Clean background check or no training?

[Bob P]

Guineas tend to be pretty violent too. They're all in the mafia.

 

[Bill Nance]

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.

*this reeks of gun control though, IMO.

I'm with you, sort of...

In a world that works the way Bill Nance thinks it should, no one would get out of jail for a violent crime until they had served a very long sentence, if at all. "Criminal records" wouldn't exist outside a courtroom and anyone walking free would have full and free exercise of all rights.

Sadly that's not the world we live in.

If I'd taught someone how to conceal effectively, draw from concealment, make rapid, accurate shots and all the other topics I cover in a CCW class and it turned out they were the shooter in the latest drive-by I'd feel terrible. I just don't' want to be in that position.

With the BG check (which is five stinkin bucks and 5 minutes, so hardly a great imposition) I avoid having to make a judgment call based on someone's appearance or mannerisms, which really would be problematic, legally and ethically.

Gun control is government enforcing control over a right. What I'm doing is personal discrimination. I choose not to do business with certain types of people, for what I think is a good reason.

But I appreciate your opinion. Like I said, I feel strongly enough about the right to self-defense that the policy makes me a little queasy even though I think it's probably a good idea.

 

[Mike S]

I've always found it interesting that somebody could kill an entire family drunk driving, *possibly* do some time, get out, go to a car dealer, purchase a car and drive away, drive to the bar, get hammered and repeat the process and not a single person would blame the car, the car mfg, the car dealer, or the mfg of whichever alcohol the guy chose to drink.

 

[wolf223]

I'm with you, sort of...

In a world that works the way Bill Nance thinks it should, no one would get out of jail for a violent crime until they had served a very long sentence, if at all. "Criminal records" wouldn't exist outside a courtroom and anyone walking free would have full and free exercise of all rights.

Sadly that's not the world we live in.

If I'd taught someone how to conceal effectively, draw from concealment, make rapid, accurate shots and all the other topics I cover in a CCW class and it turned out they were the shooter in the latest drive-by I'd feel terrible. I just don't' want to be in that position.

With the BG check (which is five stinkin bucks and 5 minutes, so hardly a great imposition) I avoid having to make a judgment call based on someone's appearance or mannerisms, which really would be problematic, legally and ethically.

Gun control is government enforcing control over a right. What I'm doing is personal discrimination. I choose not to do business with certain types of people, for what I think is a good reason.

But I appreciate your opinion. Like I said, I feel strongly enough about the right to self-defense that the policy makes me a little queasy even though I think it's probably a good idea.

like i said, it's your shop. run it how you want.

if I were to sign up for course, i'd choose whether or NOT to use it.. the cost could be .01 cents and i'd look elsewhere... because we all know gangbangers don't mind the limelight... only law abiding citizens with fear of big govt and useless policies...

as i'm sure you have also met criminals in the USAF... your policy is flawed.. but the market will speak for itself...

i'm all for everyone on the street being "possibly" armed... in fact, i treat everyone as such. especially those i DON'T know...

edit: it does seem "reasonable"

 

[ShadeWPI]

so only blacks and hispanics are gang bangers?

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?

Wolf,

I never said that only blacks and hispanics are gang bangers. I never even said I believe a majority of gang bangers are black or hispanic.

All I said was, Bill should not be surprised to recieve an intent to file suit letter from the ACLU for racial discrimination on the basis the practice.

 

[Fixxah]

This is the USA, do as you please. Only you can decide and I think it is a wise policy on your part.

 

[fencer]

I think that your policy is sound. It surprises me that there is opposition to it, but even here political correctness is often voiced over common sense.

This has nothing to do with race or racial profiling. I'd bet that you would be leery of the guy with the swastika carved into his forehead as well.

If a clean cut young Hispanic male meets you. shakes your hand and says "Sir, I am interested in taking your class" it is different than the tattooed young man that says " Yo, essay, i want you to teach me how to choot mang" , I have no problem with your common sense telling you that you should be suspicious.

If you are occasionally incorrect, I am cool with that. There are other instructors.

 

[pyro451]

Tough call, really.

If your primary business is firearms training and you operate a storefront, this may present a problem eventually.

If you are like many other instructors, myself included, and teach part time because you have a passion for the sport then you will probably never have an issue.

I do not run any classes for people I do not know personally. I understand that greatly limits my clientele, but that is OK by me.

Good luck with your training. It is a great service to your community!

 

[davemata]

So, after having thought about this for a while, if I found an instructor that was asking for this, I'd find another. Not due to anything I need to hide, but frankly, I view my own personal history as need to know information, and some instructor at Random Classes, Inc. doesn't need to know that. I'd also have concerns over the disposition of any of my personal information once it was pulled.

It would be a little different if it was a friend, or even acquaintance, but a random that starts asking for info like this will put up a few red flags immediately, and I'd avoid. Or if they were the only game in town, I'd call up the local Consumer Affairs office and have a chat about said instructor to see if there have been any complaints.

 

[Bill Nance]

I think that your policy is sound. It surprises me that there is opposition to it, but even here political correctness is often voiced over common sense.

This has nothing to do with race or racial profiling. I'd bet that you would be leery of the guy with the swastika carved into his forehead as well.

If a clean cut young Hispanic male meets you. shakes your hand and says "Sir, I am interested in taking your class" it is different than the tattooed young man that says " Yo, essay, i want you to teach me how to choot mang" , I have no problem with your common sense telling you that you should be suspicious.

If you are occasionally incorrect, I am cool with that. There are other instructors.

I don't think it's "political correctness" at all.

First, I really DON'T want to discriminate. People of Mexican descent make up 50% of the population here, a tiny tiny percentage of those are involved in gangs and plenty of white kids are as well. Trust me, I had a foster-nephew that was into that crap. and he was lilly white. And plenty of good people simply have stupid taste in clothing. I saw a kid today that at first screamed "banger" to me, but on reflection it's probably just what's "cool" in the hood. He wasn't wearing Norteno or Sureno colors anyway.

Second, I agree wholeheartedly philosophically with Wolf223. I see his objections and agree it's a problem ethically. Same goes for Davemata with the privacy issue.

I made the OP hoping to get feedback. That's exactly what I got and I'm grateful to everyone who posted, whether or not they think it's a good idea. I had very mixed feelings doing this. I think I'm on solid ethical ground and God knows the cops and city council would be happy I'm doing it, so it makes life easier as well in that aspect. (I would like to get recommendations from the cops someday).

There is a real divide between whatI think should be the way the world works and the way it actually does. So far, the market seems to be supportive. We'll see, this is a new business.

 

[DickWanner]

I'll teach anyone who is has the money and is willing to be a student. That said, you also have to protect your assets and your business. I've taught a couple gang-banger types. They tend to be the worse types of students and leave with skills just as bad as they came in with. I honestly wouldn't worry about it unless you start seeing hordes of know gang members attending your classes or become know as the guy to go see to teach you how to shoot your "gat".

 

[Len-2A Training]

So, after having thought about this for a while, if I found an instructor that was asking for this, I'd find another. Not due to anything I need to hide, but frankly, I view my own personal history as need to know information, and some instructor at Random Classes, Inc. doesn't need to know that. I'd also have concerns over the disposition of any of my personal information once it was pulled.

For many in MA, it's hard to comprehend that in Free America people can go into any gun store and buy a gun with nothing more than a DL and NICS check. Private sales are done in parking lots with a handshake and passing the cash/gun. And these are the legal sales.

For those in MA, showing a LTC before taking a defensive training class or joining a gun club is no big deal. So Bill is asking his students to do this before taking his class, or a BG check (for those w/o a license). It really is no big deal. And if SSN or other sensitive info was on the BG check, blacking it out and handing over a copy shouldn't be a big deal either.

As KMaurer and myself stated above, MANY of the professional training schools that offer the best classes in defensive tactics do this. It's laid out in their "how do I register rules" and if someone gets bent out of shape about it, they need not apply.

I'm a huge privacy advocate and have been for 30 years, but I don't see a problem here.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What do you guys think?

I would suggest you give your students the choice:

1. The background info you suggest

2. An insurance policy providing you with at least $1M indemnification for any claims brought against you for negligence in not exercising reasonable care to make sure your students are not criminals.

I'll teach anyone who is has the money and is willing to be a student. That said, you also have to protect your assets and your business. I've taught a couple gang-banger types. They tend to be the worse types of students and leave with skills just as bad as they came in with. I honestly wouldn't worry about it unless you start seeing hordes of know gang members attending your classes or become know as the guy to go see to teach you how to shoot your "gat".

OK, now you've admitted knowingly teaching gang-banger types how to shoot on a pubic forum. If your training ever comes up and you are sued by someone shot by the gang banger, how do you think this will effect the plaintiffs claim?

All I said was, Bill should not be surprised to recieve an intent to file suit letter from the ACLU for racial discrimination on the basis the practice.

Probably not an issue as long as the criteria are objective and non-racial. One crosses into dangerous territory if admission to classes is denied on the basis of general appearance, manner of dress, etc. In MA (I know the OP is in WA) one has FAR more to worry about the MCAD and the AG than the ACLU when it comes to discrimination suits.

Also, the majority if courses in MA are for licensing, not advanced training, and generally don't require a background check or LTC. If I know someone is a gang-banger, I won't let them in a class I teach - but I don't try to guess as that by checking to see if they look like plumbers from the rear.

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.

There is a huge difference between providing a gun to a person who turns out to be federally prohibited, and someone who you KNOW to be federally prohibited. While it is not 100% clear that MGL prohibits someone not LTC eligible from shooting under supervision, it is clear they such a federally prohibited person may not handle a firearm.

 

[M1911]

As KMaurer and myself stated above, MANY of the professional training schools that offer the best classes in defensive tactics do this. It's laid out in their "how do I register rules" and if someone gets bent out of shape about it, they need not apply.

That's been my experience at every professional training school -- LFI, Sig, S&W, and Cumberland Tactics. You need to provide a CCW license or a background check.

 

[RobertPaulson]

so only blacks and hispanics are gang bangers?

