No Formal Training Required

Discussion in 'South Dakota Gun Forum' started by blkdragon1212, Feb 21, 2012.

  1. blkdragon1212

    blkdragon1212 New Member

    9
    0
    0
    Last week, a man licensed to carry, had been assaulted in a neighboring state. The victim called on his cell phone to advise authorities that he was following the badguy from Minnesota, into South Dakota and that the South Dakota authorities should be alerted.

    So far, so good. Upon reaching the state line, a Deputy responding with lights and siren got into the fray. This is where it all went south, the victim exits he's vehicle and draws down on the person who assaulted him. The Deputy, doing his job, and not knowing who the good guy was, shot the good guy(he had the only gun)several times.

    It was stated, however not confirmed at this time, that the person shot was a South Dakota resident. In South Dakota, we have open carry, a good thing. We also have a permit system that requires no training. Your only requirement is being a law abiding citizen. On paper it sounds great, however you can't get out of bed one day, never having driven a motor vehicle, go to the DMV and pay for a drivers license and get it. You must prove that you can safely operate the vehicle. You must also learn to avoid certain things that could put you or others in danger.

    This situation could have been avoided in so many ways. The news did not say what kind of assault, so if it were simple assault. You know, punch, pushing, etc....the victim might have been better served by getting the plate number, and a good description of the suspect to provided to police. Not knowing the kind of assault, I will not comment further on that aspect, but you see my point.

    If he decided to give chase, which he did, he would have been wise to do just that. When the police arrived, let them take care of it. They have the neat car with the pretty lights on top. They wear uniforms that identify them as the good guys, so mistaken identity just won't fly.

    The point I am making here is that more attention should be made in training people on what to do when dealing with law enforcement in a critical incident. These are things that are stressed in Concealed Carry Classes where they are required. Knowing the state's penal code regarding the use of deadly force, and other valuable lessons.

    We all want the right to carry, as the right to self-defense is a God given one. However, our missteps will always be used to quash that right. Not to mention that the possible loss of life due to ignorance is shameful and unnecessary. I have been attempting to work with legislators in our state to get some changes made. Some would increase the reciprocity with other states, and some would provide needed training to any and all who wish to responsibly exercise their rights. It has not been very promising, but I will continue to fight the good fight.

    In the meantime, if any of my brothers and sisters in arms wish to fill in the gaps in there concealed carry knowledge, there are many resources available. This site has great information. As a Texas Concealed Carry Instructor, I would be happy to answer some of your questions.

    I am also preparing a condensed South Dakota Penal Code, related to the use of firearms for defense that I will post here for your inspection. We carry in the hope that we never have to draw our weapons, and if we must fire that only the person whom we intend to shoot is incapacitated. No collateral damage is ever reasonably. Nor is being shot by a cop.
     
  2. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Common sense would tell you not to pull a firearm when the cops are around. Sounds like a defective gene pool to me. No amount of training is going to fix stupid. As far as training and licensing drivers goes that is an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the amount of deaths every year on the highways.
     

  3. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    RJD you are correct. It sounds like a Texas transplant wants to make the bucks in ND that they make in Texas. He is asking to turn back the clock. I can recall when ND gun laws were all in the hands of the local SOs not good. I hope the gun owners in ND put a stop to this antifreedom move. This is a classic let the government do it argument. Find some isolated gun screw up blow it up and offer the gun fearing public an answer. Let me control these idiot gun owners for you. For a small fee of course.:rolleyes:
     
  4. blkdragon1212

    blkdragon1212 New Member

    9
    0
    0
    To those who wish to do nothing more than throw stones, it is your right. I am not here to make money, if I am not mistaken I have not even suggested it. However if I choose to do so, and people want to pay for my services it is none of your business. I do fine in my business,and my pension. In truth, I don't have to lift a finger to support my wife and I.

    It is simply a matter of putting the information out there. Not everyone is as astute as your are Mr. DurangoKid. In fact, if I was seeking compensation for any of the things I have done, what have you got against "Free Enterprise". Clearly you know everything about firearms and shooting. You know absolutely nothing about me. Nor will your self righteous opinions keep me from making my views known.

    I don't scare easily, I been shot at, nearly run over, and fought hand to hand with three time losers. Your comments have very little effect on me other than to press on.

