as a non vendor or a business selling witout vendor status the thread would be deleted.

To the op's story. You make a point about drivers license for operating a car. There is no right to drive a car. You have the right to travel which means the right to walk wherever you wish in the country.

There is no test or licensing to walk or talk or breathe but we somehow dictate a license to carry a gun... even though thesupreme court doesnt seem to understand the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2a. It doesnt mean we as a people should help the forces of evil just cuz some retardis too stupid not to draw a gun with cops present in a high stress situation.

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 06:37 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 2,978
Liked 2612 Times on 1179 Posts
Likes Given: 2531

Default

I have problems with forced training. 1. Who pays for it? Not everyone can afford formal training. In which case we are telling the poor they have no right to defend themselves. 2. Who gets to decide if I have the right to self defense? You, the government who? 3. It's no different than any other form of gun control, only the law abiding suckers conform and the criminals don't give a damn.

I'm not saying training is a bad thing. I'm just saying I see mandatory training as the proverbial slippery slope against firearms ownership. Every time liberals want to do away with something it always starts with "we must do it for everyones safety" or "we must do it for the children". Sadly many conservatives fall into this trap without even realizing it.

__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 02:39 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
blkdragon1212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lake Norden,South Dakota
Posts: 9
Default

Cattledog,

I have spoken to a number of people in my adopted state. I have been encouraged to seek some changes in the state law as many of these problems have been brought to my attention by life long residents. My efforts are not to provide a new level of legislative control for the sake of control. Here is my proposal as it has been presented.

Due to the lack of reciprocity, in part because many of states not recognizing South Dakota concealed carry permits is do to the fact that anyone who is a law abiding citizen can pay $10.00 and have a carry permit. Just because a person can get a permit, does not make that person automatically competent to carry a firearm around and use it if they need it. We don't live in a vacuum, others live with us, and we are responsible for every projectile that we send down range. That is true if we hit the threat, or miss.

These are issues of concern for many states when approached by the Attorney General of South Dakota when the issue comes up. The first part of the proposal is to have two levels of Permits in the state. This was suggested because not everyone who wishes to carry travels. Until the national carry law comes into being, which may be never, this is the next best thing for South Dakota. By being two parts, those who are happy with the current system will keep the the current system as it is. Those people who travel on business, and pleasure could seek a permit that will require a higher level of classroom instruction, and basic firearms qualification that will by similar to what other states have that don't honor South Dakota Concealed Carry Permits.

The second part of the package would be a change in the Penal Code that would get the "Castle Doctrine" written into law. Anyone carrying for personal protection should not want some Attorney telling them that they have to retreat in the face of serious bodily injury or death. While I am all for retreating if possible, I want the option to do so, or stand my ground. It should be my choice. Without that provision in the law, it is open season as far as trial lawyers will have a field day with honest to goodness righteous self defense cases.

It seems a logical progression to me. The law would not affect me as I carry under LEOSA, I also have a Texas Concealed Carry Permit as does my wife. Texas allows non-residents to come to Texas and obtain a permit that grants nearly total reciprocity. To my way of thinking, real freedom should include the right to be protected not just in the state you reside, but any place a truly free person wishes to go.

Please tell me where I am wrong.

__________________
blkdragon1212 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 03:13 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lima,Ohio
Posts: 2,978
Liked 2612 Times on 1179 Posts
Likes Given: 2531

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282 View Post
I have problems with forced training. 1. Who pays for it? Not everyone can afford formal training. In which case we are telling the poor they have no right to defend themselves. 2. Who gets to decide if I have the right to self defense? You, the government who? 3. It's no different than any other form of gun control, only the law abiding suckers conform and the criminals don't give a damn.

I'm not saying training is a bad thing. I'm just saying I see mandatory training as the proverbial slippery slope against firearms ownership. Every time liberals want to do away with something it always starts with "we must do it for everyones safety" or "we must do it for the children". Sadly many conservatives fall into this trap without even realizing it.

This is where I think you are wrong.
__________________
rjd3282 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 05:31 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
luckyj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 260
Liked 82 Times on 47 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjd3282
I have problems with forced training. 1. Who pays for it? Not everyone can afford formal training. In which case we are telling the poor they have no right to defend themselves. 2. Who gets to decide if I have the right to self defense? You, the government who? 3. It's no different than any other form of gun control, only the law abiding suckers conform and the criminals don't give a damn.

I'm not saying training is a bad thing. I'm just saying I see mandatory training as the proverbial slippery slope against firearms ownership. Every time liberals want to do away with something it always starts with "we must do it for everyones safety" or "we must do it for the children". Sadly many conservatives fall into this trap without even realizing it.
Agreed.