Asians too..

 

[z0mbi]

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...

...the market will speak for itself is the bottom line.

No... everyone discriminates. Even you. I'm as libertarian as they come, but even I think there are plenty of people that shouldn't own guns. The difference between what we're discussing here and what liberals want to do is liberals want to use the Government to impose their views/discrimination onto the rest of the population. What we're talking about here is the free market, the right to choose, the right to associate with whomever you so desire, and to not associate with undesirables. If I were looking to take shooting class and I ran across this class requiring a BG check, I would try to find another. But it's his business. It's not the government, it's not gun control, and it's not what the liberals do.

 

[grew]

I fully support your right to discriminate.

+1

 

[wolf223]

i swear some us live under rocks.... there is NO SUCH THING as a "Typical" gangster. those punks you see on the street are just copying what they see on BET / MTV and the movies.....

gangsters come in all shapes, colors and sizes... if having tatoo's and an accent was a "disqualifier" for a pistol class, i think some NES members would fit that bill... what about body piercings? will a prince albert DQ me if i don't have an LTC?




*again, OP can run his shop any way he wants...

 

[KMaurer]

No... everyone discriminates.

Not everybody. Of course those who don't expect the government to do it for them.

Ken

 

[SeanT]

I've got no problem with how you want to run your business. If people don't like the policy, they'll go find training someplace else. If you can't find clients who will sign up for your training, you'll need to adjust your policies accordingly if you want to keep the business open.

 

[z0mbi]

Not everybody. Of course those who don't expect the government to do it for them.

Ken

I find that those who 'don't discriminate' typically discriminate the most in order to appear non-discriminatory.

 

[z0mbi]

i swear some us live under rocks.... there is NO SUCH THING as a "Typical" gangster. those punks you see on the street are just copying what they see on BET / MTV and the movies.....

gangsters come in all shapes, colors and sizes... if having tatoo's and an accent was a "disqualifier" for a pistol class, i think some NES members would fit that bill... what about body piercings? will a prince albert DQ me if i don't have an LTC?

The Canadian border patrol discriminated against me because of my tats and piercings. They questioned me about my gang affiliation, and didn't seem to believe me much when I insisted I roll solo.

 

[z0mbi]

Gangbangers should call a summit and all agree to use less-lethal rounds in gunfights.

 

[davemata]

I find that those who 'don't discriminate' typically discriminate the most in order to appear non-discriminatory.

That's been my personal experience as well. Generally those are the ones that do their best to always look well meaning or "helpful" even though it's a thinly veiled ruse.

I think it comes down to - it's Bill's choice, I don't fault the man for having the concern, wanting perspective, and wanting to hang tough on a fair policy. It's his business, and revenue will tell him if he made the right choice or not.

Unless you were to go with a fully referral only business, where all students are vetted and vouched for, you run the risk of teaching a bad apple, be it Jorge with the tear drop tat, or Aunt Emma that's so pissed off at her neighbor's poodle that she's ready to go postal. Like I tell people though, you can't solve for every edge case.

 

[DickWanner]

OK, now you've admitted knowingly teaching gang-banger types how to shoot on a pubic forum. If your training ever comes up and you are sued by someone shot by the gang banger, how do you think this will effect the plaintiffs claim?

By gang banger I mean younger males typical to an inner city. Who am I to judge these students by the way they dress or act? Also, how many instructors have actually been sued over their instructing or is this just more legal paranoia?

 

[cekim]

Gangbangers should call a summit and all agree to use less-lethal rounds in gunfights.

They should call a summit, we should nuke it from orbit to be sure...

 

[davemata]

Also, how many instructors have actually been sued over their instructing or is this just more legal paranoia?

That's a very good question. Survey says?

 

[Uncle Fester]

Bill, it's your class, so you should do whatever you feel is right. That said, if I was signing up for a class and found out I had to get a background check done and pay for it, I'd shop around. Partly because it's a hassle (the free time I do have is never during normal office hours), and partly because I don't want to have to pay extra to put your mind at ease when I know I'm on the level. What I would suggest to get around an objection like this is to raise the price of the class by $5, require a 50% tuition deposit with their class application (that includes something granting you permission to run a background check), and run the background checks yourself. Anybody that doesn't pass get's their money back minus a $5 processing fee.

 

[Billsail]

I would inform potential students, that the training they are signing up for, will, in no way guarantee approval of any kind of firearms license. If, after recieving that information, they decide they want to take your course...Well..."welcome to the class!"

 

[DickWanner]

Bill, it's your class, so you should do whatever you feel is right. That said, if I was signing up for a class and found out I had to get a background check done and pay for it, I'd shop around. Partly because it's a hassle (the free time I do have is never during normal office hours), and partly because I don't want to have to pay extra to put your mind at ease when I know I'm on the level. What I would suggest to get around an objection like this is to raise the price of the class by $5, require a 50% tuition deposit with their class application (that includes something granting you permission to run a background check), and run the background checks yourself. Anybody that doesn't pass get's their money back minus a $5 processing fee.

Not a bad suggestion.