Restricted to LEO/MIL, etc.

[Hulkstr8]

Am I the only one who thinks that training restricted to LEO/MIL, etc is counter-intuitive of the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

I'm not bitching, I'm just postulating.

Edit: Could the mod move the post to the General Discussion. I accidentally posted in the AR thread.

[Alex V]

Sometimes the restrictions are because the class is being held at a PD range. I know this happens with one training company in NJ, they request that some classes be LEO only. Just a thought.

[26 Inf]

Am I the only one who thinks that training restricted to LEO/MIL, etc is counter-intuitive of the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

I'm not bitching, I'm just postulating.

Edit: Could the mod move the post to the General Discussion. I accidentally posted in the AR thread.

I think I'll get this in before they move it.

I don't see how it impacts the Second at all. You could make a stretch and say the framers felt it was important for the citizen to have the same training as the military, but I don't see that as being valid.

Do you think a bakery should have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or be forced to adorn a cake with Nazi symbols on Hitler's birthday? So why should a trainer be required to train specific parties?

I can see how it might upset folks. I think it is in some cases a contractual deal and in some cases a marketing ploy.

On our range we were limited to law enforcement and military by administrative regulation. Most police training course take place during the work week and IMO, generally longer duration.

I don't think most LE courses contain any secret sauces. I would have been willing to teach anything I taught LE to civilians, and pretty much have, except select-fire.

Our firearms training courses conducted on the range didn't include legal aspects regarding use of force, except for our general firearms instructor course. I believe that learning to hit and learning when to hit are initially two separate subjects and only intermingle during simulation or force-on-force training. Understand that doesn't preclude the use of no-shoot targets or threat identification during range training.

JMO

[fledge]

What’s the context?

Is there a law proposed that no civilians are allowed to learn how to use a gun safely and legally?

[Jmedic_]

Hey, our tax dollars pay for it, we should have access

[jsbhike]

An unfortunately large number of people in the firearms industry are not 2nd Amendment supporters in any form and would much rather sell to .gov only if they could make ends meet by doing so.

That's why it is refreshing and surprising when someone in the firearms industry issues a statement like Bill Geissele recently did or when BCM cancelled Milwaukee PD's order due to the activities of Ed Flynn. Antigun Ed Flynn would get a discounts at many (perhaps most) firearms businesses.

[JulyAZ]

I think it has more to do with hosting site, class demand, class availability, and time constraints.

[Iraqgunz]

There are numerous reasons for such restrictions. It can be due to liability, access to secure facilities and because of personnel who may be in the same building such as detectives, undercover personnel, etc..

[Hulkstr8]

I don't see how it impacts the Second at all. You could make a stretch and say the framers felt it was important for the citizen to have the same training as the military, but I don't see that as being valid.

Do you think a bakery should have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or be forced to adorn a cake with Nazi symbols on Hitler's birthday? So why should a trainer be required to train specific parties?

I can see how it might upset folks. I think it is in some cases a contractual deal and in some cases a marketing ploy.

On our range we were limited to law enforcement and military by administrative regulation. Most police training course take place during the work week and IMO, generally longer duration.

I don't think most LE courses contain any secret sauces. I would have been willing to teach anything I taught LE to civilians, and pretty much have, except select-fire.

Our firearms training courses conducted on the range didn't include legal aspects regarding use of force, except for our general firearms instructor course. I believe that learning to hit and learning when to hit are initially two separate subjects and only intermingle during simulation or force-on-force training. Understand that doesn't preclude the use of no-shoot targets or threat identification during range training.

JMO

There is something to be said for "bearing arms," to be the same physical goods, same training, and generally same access.

IG and the others here make some good points about liability and restricted personnel like undercovers, teams guys.

However, I am seeing some classes pop up (this CQB class locally for instance) that have the restricted class, but no civilian equivalent. Another local example is active shoot training -target acquisition being a named skill to be worked on.

*Moreover, I am growing generally discontented with police specifically trying to limit or bar access to firearms, to civilians. Cops having access to NFA/full-auto and not civies is an example. State Police in MI flat out, publicly state they don't want civies to have any access to firearms whatsoever and behind closed doors, away from the cameras it gets nasty when some cops publicly support the 2A. *bit of a tangent.

[ggammell]

Ever been in a class with militia types?

Tactics classes specifically, many instructors won’t touch civilian enrollment. As a civilian you aren’t likely to be with your 4 buds, kitted out to do a 5 man cqb run. Singleton room clearing, sure some guys do that. Maybe add one person. But any cqb class worth anything is going to geared around having anbunh of dudes to help. And sending one guy off to here and another over there after a class does very little to enhance someone’s cqb capability.