Maryland firearms instructors being screwed?

[mcbruzdzinski]

After talking with Mark at the NRA instructor HQ, he suggested we do the FIRST Steps course (issue a certificate) and do an overview of MD law as it is written. Expressing that the information disseminated is NOT legal advice and to contact an attorney for more information. The problem there is the instructor to student ratio. NRA is 4 to one, with the state, there is no student to instructor ratio.

The problem here is that NRA F.I.R.S.T. Steps classes are designed to teach on particular model (Ruger Mark II, S&W 629, ) or one action type (single action revolver, DA revolver, semi-auto pistol). From what I am reading in the MSP guidelines, both revolvers and semi-auto pistols would need to be covered. Not a big deal, but it does stretch the normal NRA F.I.R.S.T. Steps course offering.

I am surprised that Mark (I assuming Mark Richardson) offered that advice considering the NRA advisory. I am glad he did as it does show the NRA understands our (as instructors) need for some guidance on a course to meet the MSP HQL advisory.

 

[trailman]

um, i disagree on several levels. please refer to the BOLD and altered type i have inserted. you've referred yourself as a "prick" in a few threads. sez enough.

Back at 'cha buddy

 

[trailman]

Ok , Trailman was hasty in using self-depricating vernacular. Translate into " at the risk of seeming insensitive in the imeadate short term , we should not be enablers in our own persecution. The more that the F'ed up process is hammering the general public, the larger , and more ceditable the outcry will become. No longer will the forces of evil be able to easily dismiss the 2A activists as a handfull of nutjobs to be ignored. "

This is a viewpoint to give serious consideration.

Man that was eloquent and thank you. Its the main point I'm trying to make here.

 

[Jim Sr]

The MSP needs to provide a cirriculum, just like DNR does for hunter education!

The MSP needs to accept all liability if the instructors stays within the established guidelines, just like DNR.

​

 

[trailman]

in the view of my self and a few others, it's like cutting the nose off to spite the face. all viewpoints are worthy of consideration, but we need constructive viewpoints that have a means to the end.

And I'll bet that those few others have all this behind their names
------------------------vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Maryland State Police Qualified Handgun Instructor
NRA Certified;
Handgun Safety
FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation
Basic Pistol
Personal protection In The Home
Personal Protection Outside the Home
Advanced Defensive Pistol
REFUSE to Be a Victim
Range Safety Officer
NRA Membership Recruiter
Non-violent Home Security Strategies

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is where everything looks like a nail when you only have a hammer


What is the end YOU are trying to reach here. Explain that to all of us on my side of the coin. I see people with a vested interest in training programs trying to invent a training program to what many here including the lawyers agree is an unconstitutional law. Furthermore we see that as a misguided venture as you are enabling the State to maintain those laws.


What's MY end game. Simple, repeal of all the provisions of SB281 by legislative or judicial means. In addition work to expand or better termed "regain" our rights stolen from us by the State. Who is cutting who's nose off here? Helping granny get her Glock is not going to convince the governor to change his mind. Making it impossible for Frosh's donors to do so will.

This is a long game and quite frankly we have been fighting a defensive action on gun rights. I've been there and done that on sportsman's issues. IT takes a long time, two steps forward one step back.


All that and I didn't even use the work pr1ck

 

[Biggfoot44]

Think twice before you want the MSP to set your course outline. Remember back to when the "old" Handgun Safety Course was only tought in person by State Instructors for about the first year. Aprox 1/4 was basic gun handling and safety, and 3/4 about how dagerous and evil handguns were, and useless for self defense. When the dealer Assn video tape was aproved ,it moved to nuetral. In that case , Md didn't write it, but gave its aproval for meeting the requirement.

 

[woodstock]

a simple, comprehensive approach to meet state law in the course of handgun instruction. "What is the end YOU are trying to reach here."

with respect to your end game, we are all on-board with the repeal of this illegal sb281, but until that law goes into effect, judicially, we cannot do a darn thing. i share your frustration, as i have said before, but denying the training to the general public may serve to only discourage the interest in future shooting sports programs.

if you paid attention to the massive turn outs at the rallies this past spring when all of this was being debated, our and yes this means your government turned a blind eye to the will of the people. illegally! owemally has an agenda, and the state gubment has way too much power at present. THIS is a something that will be reckoned with at election time in 2014. but for that fact, to not train our law abiding citizenry who wish to jump through the hoops, will be one of the greatest disservices we, as instructors can do. apathy has no room in the present climate.

trailman, i have no beef with you personally, but we all must work together in the placation of what is going on at present. when the dust settles on this, the courts are going to be very, very busy.

 

[trailman]

I was there. And as for the rest of your point of view I think it's misguided and respectfully disagree and I will offer this for you to think about.

Who's position will do the most harm in the long run?

Mine where at the filing of the papers in October or whenever, the State has no means to meet its own law and has to explain that to the court?

