clandestine
AR-15 Savant
Yes
gaging an interest in a sub-forum for instructors only
- Thread starter woodstock
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yes
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
I am interested too.
Lou45
R.I.P.
Chad's right about running a person through NICS without a firearm transaction by the dealer; that's a B GREAT BIG NO-NO!!!
Yes, I'd be interested in this.
That's a great idea. We should have a sub groups just for us instructors. Ask an admin to create one. Easy to validate instructors credentials.
Didn't want to make my post too long by getting into the moral obligations, not too sure how we would be legally obligated but I would most certainly agree with that statement.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
And how do you propose to do that...? I don't read minds.. and to imply that we can is to invite liability.. but safety is another matter.. if I have any question on Saftey its really easy for me to fail someone.. then they can go elsewhere..
Make your self a first screener in a state like this and you better be willing to stand trial..
Are you?
I'll be sending you referrals
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
No need. Training is not now and never had been a requirment for an HQl..its even easier now.. buy a lower and bypass training..
You do not have to train anyone.. but your reasons had better not be based on screening..
You ESp as an individual do not enjoy immunity from litigation..
Just step aside and point them at other ways to get the HQL
Also.... I don't offer an HQL course.. I will not teach law.. in fact I don't do Basic Pistol I just do saftey brief and basic marksmanship. 1 hr --2 at most..this is usually after I see a newbie mess up.. it usually welcomed and I usually don't charge -- hense the 2 hr limit.
One day I may formalise this.. but right now it my way addressing range issues as I see them.
I tell folks who need the HQL to byoas the training portion for that purpose and then get some training... I will do it ..or I recommend others.. but real training.. esp if they only plan to take one course..
I do not like way the state set up instructors to be the fall guy..hell they don't even specify a course of instruction. No safe harbor..
There are several ways out of the training trap...hunter safety..from any state and buying a lower..and soon maybe buys c&r handgun and register that..
This is an intentional ducking and passing the buck..and I don't play that game..
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
The implication that a trainer is a screener for those with criminal intent or mental illness. Assume that responsibility and you are asking to be sued..
But this not to say you should not act if you have reason to believe a person has mal intent.. only that its not your prime function..
If you assume this responsibly you must show due diligence. that can be very hard in cases of mental illness were professionals are over their heads.
Now some measures taken as a precaution may not cause you issues.. but at somepoint the more questions you ask the more it looks like you had concerns but ignored them..
A quick liability waiver and questionire should do it.. but not as a screening tool for the state.. it protection against knowing handing a gun to s prohibited person.. that's another matter entirely.
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
No one is getting sued. Ranges, Dealers, and Trainers report stuff all of this time.
Unless you deny someone services based on a protected class, you can tell people to f-off all day long and report them if there is cause to do so. I did it when I worked a counter at a shop. If someone said the wrong things, acted a certain way that made my spidey senses tingle, then no gun for them. Buh Bye.
I have a long segment of disqualifiers for my classes. I only train U.S. Citizens as well. None of the disqualified cupcakes are not going to sue me. My goal is to educate and train GOOD people. I'm not going to train a criminal, gang member, violent extremist, or one who plans to do bad things with my teachings if I can do something to prevent it.
If people dont like my rules they can seek life elsewhere.
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
I am not talking about getting sued because you denied service wrongfully.. that can happen but thats not the risk.. the risk is the one you did not spot... that does harm..by assuming the role of a screener..you open your self up to claims of malfeasance..
The word screener is a big deal.. you can turn folks away all you want just don't as in the above claim to be screening..
That job belongs to the state..not us.
Our obligations to report folks is no different than any other citizen and since we are not mental Heath experts we have no greater standard of care..that the job of Dr s.
In practice it may seam like semantics but words are important..
Liability is the next front in the anti gun war...
The word screener is a big deal.. you can turn folks away all you want just don't as in the above claim to be screening..
That job belongs to the state..not us.
Our obligations to report folks is no different than any other citizen and since we are not mental Heath experts we have no greater standard of care..that the job of Dr s.
In practice it may seam like semantics but words are important..
Liability is the next front in the anti gun war...
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
Last edited:
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
So why cant you do all that and just not admit liability if your screening system fails?
And now that you gave decided to admit liability on behalf of the entire training industry I am sure no one will mind.
And now that you gave decided to admit liability on behalf of the entire training industry I am sure no one will mind.
I think "screening" is the wrong term. How about simply " Have the right to refuse service to anyone"?
Screening implies that one is qualified in behavior and "mental" issue evals and I think for an instructor to actually say/imply/report someone as such is taking on a monumental responsibility in which they are not trained or qualified. And who would one be "reported" to? A psych facility, police station? Who and where?
To say you are the "first screener" of a human being is a grand notion of being more than the instructor you think you are. Just teach shooting and refuse service to people you don't feel comfy with. That's pretty simple.
Screening implies that one is qualified in behavior and "mental" issue evals and I think for an instructor to actually say/imply/report someone as such is taking on a monumental responsibility in which they are not trained or qualified. And who would one be "reported" to? A psych facility, police station? Who and where?
To say you are the "first screener" of a human being is a grand notion of being more than the instructor you think you are. Just teach shooting and refuse service to people you don't feel comfy with. That's pretty simple.
Lou45
R.I.P.
Hey Brooklyn, I think Blaster pretty well sums it up for ya' and he didn't make a mountain out of a molehill.
- Jun 28, 2009
- 4,172
ahem,
, if i may chime in.i invite anyone to sue me for refusal of services and/or, for alerting other Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructors of the student's intent, based on observation, verbal communication, written documents or the overall sound conclusion, the person is a ****** fruitcake. i will guarantee that individual will never have the opportunity to own a regulated firearm, or a long gun/ shotgun, for that matter, ESPECIALLY if considered, under the jurisprudence of the court of law.
SCREENERS was never my approach or intention, yet the fellow at the Baltimore Handgun Interdiction squad said something to the effect, "the instructors are the first to come in contact with applicants." take that is for what it is worth.
for those "instructors" who are not compensated, nor hold the credentials necessary to qualify HQL/Wear-Carry permit applicants, would not have access to the forum. furthermore, i would suggest all the instructors who wish to participate in the program, cut a check for whatever amount you can to help support this website. believe me, when the "blended learning" starts with the NRA basic pistol, some instructors here may wanna ask some questions. also, MDSP posts updates, without letting us know of the changes. very frustrating! i usually get the email of the notice, two months after they post online.
the reporting of suspicious individuals was my main thrust here, but after reading the responses, it occurred to me, this could be a great gateway to ensure uniformity with our instruction to the populace. teach on!
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,293
ahem,
Snip
for those "instructors" who are not compensated, nor hold the credentials necessary to qualify HQL/Wear-Carry permit applicants, would not have access to the forum. ......
So what you really mean is a sub section of "For profit HQL class or carry permit instructors only." if so please label it appropriately in case other legitimate certified instructors in those or other disciplines wish to have a more inclusive sub section of their own.
- Jun 28, 2009
- 4,172
So what you really mean is a sub section of "For profit HQL class or carry permit instructors only." if so please label it appropriately in case other legitimate certified instructors in those or other disciplines wish to have a more inclusive sub section of their own.
yep.
ya pay for what ya get.
a few instructors rubber stamp their students, something most of us want nothing to do with.
