The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on March 09, 2009, 05:21:10 AM
-
Per Pincus's advice I am moving this thread here.
I was able to get my Fl. ccw without taking the class, just by showing an old hunters safey card. Any vetran or judge can do the same. Is this a good idea legally? What I mean is, if we get in a shoot, particularly, if God help us collateral damage occurs, would having classes help us out? Would something like Gunsight or Thunder Ranch be a liabilty (in terms of a perceived "gunfighter" mentality)?
I'd like to hear from lawyers and LEOs, or anyone with direct experience. I don't want to go out and drop $85 plus on nonsense, but a little cya never goes amiss. I thought maybe my amount of rangetime might help, but for obvious reasons, I try to pay for as much of my gun stuff in cash as possible. I'm not suggesting classes are nonsense, just don't want to retake the basic if not a good idea.
fightingquaker13
-
I have always been told the more training you can show the court the better off you are. Some instuctors will even testify in your defense. The more documentation you can show the better off you will be.
my .0245634 cents worth
-
While training is good, just what part of shall not infringe do you not understand? If I need "training" to get a ccw, why do you not need to own property to vote?
-
While training is good, just what part of shall not infringe do you not understand? If I need "training" to get a ccw, why do you not need to own property to vote?
I understand and agree with what you are saying, BUT (there's that word ;D ) I think you are missing His point. While I may be wrong, my understanding of his post is that it is aimed at "mind set" and the fact that hunters and soldiers are trained with a different one than would be appropriate for an SD situation. While all 3 require safe gun handling skills, the mind set of soldier and hunter are aimed at KILLING, while the SD shooter's focus is on removing the threat, soldiers and hunters are justified in taking a shot at a fleeing "target" while an SD shooter would wind up in prison.
That being said, the more professional training one gets, the better informed they are, it shows an intent to inform yourself as to the proper conduct and responsibilities.
I would start with Ayoob's Lethal force institute which involves little shooting as it is geared toward the LEGALITIES of SD.
-
Guys:
There is a RKBA discussion. It is NOT HERE.
We're not going to discourage people from being responsibly armed in this area.
Carry on... but stay on topic.
-RJP
-
Not going to give advise but doesn't FL. issue out of state CCW's with just some proof of shooting history (NRA classification or something)? IMHO what Ohio requires could be better!
FWIW
Richard
-
Not going to give advise but doesn't FL. issue out of state CCW's with just some proof of shooting history (NRA classification or something)? IMHO what Ohio requires could be better!
FWIW
Richard
I believe that CCW regulations are aimed more toward "safe handling" than actual USE, because use is relatively rare compared to the number of people who carry.
-
Thanks for the responses, but Pincus is right. This wasnt a question about politics, just what is prudent to help yourself AFTER the shooting. This is why I'd asked for some input from LEOS and lawyers, defense and DA's that deal with this end of it.
Fighingquaker1
-
Thanks for the responses, but Pincus is right. This wasnt a question about politics, just what is prudent to help yourself AFTER the shooting. This is why I'd asked for some input from LEOS and lawyers, defense and DA's that deal with this end of it.
Fighingquaker1
It wasn't an answer about politics.
It was directed at the mindset of the people making the regulations , while only dozens will be defending their lives in public, hundreds or thousands will be carrying.
-
While training is good, just what part of shall not infringe do you not understand? If I need "training" to get a ccw, why do you not need to own property to vote?
Then don't take the training. In the beginning, you did have to own property and be white to vote, but that part of the Constitution has been changed too.
To answer the question, tactical training is very much an asset in the event you ever need to use deadly force. In this case, training is more than marksmanship. The valuable lessons learned at professional schools includes when to shoot, or perhaps just as importantly, when NOT to shoot. There is training that teaches you how to shoot, and there is training that teaches you how to fight. To those who have never had pro training, you don't know what you don't know. I highly recommend it.
-
I have taken the training, and continue to train. But to make it a requirement for a law abiding citizen, can and will deter some from getting a CCW. If my daughter needs to carry but can't afford the training, why should she be at risk? Sorry about the political view, but many are trying to infringe in the name of the common good, and not using common sense.
-
Thanks for the responses, but Pincus is right. This wasnt a question about politics, just what is prudent to help yourself AFTER the shooting. This is why I'd asked for some input from LEOS and lawyers, defense and DA's that deal with this end of it.