Or yours where when those papers are filed the State can point to the community meeting the States needs?

Time will tell I guess. But in my view one path is appeasement and the other is a principled stance. We can let everyone else decide which is which. And in the end one side is going to lose.

a simple, comprehensive approach to meet state law in the course of handgun instruction. "What is the end YOU are trying to reach here."

with respect to your end game, we are all on-board with the repeal of this illegal sb281, but until that law goes into effect, judicially, we cannot do a darn thing. i share your frustration, as i have said before, but denying the training to the general public may serve to only discourage the interest in future shooting sports programs.

if you paid attention to the massive turn outs at the rallies this past spring when all of this was being debated, our and yes this means your government turned a blind eye to the will of the people. illegally! owemally has an agenda, and the state gubment has way too much power at present. THIS is a something that will be reckoned with at election time in 2014. but for that fact, to not train our law abiding citizenry who wish to jump through the hoops, will be one of the greatest disservices we, as instructors can do. apathy has no room in the present climate.

trailman, i have no beef with you personally, but we all must work together in the placation of what is going on at present. when the dust settles on this, the courts are going to be very, very busy.

 

[rseymorejr]

I was there. And as for the rest of your point of view I think it's misguided and respectfully disagree and I will offer this for you to think about.

Who's position will do the most harm in the long run?

Mine where at the filing of the papers in October or whenever, the State has no means to meet its own law and has to explain that to the court?

Or yours where when those papers are filed the State can point to the community meeting the States needs?

Time will tell I guess. But in my view one path is appeasement and the other is a principled stance. We can let everyone else decide which is which. And in the end one side is going to lose.

I understand your point but there will be a long time after October 1 until we get relief in court, if we ever do. There will be a lot of local gun shops that probably won't survive the draught. We all lose there.

 

[woodstock]

I understand your point but there will be a long time after October 1 until we get relief in court, if we ever do. There will be a lot of local gun shops that probably won't survive the draught. We all lose there.

 

[trailman]

I understand your point but there will be a long time after October 1 until we get relief in court, if we ever do. There will be a lot of local gun shops that probably won't survive the draught. We all lose there.

At the point of being insensitive again. Businesses go in and out all the time. The ones that are fit will stay in business. A good deal of them are going to disappear after Oct 1st anyways or drop the storefronts and go back to the basements. Maybe we will be lucky and the Gun Center in Frederick will close.

Are you civil liberties worth more or less than a mans business. Point of fact the Governor's minions are reading this and hoping you think they are less. Every step we take to mitigate the impact of this law reduces the charge of undue burden against the state.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I will againt point out that all Constitutional Rights are Civil Rights , and in many ways we should learn from experience of the various Civil Rights struggles.

Did the NAACP , SCLC , etc ask nicely if they could volentarily install nicer seat cushons on the seats in the back of the bus to have a more comfortable ride ?

Did the Abolitionist groups lead protests to demand an 8hr work day for slaves , and institute Grievence procedures against Overseer's ?

Would the Holocost have been not so bad if those cattle cars had had heat and plumbing? Or to be equal opportunity , if the Gulags roomier barracks ?

One of the main arguments in Court will be that the new scheme is an undue , if not impossable burden upon the citizenry. It will be hard upon certain citizens seeking to make purchases in an imeadate time frame. But for us to make heroic efforts to implement the State's program upon ourselves only works to ensure its long term viability.

To use another historical analogy. At the time , in WWII , the SAC wasn't tasked to level Nazi Death Camps. Doing so would have been rough on the resident at that moment , but disrupting the overall process would have saved many more lives in the longer run.

 

[kalister1]

This seems too much like the MSI suit against the MSP for not processing apps quick enough.

MSP says we don't have a time frame and dealers can release. Case dropped.

Now, MSP says "We WILL approve the very first Syllabus that meets all the requirements of law, IF we ever get one. How can we approve something BEFORE we receive it? NOT our fault."

 

[CypherPunk]

This seems too much like the MSI suit against the MSP for not processing apps quick enough.

MSP says we don't have a time frame and dealers can release. Case dropped.

Now, MSP says "We WILL approve the very first Syllabus that meets all the requirements of law, IF we ever get one. How can we approve something BEFORE we receive it? NOT our fault."

The MSP has imposed no requirement to approve any syllabus. The told you what topics the want covered and the rest is up to you.

Why are you willing to submit, or encouraging the MSP to approve a syllabus?

I mean, I understand the offer the unconstitutional class so people can buy/don't offer the class so your not complicit argument. But why give the MSP authority they don't want, aren't asking for and can't handle?

 

[kalister1]

So just what is going to happen when no one creates a class?
The courts will help us? Just like they did with Shall Issue?

 

[mtnwisdom]

There two equally important views being debated here; 1. Repeal the law? A strategic objective, and, 2. The issue of teaching the class (and all the issues associated)- a tactical objective. As one of those few individuals, outlined previously by trailman, with the 'Mr Good Wrench' sleeve, I am struggling with the decision to provide the required HQL instruction.

