Took basic handgun course for my LTC sat...

Tater

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
1,909
Likes
298
Location
CENTRAL MA
I took the course offered at Singletary Rod and Gun Club on the Sutton/Oxford line. The instructor stated that he usually had a class of 8-12 people... well let's just say that our class was a litle bigger then that. The class had about 52-54 people in it. let's just say the attitude of the people in the class was great so many people that are all worried about the state of the US and the state of MA. The instructor handed out a workbook that had some great sources for information on gun safety websites, I made sure to give everyone around me the Northeast shooters website information [grin] spoke with the chief he pretty much said all he issues is LTC A -ALP.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
284
Likes
21
A ONE day course for 50+ people???? How many instructors were there? How many rounds did each fire on the range?
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
3,740
Likes
900
Location
Seattle
One instructor teaching that many people would have been a serious goat rodeo. There's no range time but there is still a bunch of required hands-on time.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
284
Likes
21
While range time is not required it should be. How can you give someone a drivers license that has never driven a car???? You can tell the newbies that took the "wham bam thank ya ma'am" courses at the range.
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
369
Location
Seattle, WA
While range time is not required it should be. How can you give someone a drivers license that has never driven a car???? You can tell the newbies that took the "wham bam thank ya ma'am" courses at the range.
Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. There shouldn't be any test or course to own/carry a firearm IMO.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.3%
59   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,944
Likes
9,922
Location
Escaping to NH
While range time is not required it should be. How can you give someone a drivers license that has never driven a car???? You can tell the newbies that took the "wham bam thank ya ma'am" courses at the range.
Gee, I guess my chief should never have issued my Wife and I LTCs back in the 1970s! No courses were required, no range time, no begging . . . and neither of us has ever shot someone . . . amazing, totally amazing isn't it! [rolleyes] [thinking]
 

Supermoto

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
8,752
Likes
2,841
Location
in 1st Place
It should be a personal requirement to get proper instruction, which most definately requires range time and alot of it, but I don't believe it should be a govermental requirement.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. There shouldn't be any test or course to own/carry a firearm IMO.
In fact, there should be due-process (i.e. court hearing) required to revoke your presumed RKBA...

The sheeple-think is so ingrained at this point that we now have to re-establish our presumption of innocence and right to due-process of the law...[thinking]

I'm actually ok with the idea of a database of "prohibited persons" provided they ("the prohibited") have had their due-process and provided that checks of this database are not recorded.

i.e. make a call when you buy - is "John David Stutts" on the list? No? Ok, here's your gun. No record of the check kept at all...

That is the best way to balance keeping guns out of the hands of known bad guys without infringing on the rights of the innocent...
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
296
Likes
18
Location
North Bend, OR
I took the course offered at Singletary Rod and Gun Club on the Sutton/Oxford line. The instructor stated that he usually had a class of 8-12 people... well let's just say that our class was a litle bigger then that. The class had about 52-54 people in it.
52-54 people? In one class? With 1 instructor? Holy crap! I couldn't imagine teaching that many in one class, even for the NRA Home Firearm Safety course, team-taught with my husband. Yipes!
 

EddieCoyle

Consigliere
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
134   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
20,866
Likes
6,753
Location
Northern, MA
I'll teach 12 at once for the classroom part of a Basic Pistol course. For the range, I like at least two, and preferably three additional coaches. We shoot in "heats" with one instructor per student.
 

Tater

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
1,909
Likes
298
Location
CENTRAL MA
At first I was concerned but the quality of the people that were there to get their certificates was top notch. Everyone was there early so we did not even have to start more than 5-10 minutes late even though the class was 5x the size he expected. The instructor was great also, very organized and once he saw the size of the class he said that he would refrain from telling the war stories that often get brought up during a normal class. The only break we took was when the other half of the class did the hands on required loading and unloading of both revolvers and semi-auto handguns. There were questions but not excessive questions and I must say the instructor offered anyone who wanted more hands on could stay after the class and anyone who felt they needed further clarification could stay after also. He said he would stay as late as needed to make sure everyone was satisfied that they could safely handle a firearm. He drilled us hard on safety safety and more safety...
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
284
Likes
21
Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. There shouldn't be any test or course to own/carry a firearm IMO.

Never said there should be a law requiring the course, though I believe any resposible person would WANT to take a good course before obtaining a firearm. I was questioning the value of the course that was given.
 

DickWanner

Banned
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
5,766
Likes
369
Location
Seattle, WA
Never said there should be a law requiring the course, though I believe any resposible person would WANT to take a good course before obtaining a firearm. I was questioning the value of the course that was given.
I quoted you again highlighting the sections that would make it seems that you were advocating for a law requiring a course.