Fighingquaker1
Yep, knowledge and understanding the legal aspect of CCW is just as much a tactical part of self defense as carrying the gun. IMO.
-
Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman's book: "On Killing" provides an excellent discussion of what type of reactions your body will go into when you face a critical event. Professional training from a lot of the academies around the United States can help you get innoculated to some extent to help you to react to a life and death situation in a positive manner.
Building muscle memory to react is important. Rehearsing scenarios mentally and physically is invaluable. I have been able to participate in simunitions training which is great. I wish I had this type of training 29 years ago when I began my LE career. My son just got his CCW and we are going up to the Sig Academy for a two-day Concealed Course to help him develop his skills and also to help reinforce and refine my skills. We want to visit Front Site in the future. Great Father / Son bonding.
Training can only help and I have always learned something to incorporate in my LE career and off duty. Knowledge is power. An old adage: "You react the way you train." How are you doing? :o There is another saying: "You can't teach an old sheepdog new tricks." I disagree.
Semper Fi!
-
I'm not suggesting classes are nonsense, just don't want to retake the basic if not a good idea.
fightingquaker13
Regardless of whether it will help you in court, more training is ALWAYS a good idea. The classes I've taken have always taught me something. Even drawing and dry firing while a qualified instructor watches and offers suggestions is well worth the price of admission. Your life is worth the $$$
-
On the legal side check this out. Pincus has done some work with them
http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/default.html (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/default.html)
-
Probably the most important factor is where you go. Some people are in jail because they acted as trained only to find out they didn't get the full meal training deal. My personal feeling is that if a person takes training he should learn well enough to teach it for that makes it a defensable endeavor.
-
Do any states honor military training as experience or do you have to take a 8 or 16 hour class for CCW??? Just curious.
-
FL honors military. DD214 is all you need.
-
Taking the hunters safety class will do it as well.
FQ13
-
FL honors military. DD214 is all you need.
Florida also honors any LEO training (moot now) and training such as PA Act 235. However, I just wrote and asked if I'd still need to redo my fingerprints for them, and they said 'yes'. *sigh*
-
Do any states honor military training as experience or do you have to take a 8 or 16 hour class for CCW??? Just curious.
Believe it or not Ca honors DD214, or they did in 1999.
-
I would bet that most judges and juries would consider use of a firearm to be "deadly force" in a self-defense situation. That said, the common law approach to use of deadly force in self-defense requires a, honest and reasonable imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The "honest" prong is simple - did YOU believe there was such a threat. The harder part is the "reasonable" aspect - will a judge/jury see your believe to be reasonable? If you can use your training to show a responsibility towards gun ownership and defense, and to show that you have developed some skill in assessing dangerous situations and threats, this ::should:: help your case. Remember, though, that we are talking about judges and juries - people who will be influenced by their own cultural/societal values and beliefs (and possibly not within the gun culture, depending on your location). That said, if your training instead comes off as some kind of tactical/kill on sight/learn to be rambo course, it could harm your cause. It may all come down to presentation. At least, that's my .02.
-
I would bet that most judges and juries would consider use of a firearm to be "deadly force" in a self-defense situation. That said, the common law approach to use of deadly force in self-defense requires a, honest and reasonable imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The "honest" prong is simple - did YOU believe there was such a threat. The harder part is the "reasonable" aspect - will a judge/jury see your believe to be reasonable? If you can use your training to show a responsibility towards gun ownership and defense, and to show that you have developed some skill in assessing dangerous situations and threats, this ::should:: help your case. Remember, though, that we are talking about judges and juries - people who will be influenced by their own cultural/societal values and beliefs (and possibly not within the gun culture, depending on your location). That said, if your training instead comes off as some kind of tactical/kill on sight/learn to be rambo course, it could harm your cause. It may all come down to presentation. At least, that's my .02.
I'm not a lawyer or LEO so my opinions are from a laymen's view point. LawStudents post makes a lot of "common" sense to me, especially about the type of training could harm your case. In Michigan part of the CPL (concealed pistol license) course is a legal section. I ended up taking the training twice, because the gunboard said that the first course did't qualify because of one of the instructor's qualifications. In both courses the legal section happened to be taught by a judge.