Sounds like just another way to generate revenue for the state. Not that it is wrong to do so, but this is not the way to do it.
__________________
luckyj is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 08:42 PM   #17
Administrator
FTF_ADMIN.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
notdku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hill Country,Texas
Posts: 5,563
Liked 699 Times on 387 Posts
Likes Given: 729

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkdragon1212 View Post
As stated before, you know nothing about me. Could it be that you believe I have a liberal slant because I am black?
Any form of gun control is seen as a liberal biased by some members who strictly believe in the interpretation of the 2nd as being an open right.

Therefore restrictions from 2nd issues are seen as liberal attacks as Liberals, for the most part, seek to restrict access of firearms through legislation and regulation. Licensing would be form of regulation, hence the accusation.

This is just a generalization.
__________________

Not Registered? Register now! - It's free and helps the community grow.

notdku is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 09:59 PM   #18
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cattledog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 1,459
Liked 588 Times on 378 Posts
Likes Given: 535

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkdragon1212 View Post
Please tell me where I am wrong.
Ok a couple things. First, an additional (or 2nd tier?) permit to carry would only serve to educate those wishing to travel and give, maybe some reciprocity across state lines. As I mentioned with my example in Portland, mandatory classes don't solve bad judgement, nor do they usually cover what to do when police arrive on the scene.

Second, and I think this is where the general rub is, Legislation is not a substitute for leadership. Look what happened when an incident like the one you described in the OP happens. Who informs the public? The media. They get to spin the information however they want and ultimately control what people think of the event. Leadership needs to weigh in when things like this happen. Usually a local P.R. officer makes a statement in addition to the media's coverage and that's fine but sources of gun safety websites/materials can be cited while people's attention is peaked.

Third. Many of the "classes" for concealed carry that are required in many states are little more than glorified slide shows. Many of them are online but they require payment. There is no reason this information should not be given freely to the public. If the information is already posted freely on the local sheriffs website and you'd like to test for competency at the time of CC permit application, I don't see a problem with that. It would be better than what you have now. If the interest is truly public safety it should always be free of charge. The cost for the permit ? Sure thats fair. people have to get paid for running background checks and taking prints. A cost for safety education? That should always be free, especially when its a slide show.

The castle doctrine? great, do it. Though, I am a firm believer in all laws being passed on their own merits and not part of a bargained "package"
__________________
Join the NRA Here!


"You can have it fast, cheap and accurate...pick any two."~Me

"Educate and Inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them." ~Thomas Jefferson
Cattledog is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2012, 10:01 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: wyoming
Posts: 1,799
Liked 61 Times on 55 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

This is a move by the liberal factions in eastern South Dakota to stop the move for Const'l carry. South Dakota gun owners want to join Alaska,Arizona and Wyoming as free states. The rules proposed by these Gun Control factions will stop the move for Const'l Carry in South Dakota. This is being proposed by a native of Chicago, Ill. who has moved to South Dakota. I can understand why he wants to place the tight chicago rules on the Gun owners of South Dakota. I have offered the gun owners in SD $1,000 dollars to support their fight agansit this move.

__________________
Durangokid is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 10:17 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Western SD
Posts: 2
Default

I agree with Cattledog that training should be free. I think the local police department should be able to teach basic gun safety and self-defense as an elective in high schools. I think that retail stores such as Cabela's and Scheel's and local gun stores should offer regularly scheduled classes to the public (and instructors get paid by the business offering the education). More than anything, I believe it is the individual's responsibility to learn how to use a tool properly. Each driver of a car is held accountable to their own actions. Any person using a tool needs to know how to use it properly and carefully, otherwise injury can result. the same with a gun. it is a tool. But if someone doesn't know how to use it properly, that responsibility falls on him. God forbid he pulls out his stupid card at the same time he pulls his gun and gets an innocent person killed, or even himself. But legislation requiring citizens to pay for training, or even attend a state-approved safety course, is infringing on the RIGHT people have. if I have a RIGHT to carry as provided by the Constitution, then there shouldn't be anything holding me back. It is my responsibility to be safe with it. unfortunately, bad things happen. But that is so rare. especially in the state of SD. I have been a resident of SD since 2002 and I'm very pleased with the general condition of the state. We're ranked 7th in the country for best run state. I am also pleased with the gun laws. They provide a minimal amount of regulation that is good-back ground checks and GOOD self-defense/use of deadly force laws. I think my state is a safer place because of that. Most lawyers in SD aren't going to go all haywire over a self-defense act or act in saving someone else's life with the proper evidence.

__________________
rocknwell is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Webcam info required please photopro The Club House 0 07-06-2011 10:29 PM
I.D Required Kestral Curio & Relic Discussion 7 02-10-2010 06:21 PM
is an ffl still required if pagj17 Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 07-16-2009 12:44 PM
No CHL required in... Vermont?!? cnorman18 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 6 10-29-2007 12:39 PM