Both viewpoints have merit, but is repeal of the law contingent on failing to provide the instruction (by someone other than MSP or MPTC)? Since the training is only reqd by one class of applicant, will failing this one segment produce such an outrage? Enough to force the repeal? Will individuals that do not need the training apply for the HQL?

Where are the lawyers who will undertake this repeal challenge and what do they say?

It seems to me, that simply taking a principled stand does not advocate effectively.

Taking every opportunity to effect change within the skirmish is how battles are won. Winning the battles (tactical objective) places the momentum in your favor for winning the war (strategic objective).

The anti-2A camp knows this well. We must meet them at every opportunity for battle and win.

Not seizing the opportunity to gain ground on the instruction issue seems ill conceived. The momentum is pushing against us in the state, and if only 1 individual applies for the HQL that will demonstrate that the hurdles are not insurmountable. And we all know, as sure as the sun comes up, there will be far more than just 1 applicant.

 

[CypherPunk]

There two equally important views being debated here; 1. Repeal the law? A strategic objective, and, 2. The issue of teaching the class (and all the issues associated)- a tactical objective. As one of those few individuals, outlined previously by trailman, with the 'Mr Good Wrench' sleeve, I am struggling with the decision to provide the required HQL instruction.

Both viewpoints have merit, but is repeal of the law contingent on failing to provide the instruction (by someone other than MSP or MPTC)? Since the training is only reqd by one class of applicant, will failing this one segment produce such an outrage? Enough to force the repeal? Will individuals that do not need the training apply for the HQL?

Where are the lawyers who will undertake this repeal challenge and what do they say?

It seems to me, that simply taking a principled stand does not advocate effectively.

Taking every opportunity to effect change within the skirmish is how battles are won. Winning the battles (tactical objective) places the momentum in your favor for winning the war (strategic objective).

The anti-2A camp knows this well. We must meet them at every opportunity for battle and win.

Not seizing the opportunity to gain ground on the instruction issue seems ill conceived. The momentum is pushing against us in the state, and if only 1 individual applies for the HQL that will demonstrate that the hurdles are not insurmountable. And we all know, as sure as the sun comes up, there will be far more than just 1 applicant.

I struggled with this question as well. I sought the advice of others, then debated many of the pros and cons with the advocacy groups.
I eventually arrived at the same decision you appear to suggest. Teach firearm use and safety and wholeheartedly support the lawsuit.

I citizens cant purchase a handgun, we all fail.

 

[jpo183]

I citizens cant purchase a handgun, we all fail.

I disagree, we win because it clearly is a right denied. After reading through this, I think the best course is too NOT offer the class.

My reasoning is
1) Sorry you cant buy your gun, were you fighting in Jan Feb March?
2) Did you vote for these aholes? You get what you voted for

School of hard knocks. We all here have been buying prior to Oct 1 knowing what is happening. I would rather teach without giving the right to the people that screwed us all. Make them relasize what they did. Sometimes consequences are the best lesson.

 

[mtnwisdom]

I disagree, we win because it clearly is a right denied. After reading through this, I think the best course is too NOT offer the class.

My reasoning is
1) Sorry you cant buy your gun, were you fighting in Jan Feb March?
2) Did you vote for these aholes? You get what you voted for

School of hard knocks. We all here have been buying prior to Oct 1 knowing what is happening. I would rather teach without giving the right to the people that screwed us all. Make them relasize what they did. Sometimes consequences are the best lesson.

I can't say I completely disagree with you at a visceral level, and that is causing me soo much of a problem in trying to make this decision.

But if we don't offer the training, MSP or MPTC will be directed to do so by MOM administration. So, by not providing the instruction (which allows us to advocate for ourselves to those that are developing a new interest...) we allow MOM et al. the opportunity to gain even more ground.

Of course, if no one applies for the HQL, then I agree with the entire line of defense in saying the law is too onerous...

But then if we advocate for a boycott of the HQL, then MOM et al wins anyway, and we have collectively become what we have fought against: the infringement of the everyone's 2A rights.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

I disagree, we win because it clearly is a right denied. After reading through this, I think the best course is too NOT offer the class.

My reasoning is
1) Sorry you cant buy your gun, were you fighting in Jan Feb March?
2) Did you vote for these aholes? You get what you voted for

School of hard knocks. We all here have been buying prior to Oct 1 knowing what is happening. I would rather teach without giving the right to the people that screwed us all. Make them relasize what they did. Sometimes consequences are the best lesson.

Nice thought. Probably most people affected will not have any idea they need a license until they go gun shopping.
Will it dissuade them from purchasing? Some I am sure.
It will provide opportunity to persuade other consumers to get involved.
Heck, maybe make it part of the lesson plan. Why I deserve a HQL.
Along with your non refundable deposit.