    In fact, as long as you are throwing stones at me, I am more sure than ever that I am on the right side of the issue. I look forward to your wit and wisdom in the very near future.

    I am sure of one thing though, in this forum, I have as much right to be here as you do. I was under the impression that this was a place where there was the free exchange of ideas. Not everyone here has the experience that you might have, and therefore may benefit by the patient hand of a experienced person to guide them. Maybe I am mistaken by my impressions.

    I on the other hand will not be silenced by the likes of you. Read my post, comment negatively if you must, but I will post regardless. Oh! Get it right I am in South Dakota.

    Have a great day, and continue to enjoy the freedoms that civilian ownership of firearms protects. I look forward to reading your next post.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2012
  5. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    I will help NRA members in our sister state to fight your attack on their freedom. You may post any thing any time I could care less. You have a liberal bent that is scary. Anyone who wants to change the balance of firearms ownership in favor of the politicians is an enemy of gun owners. And yes you are out to turn a dollar for robbing the people of their freedom.:mad:
     
  6. blkdragon1212

    blkdragon1212 New Member

    9
    0
    0
    As stated before, you know nothing about me. Could it be that you believe I have a liberal slant because I am black? Again you have no idea of what political bent I have. Nor do I feel the need to discuss it with you. We will agree to disagree! I am willing to bet that I have done more to further the security of the second amendment, and recruit NRA members than you have. I have the medals and the students to prove it. What have you done to further the cause, other than snide remarks about how stupid people are?

    Your rhetoric would be better spent in areas where you are not preaching to the choir. It is easy to hide behind the anonymity of a website, behind the photo of a Saturday morning serial bad-guy, than to go where people don't share your ideas. We are not on opposite sides of the gun ownership issues, where I have a bone to pick with you is where people post legitimate questions and you have a non-helpful comment.

    I love these forums where you have guys who get a following, and then think they have a license to step on any and all people who you decide haven't paid homage to you. Some people talk, and others do. I will take an educated guess where you stand.

    Sir, I will pit my resume' with my service in the military, law enforcement, and my volunteer time teaching child firearm safety, and shooting classes any day of the week.

    If the truth be known, gun control in this country got it's start during post civil war "Reconstruction". It was designed to keep firearms out of the hands of "Freedmen". I have a far greater interest in this issue than you could ever know. Oh, surely you don't think that you are the only one with an NRA card? There are black members too, of which I am proud to be counted. Nuff Said!
     
  7. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Dragon, don't let him get under your skin, his opinions are exclusively his own...:cool:
     
  8. tellmaster207

    tellmaster207 New Member

    524
    0
    0
    Wow, this became a race issue real fast.
    Interesting
     
  9. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    I will be contacting my shooting friends in Rapid City right away. I can see you are out to bring gun control their state. The Left Wingers come in all colors.:mad:
     
  10. Cattledog

    Cattledog New Member

    1,462
    0
    0

    Ah yeah, well said. Forums are all about opinions, like em or not. Dragon, please don't kill your own thread with the defensive rants. That said, I'll try and contribute something useful. Washington State has similar concealed carry laws to SD and I personally know some people in WA that have or want to carry that scare the hell out of me. Not that they're dangerous, I just question their competence. In Oregon a class is required and that settles my mind a bit. Except for the incident where a Portland man with a CC permit opened fire on two kids fleeing a robbery of a F$%king Iphone from an Apple store. It wasn't even real, it was a demo.

    Fortunately, no one was hurt. The man was arrested for reckless endangerment (and a list of other offenses) and will not be allowed to carry again. Whats my point? Classes or not, permitted or not, some people are just too stupid for everyone's sake. Including the fool in The OP story. That was Darwinism at work.

    If you really want to make the public safer with CCW, a broad education approach is needed. Take advantage at every turn to inform the public of the mistakes of others and the consequences.
     
  11. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    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.:mad:
     
  12. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    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.
     
  13. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. blkdragon1212

    blkdragon1212 New Member

    9
    0
    0
    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.
     
  15. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0

    This is where I think you are wrong.
     
  16. luckyj

    luckyj New Member

    261
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    8
    38
    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.
     
  18. Cattledog

    Cattledog New Member

    1,462
    0
    0
    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"
     
  19. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    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.:mad:
     
  20. rocknwell

    rocknwell New Member

    2
    0
    0
    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.