Clean background check or no training?

Bill Nance

Bill Nance

Banned
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
4,091
Likes
848
Location
God's Country, WA
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
I'm posting this here because I wanted a general reaction. Mods feel free to move it to training techniques forum if you think it should be there.

We have a MAJOR gang problem here. We've had six shootings in the last 5 days alone. And this in an area with a total population of maybe 110,000 people. We're getting all the scumbags from Cali as well as our own homegrown variety.

I'm concerned about teaching some banger any kind of tactical anything. I'm sure there are bangers smart enough not to come to my CCW class wearing colors.

So, I've instituted a policy where people have to bring either a valid CC license or a clean criminal record from the police. (The CCW is shall-issue and $55, the printout costs $5 at the PD)

Basically if you're in prohibited person land or have a long record of gang-type misdemeanors, I won't teach you.

So far it's been well received. But I admit I have I have very mixed feelings on this. Ideally I don't think anyone who is safe enough to be out on the streets should be disarmed. But in reality, we know that's not the way it works. I just don't want to add to an already serious problem by teaching dirtbags how to conceal, shoot better, etc.

What do you guys think?
 
It's your business, run it any way you'd like. If a potential customer doesn't like your policy, they are free to go elsewhere.

Sig Academy does the same thing - you gotta either give them a copy of your pistol permit/LTC, or sign a release for a NH state police background check and pay the background check fee.
 
A fellow that I know is a police officer at a small MetroWest department. He teaches firearm safety classes on the side. He says that he's getting lots of inquiries from gang bangers. He puts them off or refers them elsewhere.

I fully endorse what you are doing. It sucks that you have to do that, but that is the world we live in.
 
Last edited:
Well from a liability standpoint, it is good for you to be selective about your clientele, after all you don't want the family of the next victim of a mass shooting to come back after you when they start suing everyone from the gun and bullet manufacturer on down to the cook who burned the guys toast and triggered his rampage.

Secondly you can't KNOWINGLY provide a weapon or component to a prohibited person. If a criminal background check is easily available to a prospective client, then I have no issue with you asking for one to CYA.

It is less about hurting the feelings of a prospective client and more a function of lowering your liability.

A signed contract that asks all the questions on a 4773 is not a bad idea IMHO.
 
I think you're being fair, Bill. The only issue I could see where someone might have a legitimate beef is if a person had some gang type misdemeanors in his youth but managed to turn his life around. Of course, since it's your business and your rule, I would imagine a reasonable person could successfully put your fears at ease and relax a policy [wink] I agree with SSShooter though. Its your business so run it the way you feel is best for you and your community.
 
This is fine. I avoid people like that on a daily basis, why wouldn't you do the same? It's not even a business thing, it's a personal safety thing for you.
 
IIRC, this was SOP with Suarez International, Cumberland Tactics and Marksman's Enterprises when I took those defensive handgun courses.

I don't have any problem with it.

As an instructor, I do NOT wish for "free publicity" on the evening news after a student goes on a rampage! I don't wish to be party to any lawsuits either. Insurance may cover the costs, but does nothing for the emotional stress or loss to our reputations.
 
It's your business. You run the show. It certainly won't stop someone with a clean background from taking the class.

There were a couple of "shady" characters at the pistol class that I took. Why would these guys come all the way from Randolph to Lawrence to take a class? It didn't make any sense. When we were on break they were at the table that had the guns and were basically manhandling them. One dude was slamming the cylinder shut on a nice S&W 636, etc. These were the only clowns that couldn't hit paper at 50' and the instructor went and got his red dot sighted gun outta his car for them to qualify.
 
I think all gang bangers should have proper training. A comprehensive course in target identification should be mandatory also. This way, at least when the do shoot at each other, they have a better chance of offing a rival as opposed to some 4 year old kid!

As for you Bill, it's your business and I think you are making a wise choice.
 
Big Daddy 45acp said:
I think all gang bangers should have proper training. A comprehensive course in target identification should be mandatory also. This way, at least when the do shoot at each other, they have a better chance of offing a rival as opposed to some 4 year old kid!

As for you Bill, it's your business [STRIKE]and I think you are making a wise choice[/STRIKE].
Click to expand...

i'm going to agree with THIS only.

i.e. if Pookie wants to spend money on a firearms safety course when he or she knows of having a disqualifyer, i'm all for taking their money.

1. hopefully they'll learn to shoot what their aming at
2. i am NOT liable for a gangbanger that hasn't been caught...
3. i am NOT a supreme being...

IIRC, i never did a CORI check to take my firearms safety course in MA. so anyone can shell out $100 bucks, whether they are a prohibited person or NOT... whether they actually apply for the "said" permit is on them.

as for "knowingly" providing firearms for known prohibited persons - PUBLIC RANGES. i've seen my share of dirt bags who may or may NOT have had convictions shooting at them.

in all, it's YOUR business. run it.

*this reeks of gun control though, IMO.
 
I agree with your decision and agree that you should be able to run your business how ever you like, selecting who you want to train and who you do not.

However, don't be surprised if you recieve a letter of intent to file suit from the ACLU for racial discrimination since your policy, which refuses to teach someone with an extensive criminal record unfairly discriminates against blacks and hispanics.

ALCU filed a law suit against a Phillidelphia sub shop who put up a "Orders will only be accepted in english" sign in front of their store.
 
ShadeWPI said:
I agree with your decision and agree that you should be able to run your business how ever you like, selecting who you want to train and who you do not.

However, don't be surprised if you recieve a letter of intent to file suit from the ACLU for racial discrimination since your policy, which refuses to teach someone with an extensive criminal record unfairly discriminates against blacks and hispanics.

ALCU filed a law suit against a Phillidelphia sub shop who put up a "Orders will only be accepted in english" sign in front of their store.
Click to expand...

so only blacks and hispanics are gang bangers? [thinking]

and who's to say SOMEONE has commited crimes for which they have NOT been caught vs. someone who did....

see where i'm going with this?
 
wolf223 said:
so only blacks and hispanics are gang bangers?
Click to expand...
For whitey, yup.

Regarding the potential for having committed crimes they haven't been caught for, well, that's just fear based discrimination - if you're afraid to do business with someone because of what they MIGHT do, think, or say, you shouldn't be in business with the general population.
 
Bill, we aren't your customers...

Let the market decide. If you can find clients and satisfy your ethical requirements for providing training, great. If not, you have to find another way to balance your desire to avoid training "bad people" with your customer's desire for privacy.

As for my personal opinion, it seems like a bit much to ask for full-on background check, but its your class, your rules... (well that and be aware that some states have laws on training and liability for training people who do bad things - yup, free states aren't always free - though I've never heard of examples of those laws used... yet... )
 
Last edited:
Bill... personally I'd ban gingers too... they are known to have bad tempers and drink heavily.

Rich
 
derek said:
This isn't off-topic
Click to expand...

i think my posts are relevant to this topic... the OP asked for an opinion (e-pinion)...

IMO, he's trying to do what liberals do to us. justify their fear and deep-seeded contempt towards others owning guns against those THEY don't feel are worthy... be it for appearance, ethnicity or style of dress, when this is NOT a requirement to do so....

the market will speak for itself is the bottom line. i'd love to read a local forum from the area though... -seriously
 

Similar threads

Preban or not
2 3
Replies
65
Views
1K
not new guy
N
CT: HB-5467 An Act Concerning Firearms Background Checks (2024)
Replies
2
Views
228
sbhaven
S
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
192
AJK129
AJK129
Biden EO: Background Checks for Private Sales
Replies
1
Views
303
Toast
Toast
Check out this new security system that will shoot intruders with paintballs
Replies
1
Views
91
walter62
walter62
Back
Top Bottom