This is as good a place as any to post this...
I recently took a MA certified class and I have a few observations about the trainer. But first, why I took it when I'm technically exempt. Because I had an MA LTC when the training requirement was added, I , along with anyone who already had an LTC was exempt from the requirement. Even though a training class wasn't required I did take the class offered each month by the Worcester PD. Ya, back then the police offered a safety class to civilians.
Anyway, now I'm going for my MA non-res after many years of not having a MA LTC and moving north to a free country. And I figured it's easier to take the class that have to explain that I'm not required.
I'm not going to name him here, or go into his background, which explained a lot, so I apologize if leaving this out make things less clear.
I went into this class figuring the instructor may not know everything, but neither do I, so unless asked I was going to keep my mouth shut. So to be clear, any 2-way conversation was started by him. Which brings up my first criticism. He was more concerned with showing the students they were wrong than providing clear information. He would lay out a scenario and ask his question and the class would respond, And instantly we are told we are wrong because of A and B, which would be "facts" that he did not include in the scenario originally. There were a couple of these and the whole class got real quire after the first one, they notice it too. In the scenario that we talked about further, you are across the street, about 100', away from a guy swinging a sword, acting generally unhinged. He makes eye contact with you, screams "I'm going to f***ing kill you" and runs at you. Do you shoot him? My response "eventually, when he's within 20'" But I'm "wrong". Seemed to check all the boxes to me, clear and imminent threat, a clear intention to kill me, and the means to do so. Heck I was even giving the guy time, as he closed distance to change his mind. But I'm "wrong" because he was going to turn off at 10' and the sword was a fake. HUH? You didn't say that when you laid out the scenario. And sorry but that's not how the law works, and he had made it clear he was talking the law and not the real-world application by the cops.
So that's the scenario side of his poor teaching, now the bullet points:
He repeatedly stated that for a MA resident to carry in a constitutional carry state (Maine, NH, VT) you had to have an LTC from your home state. And if you were a NH resident you had to have a P&R to carry in Maine.
In order for a NH resident to apply for a MA non-res LTC you had to include a copy of you NH P&R (an older couple called him out on this, and I spoke up when he called them wrong. I could have also pointed out that the same Fed court ruling that got NH to stop requiring a home state LTC for non-res P&R would also apply to MA, but I didn't). His response, that must be new.
Referred to the Healey decree as new "law" and that you couldn't own any AR style unless it was a 22lr, or pre-ban.
Said you should never carry with a round in the chamber.
(in after class discussion) he told a student, LTC usually had restriction, I mentioned the SCOTUS ruling and the FRB's statement that they would not be printing restrictions. He claimed to be ignorant of either of these.
(more after class) told a student the non-res was may issue and they could just not issue one. When I mentioned SCOTUS again all he said was he would have to to look into it. (I'm thinking, WHAT!! how do you not know about the biggest court ruling on firearms in decades).
Do I think he'll read this? NO, NES is way to right-wing for him.
So that's my rant, take it or leave it.
