LEO using 77R for banned "assault" weapons?

1time · Nov 12, 2018

YerNotGood said:
Did you read my link?

"After finishing academy instruction and practice, new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur."

The article defines novices as follows:

• “Novices,” who may have fired a weapon once or twice but for the most part had never held or shot a gun “in their life.”

Do you understand how terrifying that is?

Your link is great, I’ll go by my experience. I am a MPTC certified firearms instructor for handguns shotguns and patrol rifles. I am a NRA RSO, have helped with Women on Target and youth shoots and have worked matches from bowling pin matches to major 3 gun matches. I have ran the shot timer for the best shooters in the country (the 2 at the top are 1 Harford co deputy and the other shoots for the AMU) and am currently in a gunshop where an Average Shooter brought in his 1911 that he said was his baby for the last 30 years and lasered me and the owner before he set it down without opening the slide. That was before another guy with his HQL lasered his friend while checking out a rifle.

I don’t believe that article for a second. Even the worst cops that fail to qualify hit the target more often than not. I have met few shooters that can hit better than 50% without some training.

YerNotGood · Nov 12, 2018

RoadDawg said:
So do you actually believe that the HQL training requirements are more stringent than the requirements of training for the LEO?

The “plenty of citizens” you referenced... are they the ones who do the minimum requirements for the HQL?

Changing the point and saying you don’t buy it... is funny.

My point was/is...
The LEO and the Military Member goes through much more training than any person is required to go through to get a HQL. Denying that is laughable. Requiring the LEO or Military Members to go through the additional training to get a HQL would be like requiring a Certified EMT to go get additional training to be able to apply a bandaid. Extremely redundant.

You're missing the point completely. I'm not arguing that your level of training doesn't surpass HQL or CCW standards. I'm arguing that the background checks and training are just as redundant for some citizens as they are for LEO/military but they don't get a pass, that it.

RoadDawg · Nov 12, 2018

Hawkeye said:
I don't mean this in a denigrating manner, but until your first post in this thread, I had never seen that term anywhere, which is why I think a lot of people are confused by it.

That's probably because the military uses a ton of different barrel profiles depending on the rifle and the role it fills. There isn't one standard "military profile" barrel, and there are also tons of non-HBAR barrel profiles that aren't used by the military.

I’ve heard the term “Military Profile” used by many to describe the difference between the HBAR and the evil “Military” gun they don’t think we should own.

I did not take the comment as “denigrating”.

YerNotGood · Nov 12, 2018

1time said:
Your link is great, I’ll go by my experience. I am a MPTC certified firearms instructor for handguns shotguns and patrol rifles. I am a NRA RSO, have helped with Women on Target and youth shoots and have worked matches from bowling pin matches to major 3 gun matches. I have ran the shot timer for the best shooters in the country (the 2 at the top are 1 Harford co deputy and the other shoots for the AMU) and am currently in a gunshop where an Average Shooter brought in his 1911 that he said was his baby for the last 30 years and lasered me and the owner before he set it down without opening the slide. That was before another guy with his HQL lasered his friend while checking out a rifle.

I don’t believe that article for a second. Even the worst cops that fail to qualify hit the target more often than not. I have met few shooters that can hit better than 50% without some training.

Gotcha, so you will take anecdotal evidence over empirical data. Not much I can say to that...

RoadDawg · Nov 12, 2018

YerNotGood said:
You're missing the point completely. I'm not arguing that your level of training doesn't surpass HQL or CCW standards. I'm arguing that the background checks and training are just as redundant for some citizens as they are for LEO/military but they don't get a pass, that it.

They don’t get a pass because their training is not Certified by the State which made the required training mandatory. Are the HQL Instructors not Certified by the State to teach the course? Police training is certified by the MPTC. Military members training is certified by the US Military. Unless the person meets the requirements with State recognized certified training... they must fulfill the requirements of the HQL.

Try to get a drivers license now... without proof of State recognized Certified training. They don’t care if you have driven for years. The State wants the training to be certified by a system which they recognized and approved.

I’m not supporting the HQL... merely stating the reason for the exemption for those who have already met the requirements according to the State law.

And... no... I did not miss your point.

RoadDawg · Nov 12, 2018

YerNotGood said:
Gotcha, so you will take anecdotal evidence over empirical data. Not much I can say to that...

Empirical data = stats

Experience = practice

Stats never show the whole picture. There are far to many valuables to do so. Therefore, stats are used to say what the writer wants them to say.

YerNotGood · Nov 12, 2018

RoadDawg said:
They don’t get a pass because their training is not Certified by the State which made the required training mandatory. Are the HQL Instructors not Certified by the State to teach the course? Police training is certified by the MPTC. Military members training is certified by the US Military. Unless the person meets the requirements with State recognized certified training... they must fulfill the requirements of the HQL.

Try to get a drivers license now... without proof of State recognized Certified training. They don’t care if you have driven for years. The State wants the training to be certified by a system which they recognized and approved.

I’m not supporting the HQL... merely stating the reason for the exemption for those who have already met the requirements according to the State law.

And... no... I did not miss your point.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you in this thread. If you feel the need to continue explaining the concept of state recognized training like I'm a toddler, we can discuss over PM.

basscat · Nov 12, 2018

Lets put aside the training aspect of the HQL. The Leo exemption for the paperwork, fee, and fingerprints that go along with it also raises concerns. What conditions in law enforcement would exclude those requirements?

1time · Nov 12, 2018

basscat said:
Lets put aside the training aspect of the HQL. The Leo exemption for the paperwork, fee, and fingerprints that go along with it also raises concerns. What conditions in law enforcement would exclude those requirements?

Our background check includes psych testing interviewing neighbors from every place we have ever lived, school, college, and previous work records, credit reports, civil suit records before you even begin to talk about criminal and traffic stuff. We are also fingerprinted. You get convicted of assault no one is looking for your HQL. I get charged with a crime( possibly only accused) and my exemption (ID Card) is revoked.

basscat · Nov 12, 2018

I've gone through the exact same background and fingerprinting yet I still had to do it all again to get a HQL. Just saying.

1time · Nov 12, 2018

basscat said:
I've gone through the exact same background and fingerprinting yet I still had to do it all again to get a HQL. Just saying.

Who did your background and for what reason?

RoadDawg · Nov 12, 2018

YerNotGood said:
I'm not going to continue arguing with you in this thread. If you feel the need to continue explaining the concept of state recognized training like I'm a toddler, we can discuss over PM.

I can tell you the truth. It is up to you to accept it or not. I am not "arguing" with you. Simply providing answers to the questions.

PS. The "toddler" comment is unnecessary... I had not even considered such a notion as part of this exchange.

basscat said:
I've gone through the exact same background and fingerprinting yet I still had to do it all again to get a HQL. Just saying.

As I pointed out in another post...

The State wrote into the law exactly which types of training/qualifiers they will accept as "compliant with their requirements".

The accepted forms of training and qualifiers are listed because they go further than the State requires AND they are State recognized certified protocols.

One can have a PhD in firearms. But... if it is not a State recognized certification... they will STILL need to go through the State Certified Training to acquire a HQL...

THE POLICE DID NOT WRITE THIS LAW... LAWYERS DID.

Hawkeye · Nov 13, 2018

basscat said:
Lets put aside the training aspect of the HQL. The Leo exemption for the paperwork, fee, and fingerprints that go along with it also raises concerns. What conditions in law enforcement would exclude those requirements?

This is my issue with it. Police are exempt from needing an HQL at all, the whole training thing totally aside. Again, it's because they're treated as a different class of people. Like I said, part of it is that the people who write these laws want the buy in of the brass and LEO political organizations (so they can stand there with some guys with shiny things on their eaupalets behind them for a photo op and say "look, the police agree with this!") and part of it is that they want to reinforce that guns are so dangerous that you can only trust the police with them.

TexDefender · Nov 13, 2018

Hawkeye said:
This is my issue with it. Police are exempt from needing an HQL at all, the whole training thing totally aside. Again, it's because they're treated as a different class of people. Like I said, part of it is that the people who write these laws want the buy in of the brass and LEO political organizations (so they can stand there with some guys with shiny things on their eaupalets behind them for a photo op and say "look, the police agree with this!") and part of it is that they want to reinforce that guns are so dangerous that you can only trust the police with them.

Sorry I disagree with you. There seems to be exceptions beyond LEOs. Exceptions to possession of the HQL License:

Licensed Firearms Manufacturer
Active law enforcement officer or a person retired in good standing from a law enforcement agency of the United States (Federal Law Enforcement), the State, or a local law enforcement agency of the State.
Active or retired member of the United States Armed Forces or National Guard and possesses a valid military identification card.
A person purchasing, renting or receiving an antique, curio or relic as defined in federal law.
Maryland licensed firearms dealers. (Sole Proprietors)

Required to have the HQL, but exempt from the training component:

Someone who completed a firearms safety training course approved by the Secretary of the Department of Maryland State Police.
Has completed a course of instruction in the competency and safety of firearms as prescribed under Natural Resources Article, §10-301.1, Annotated Code of Maryland. Application for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Hunter Safety Course Certificate can be obtained from here and may be used in lieu of Qualified Handgun Instruction.
Is currently a qualified handgun instructor.
Is an honorably discharged member of the armed forces of the United States or National Guard.
Is an employee of an armored car company who has a handgun permit issued by MSP.
Lawfully owns a regulated firearm, you do not have to complete the training to apply for the Handgun Qualification License.

Maybe try getting it amended or repealed then.

Hawkeye · Nov 13, 2018

TexDefender said:
Maybe try getting it amended or repealed then.

I have given money, joined organizations, and phoned legislators for just that reason.

1time · Nov 13, 2018

Hawkeye said:
I have given money, joined organizations, and phoned legislators for just that reason.

So if you can’t get it repealed your solution is to make more people do it? Working crab pot theory.

Hawkeye · Nov 13, 2018

1time said:
So if you can’t get it repealed your solution is to make more people do it? Working crab pot theory.

Yes.

Because if the special crabs that are more equal than the other crabs were suddenly brought down to the level of the peasant crabs, they might be pissed off enough to do something about it.

TexDefender · Nov 13, 2018

Hawkeye said:
Yes.

Because if the special crabs that are more equal than the other crabs were suddenly brought down to the level of the peasant crabs, they might be pissed off enough to do something about it.

Or there is another possibility? You might piss them off enough that they side with the opposition...

Hawkeye · Nov 13, 2018

TexDefender said:
Or there is another possibility? You might piss them off enough that they side with the opposition...

They do already.

And please understand, I'm not talking about guys like RD or 1time or the other LEOs that we all know. Just by dint of being here, those guys demonstrate that they're on our side of things. When I talk about the "they" in these last few posts, I mean the brass and other guys who stand up and say "the police support this, mere civilians need a license to exercise their rights!"

I wonder how many of those guys would back off that stance if all of their rank and file were suddenly required to jump the same hoops that the rest of us do?

TexDefender · Nov 13, 2018

Hawkeye said:
I wonder how many of those guys would back off that stance if all of their rank and file were suddenly required to jump the same hoops that the rest of us do?

I can give you an answer to that, the vast majority of the major city police chiefs could really careless what the trooper or patrolman think or desire. They are hired to be the mayor's parrot in most cases. We learned that during the last magazine ban attempt. Luckily, it blew up in his face.

LEO using 77R for banned "assault" weapons?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Active Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Nos nostraque Deo

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Nos nostraque Deo

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics