Experiences of False Information During CCW Training

[MaxVO2]

Handgunlaw dot US is the most up to date and carefully double checked resource .

*****This is what we generally steer folks that have questions regarding a variety of handgun related law issues to. It's a decent site. In addition, we recommend the MSP website (MD State Police) as well, for Maryland related questions regarding this issue. Laws change, and not every instructor can know everything, or be 100% current for the most part. Mistakes absolutely happen, and I have taken classes where information was either incomplete, or perhaps a bit out of date - it happens for sure.

However, you would be surprised at how often the opposite happens where a student heard something at the range or a gun store employee told them, or their dad/grand-dad who is a Vet but not that kind of Vet and doesn't take care of pets, etc... tells them something that is so off the wall crazy they have to be corrected lest others wonder if the info is correct. IME, it is usually related to transport and carry to and from the range, magazine size possession versus use, CCW into a business, amusement park, bar, church, etc.. The purchase of handguns through dealer vs face to face, gun show loopholes (CNN said so!!!! ), etc.. We have copies of relevant as of the time of the class law and general guidelines but always tell folks laws DO change so one needs to be cognizant of these changes.

Anyway, lots of examples of bad info, and Maryland handgun laws are generally NOT written to favor the gun owner. Things would be so much simpler if we cut out a lot of the laws related to carry, transport, etc.. and just wrote something like... uhhh... this..

 

[eruby]

That’s why I’m in no hurry to get a permit.
I don’t know, understand or care about all the particular nuances.
Whose right wrong etc, I have other shit to worry about instead of jerking myself off every 15 minutes because I can carry a handgun these days.
If I’m that hard up I’ll carry a rifle or just stay away from some place where I’m likely to get mugged robbed attacked etc.

If Maryland had an easy process, would you get the permit?

Not sure why bullshty (sic) in classes deters you.

Without the blessing of admins I'll just say the lower eastern shore.

If you paid for, and took the class, and aren't lying (which you are not), there is no problem saying who the vendor was.

 

[rbird7282]

I bet they also said that you need to keep your firearms in a safe otherwise you are responsible for all murders committed with your stolen gun. By the way.................. We have a nice selection of safes out in the showroom.

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbird7282]

I've heard WOS around here is that what you were leaning towards?

That was my guess. I’ll admit it, I was wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

Mine was that you have a duty to retreat in your home. Ex LE. This was shortly before the "what to do if you have to shoot someone", which was more or less spot on. But, I think the wrongness on the duty to retreat part (it was basically, "if someone breaks in, you have to retreat and barricade yourself into a room. THEN if they break into that, you can shoot them. Or if you can't get away from them you can shoot them. Or they have a weapon you can shoot them.") had as much to do with their prior role as a LE. They weren't an investigator/detective. And they certainly weren't a DA. They themselves said earlier on in the class, police officer's jobs it to enforce the laws, not know the laws. That's a lawyer or DAs job. Police arrest people if they THINK a crime has been committed and they aren't there to protect you.

So I think it is that attitude. As he said, if you are involved in a shooting, even if a "good shooting" in this state, you will be arrested and your gun will get seized. If the shoot looked good, they'll bail you on low to no bond after interviewing you (refuse to speak except for safety related questions like "what is your name" "where is the person/body" "where is the firearm" "did you shoot them". That last one, shut up and just repeat you'd like to speak to your lawyer before answering any questions. The others you can and should answer).

So from his perspective as a non-investigator, why does he need to know the laws related to duty to retreat, castle doctrine, stand your ground, etc. ? If someone shoots someone else, they get arrested in this state. Full stop. Investigators and the DA will figure out if they'll get let go and no charges proffered, or if they are going away for the rest of their life.

His advice was good in so far as it looks a lot better if the person breaking into your house is armed and you shoot them, or you can reasonably argue you couldn't get away, or did get away, but they chased you and were kicking in the interior door, etc. A lot better than "well they smashed the window so I put two in their chest and one in their head" or "no, I didn't yell or say anything to the intruder who had their back turned to me as I walked into the room before I put one in their back".

The law is clear, we have a duty to retreat only in public. Butttttt, castle doctrine is only based on common law and prior judicial precedent in our state and for sure ain't unlimited.

Anyway, I didn't argue with the instructor. I wouldn't consider what they said fully wrong, just not actually correct for what the law says and doesn't say. Their advice does have higher practical value on having a good outcome of potential charges.

One thing he did said I strongly agreed with, when in doubt, better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[Doco Overboard]

If Maryland had an easy process, would you get the permit?

Not sure why bullshty (sic) in classes deters you.

Not sure if I would even if it was easy. I dont think I really need to carry and even when I was licensed while living out of state I'm not sure I always did in the first place.
There was no test, except not being a shit bag and being a citizen.
Not saying I wouldn't learn something from any class, I know better and teach much deadlier skill-set than carrying a pistol, but what really irks me is having to go through one in the first place.
I also happen to not need to take a class to go to church......well as of yet anyway.
But I bet when that happens, they'll be plenty of experts who will know what works best and who knows more or less than the other and what that class should cost etc.
Maybe my pocket bible (Torah please forgive) will be printing or something in the first row gzeesh.
The other thing is people will be the first in line to S*&k a dick if they think there going to get a ahead of a bonafide CO*&ksuker it seems anymore.
Just so they can get it on Facebook first.

Thanks for asking Eruby, you got class and can handle the truth. I could tell right off when you paid me for a pig I carried on my shoulder, right past your provisional threshold one day.

 

[ICW2019]

If Maryland had an easy process, would you get the permit?

Not sure why bullshty (sic) in classes deters you.



If you paid for, and took the class, and aren't lying (which you are not), there is no problem saying who the vendor was.

I've been a lurking member since 2012 and I'm not getting booted for doxing and having to start over with a new account lol.

 

[RoadDawg]

Mine was that you have a duty to retreat in your home. Ex LE.
>snip< had as much to do with their prior role as a LE. They weren't an investigator/detective. And they certainly weren't a DA. They themselves said earlier on in the class, police officer's jobs it to enforce the laws, not know the laws. That's a lawyer or DAs job. Police arrest people if they THINK a crime has been committed and they aren't there to protect you.

>snip<

Totally bad information. LEOs are not empowered to arrest people because they “think” a law was violated. It requires that they have, at minimum, a reasonable suspicion that a law was violated, AND that the person was the one who committed that violation.

The LEO must be able to articulate all of that BEFORE they can make an arrest. To do so, the LEO needs to know the basic particular laws which they are enforcing. Of course they may not be able to recite verbatim, code, and reference. But they damn sure need to know, not THINK they know, that a law was violated. If not, any arrests they make, may be deemed by the court to be a false arrest.

Two and a half decades, I never made an arrest based on what I “thought was a law”, or because I simply “thought that person was guilty”. And I don’t know of any real LEO who would risk being charged with a Civil Rights Violation to do so.

 

[eruby]

I've been a lurking member since 2012 and I'm not getting booted for doxing and having to start over with a new account lol.

I don't consider that doxing, and seriously doubt there would be Mod repercussions if you posted, but I certainly respect your choice to abstain.

 

[eruby]

Not sure if I would even if it was easy. I dont think I really need to carry and even when I was licensed while living out of state I'm not sure I always did in the first place.
There was no test, except not being a shit bag and being a citizen.
Not saying I wouldn't learn something from any class, I know better and teach much deadlier skill-set than carrying a pistol, but what really irks me is having to go through one in the first place.
I also happen to not need to take a class to go to church......well as of yet anyway.
But I bet when that happens, they'll be plenty of experts who will know what works best and who knows more or less than the other and what that class should cost etc.
Maybe my pocket bible (Torah please forgive) will be printing or something in the first row gzeesh.
The other thing is people will be the first in line to S*&k a dick if they think there going to get a ahead of a bonafide CO*&ksuker it seems anymore.
Just so they can get it on Facebook first.

Thanks for asking Eruby, you got class and can handle the truth. I could tell right off when you paid me for a pig I carried on my shoulder, right past your provisional threshold one day.

Very kind of you.

I'm presuming it was at a Larry's Tavern-a-rama

Curse my early onset

 

[Sundazes]

Can I Claim ignorance, because I didn’t know until last weekend that all class 3’s have to registered every year. This includes suppressors, SBS and SBR’s
I have unknowingly breaking the law for 10 plus years.
That’s oK. Fabs will represent me pro bono.

 

[teratos]

Can I Claim ignorance, because I didn’t know until last weekend that all class 3’s have to registered every year. This includes suppressors, SBS and SBR’s
I have unknowingly breaking the law for 10 plus years.
That’s oK. Fabs will represent me pro bono.

What? I’ve never heard that. I even had to get a replacement stamp, and they never said a thing.

Do you mean for travel?

 

[RoadDawg]

Can I Claim ignorance, because I didn’t know until last weekend that all class 3’s have to registered every year. This includes suppressors, SBS and SBR’s
I have unknowingly breaking the law for 10 plus years.
That’s oK. Fabs will represent me pro boner.

 

[teratos]

Damn you, Hot Fudge.

 

[ToolAA]

I was told you couldn’t carry while driving on MD Rt 295 south of 175, which also isn’t accurate with an HGP.

MD doesn’t have reciprocity which is true however the MD permit is recognized for holders in plenty of states, MD just doesn’t recognize any others reciprocally.

Just don’t try to exit onto Technology Drive or things might get real interesting.

 

[Darkemp]

Just don’t try to exit onto Technology Drive or things might get real interesting.

The ultimate wrong turn.

 

[lazarus]

Totally bad information. LEOs are not empowered to arrest people because they “think” a law was violated. It requires that they have, at minimum, a reasonable suspicion that a law was violated, AND that the person was the one who committed that violation.

The LEO must be able to articulate all of that BEFORE they can make an arrest. To do so, the LEO needs to know the basic particular laws which they are enforcing. Of course they may not be able to recite verbatim, code, and reference. But they damn sure need to know, not THINK they know, that a law was violated. If not, any arrests they make, may be deemed by the court to be a false arrest.

Two and a half decades, I never made an arrest based on what I “thought was a law”, or because I simply “thought that person was guilty”. And I don’t know of any real LEO who would risk being charged with a Civil Rights Violation to do so.

Okay, apologies I phrased it the way I did. The point though is a police officer does not actually need to know for certainty that a law was broken. Just that they have a good faith belief a law was broken and the person they are arresting is the one who broke the law.

And, there are plenty of examples that arresting officers in fact did not know what happened was not in fact a crime. Or didn't particularly care. All the officers who have arrested people for filming them in a public place and embarrassing them for example. Which is clearly a 1A violation, and even occurred in states that didn't have unconstitutional laws making it a crime to record police officers in public places.

I have no doubt the majority of officers take significant time to know the law and only make rightful arrests. But there is replete evidence that not all officers do (know the law, or make arrests they even believe are righteous).

 

[Sundazes]

aw

What? I’ve never heard that. I even had to get a replacement stamp, and they never said a thing.

Do you mean for travel?

The power point said all NFA items need to be registered annually with the MSP. Not just mg’s. It specifically included suppressors.
I corrected him and he blew it off as a typo. No CC

 

[teratos]

aw

The power point said all NFA items need to be registered annually with the MSP. Not just mg’s. It specifically included suppressors.
I corrected him and he blew it off as a typo. No CC

Oh! Whew.

 

[RoadDawg]

Okay, apologies I phrased it the way I did. The point though is a police officer does not actually need to know for certainty that a law was broken. Just that they have a good faith belief a law was broken and the person they are arresting is the one who broke the law.

And, there are plenty of examples that arresting officers in fact did not know what happened was not in fact a crime. Or didn't particularly care. All the officers who have arrested people for filming them in a public place and embarrassing them for example. Which is clearly a 1A violation, and even occurred in states that didn't have unconstitutional laws making it a crime to record police officers in public places.

I have no doubt the majority of officers take significant time to know the law and only make rightful arrests. But there is replete evidence that not all officers do (know the law, or make arrests they even believe are righteous).

No apologies necessary...
Please do not think that I am personally trying to argue with you on this. Merely attempting to keep folks from thinking that this is the way that LEOs are taught to do the job.

I actually saw a case first hand where a new LETrainee locked up three people on his first day on the job. He "thought they were guilty of something but did not know what..."
The three persons he locked up, were immediately released with apologies.
He did not last any longer than the time it took to relieve him of his gun and badge.

"Good Faith" or "I think you did it." doesn't cut it. The arresting LEO must be able to articulate his reasonable belief that a crime DID occur... and that the suspect is, according to all available evidence at the time of the arrest, the person who did that crime. It is called "Probable Cause".