While range time is not required it should be. How can you give someone a drivers license that has never driven a car???? You can tell the newbies that took the "wham bam thank ya ma'am" courses at the range.
While we all state that firearms training should be sought after continually through one's life as a gun owner, it is generally agreed that it should not be a requirement by any governing body. I personally feel that there should not be ownership or CCW permits, either. Hell, seems to have worked so far in Alaska and Vermont. I'll agree that you've had a change of heart, but your older post stated otherwise.
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. There shouldn't be any test or course to own/carry a firearm IMO.
At this time, the second amendment has no bearing on the requirement of the state of MA to require a safety course. 2A applies to the federal government only. Maybe it's just me, but I do not typically consider the incorporation of federal laws to be a "good thing". Sometimes it gives us a benefit we want, but overall that process undermines one of the main tenets that served as the underpinning for the design of our system of government.

Whereas the use of firearms for personal defense is not specifically guaranteed under the MA constitution, I can't see a reason that there could not or should not be a law that requires a safety course.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
States rights and the rights of people in localities to have laws that serve their perceived local needs is conceptually as much the cornerstone of our system of government as anything else I can think of. You can't have every law passed by the fed gov incorporated to all of the states AND have any kind of states rights or state laws that supercede federal laws.

The Massachusetts constitution itself is at the heart of the problem. That is what we need to get changed if we want to have these rights guaranteed protected from government interference. So long as this document does not protect our individual rights, we are in jeopardy of losing CCW, or having more onerous restrictions applied to it.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
You can't have every law passed by the fed gov incorporated to all of the states AND have any kind of states rights or state laws that supercede federal laws.

The Massachusetts constitution itself is at the heart of the problem. That is what we need to get changed if we want to have these rights guaranteed protected from government interference.
While I agree in principle that we can't have every Federal law "incorporated", we are not talking about "every law" at this point...

We are talking about the 2nd Amendment... The very next right enumerated after Freedom of speech and religion.

2A says "shall not be infringed". It does not say "Congress shall not infringe" or "Congress shall make no law". It says "shall not be infringed".

As such, IMO, it shouldn't require explicit incorporation, but since we have been on this long path of individual incorporation, I believe this to be the next logical and correct step...

Tha MA constitution _could_ be changed before it is preempted, but at this point, I doubt it will...
 

PATRON

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 99%
94   1   1
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
4,862
Likes
2,204
I took the course offered at Singletary Rod and Gun Club on the Sutton/Oxford line. The instructor stated that he usually had a class of 8-12 people... well let's just say that our class was a litle bigger then that. The class had about 52-54 people in it. let's just say the attitude of the people in the class was great so many people that are all worried about the state of the US and the state of MA. The instructor handed out a workbook that had some great sources for information on gun safety websites, I made sure to give everyone around me the Northeast shooters website information [grin] spoke with the chief he pretty much said all he issues is LTC A -ALP.
That is just a joke, there is no way those people had the proper training to handle a firearm. I do not have anymore than 4 in my class and at the range they will have to shoot a 22 revolver, 22 semi auto, 38 revolver and 9mm semi auto. All this guy is doing is helping give instructors a bad name.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,168
Likes
30,310
Whereas the use of firearms for personal defense is not specifically guaranteed under the MA constitution, I can't see a reason that there could not or should not be a law that requires a safety course.
You're confusing the issue by bringing up stuff that isn't related. Part of the problem is that in MA you must pass one of these courses merely to own a gun. Even if you just want to buy a gun and never fire it, you have to pass a course, in order to obtain the required permit. This issue has nothing to do with "personal defense" or anything to that degree.

Therefore, any course/permit requirement is an infringement of rights, at a very basic level, because individuals are deprived of the legal right to even own a gun in this state without passing a course.

I agree with you in a legal sense, eg, no incorporation, no dice... but frankly, the 2nd amendment should FORCE states to not have any basic
restrictions on firearms ownership, period. Obviously the way it should be and the way it actually is, are two different things.

-Mike
 

Mike-Mike

Instructor
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
8,955
Likes
1,451
Location
Shrewsbury MA
That is just a joke, there is no way those people had the proper training to handle a firearm. I do not have anymore than 4 in my class and at the range they will have to shoot a 22 revolver, 22 semi auto, 38 revolver and 9mm semi auto. All this guy is doing is helping give instructors a bad name.
It is very possible to learn a great deal from a HFS instructor even in a large group. I Wouldn't bad mouth an instructor for teaching willing people. If he turned half the class away, would we be better off?

Most of HFS is demonstration and not a ton of hands on. I have encouraged students to help each other when loading/unloading snap cap drills. I think the guy did ok with what he had.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
While I agree in principle that we can't have every Federal law "incorporated", we are not talking about "every law" at this point...

We are talking about the 2nd Amendment... The very next right enumerated after Freedom of speech and religion.

2A says "shall not be infringed". It does not say "Congress shall not infringe" or "Congress shall make no law". It says "shall not be infringed".

As such, IMO, it shouldn't require explicit incorporation, but since we have been on this long path of individual incorporation, I believe this to be the next logical and correct step...

Tha MA constitution _could_ be changed before it is preempted, but at this point, I doubt it will...
I am sorry, but your argument uses ANTI logic.

You can't have a principle applied just to the law you want it applied to.

The federal government was not set up to and was never intended to supercede local authority. If 2A was supposed to have sway over the states, they would not have some kind of similar language in their own constitutions.

The US Constitution holds the definitions of what the Federal Government is allowed to do and restricts it from what it can't do. Just because you (and many here, including myself BTW) consider 2A to be among the most important laws in our country doesn't mean that our system of government should be circumvented to get a result we want. That might give you something, but it is also the method used to work against us regularly. We need to work against federal usurpation of power.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
I agree with you in a legal sense, eg, no incorporation, no dice... but frankly, the 2nd amendment should FORCE states to not have any basic
restrictions on firearms ownership, period. Obviously the way it should be and the way it actually is, are two different things.
It's like poll tests...

Sounds pretty reasonable to say that only people with a [email protected]#$ing clue should be allowed to vote...

Trouble is that this becomes an easy method of discriminating against any group of people or persons so chosen by the state...

They could impose arbitrary requirements on the safety course - perhaps make a "graded" course. There is insufficient restriction on the state's power here and that's the problem in principle and practice...

I believe that gun ownership should not be licensed at all, but rather the "prohibited person" list used for a blind check (if you aren't on the list, no record is kept of the check).

However, if you want to find a middle ground and keep the sheeple from shooting their spouse, kids, dog, self while cleaning loaded guns, then provide an incentive rather than a punishment...

Free license if you take the course, $100 if you don't?

Again, I don't think any license should be required, but it would seem that I am in the minority on that in this state to say the least...
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
You're confusing the issue by bringing up stuff that isn't related. Part of the problem is that in MA you must pass one of these courses merely to own a gun. Even if you just want to buy a gun and never fire it, you have to pass a course, in order to obtain the required permit. This issue has nothing to do with "personal defense" or anything to that degree.

Therefore, any course/permit requirement is an infringement of rights, at a very basic level, because individuals are deprived of the legal right to even own a gun in this state without passing a course.

I agree with you in a legal sense, eg, no incorporation, no dice... but frankly, the 2nd amendment should FORCE states to not have any basic
restrictions on firearms ownership, period. Obviously the way it should be and the way it actually is, are two different things.

-Mike

See my response above. You are arguing against states rights, and attempting to justify a process that has been illegally used to strip us of freedoms.

State law prevails here, whether we like the state law or not.

EDIT: Also, you are incorrect in your above statement regarding needing to pass a course to buy a gun. You do not need to pass a course to obtain an FID card, and FID cards are shall issue. You can obtain a gun with an FID card. The MA Constitution does not hold any "shall not be infringed" type language.
 
Last edited:

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
State law prevails here, whether we like the state law or not.
It does according to modern jurisprudence, but was that really the intention?

It seems pretty clear to me that in saying "shall not infringe", they did not mean to say Federal Government in this instance...

There are other places where they specifically limit their verbiage to "Congress", though ironically, those have mostly been incorporated...
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
It does according to modern jurisprudence, but was that really the intention?

It seems pretty clear to me that in saying "shall not infringe", they did not mean to say Federal Government in this instance...

There are other places where they specifically limit their verbiage to "Congress", though ironically, those have mostly been incorporated...
In a word YES. State law was intended by the Framers to set the standard for how our government would function.

I don't know how to explain it to you any other way than to tell you that the US Constitution applies to the federal government and not to the state governments. The argument you are making has no basis in law. Ever. The only thing that could give it basis in law would be the incorporation of the second amendment, which would undermine states rights.
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,682
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
The argument you are making has no basis in law. Ever. The only thing that could give it basis in law would be the incorporation of the second amendment, which would undermine states rights.
The argument I am making has actually 200+ years of basis in law... Though I am not exactly a fan of it - the precedent under which we operate shows that each right has been separately evaluated and incorporated or not as it came up to the SCOTUS... as of yet 2A has not come up in that regard...

I am for "state's rights" more than most, but I have to totally disagree with you here...

It is an endless debate how much the framers intended to limit the power of state government, but there is no question that they intended "some limits" imposed by the constitution...

"unalienable rights" didn't mean "unalienable by the Federal, but not the state" government. If they intended the total sovereignty you propose of the states, they would not have created anything like what they did here...

Frankly, I believe this is why we have gone down this silly road of separately "incorporating" each right is that the framers never really intended that the "Bill of Rights" be negotiable at the state level. Once ratified it represented a frame-work within which the States had to function...

Obviously that view is lost and everything changed post Civil-War as the distinction between the Federal power of the Bill of Rights and all the other crap they spew in DC was lost...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom