View Full Version : Restricted to LEO/MIL, etc.
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.
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.
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
What’s the context?
Is there a law proposed that no civilians are allowed to learn how to use a gun safely and legally?
Hey, our tax dollars pay for it, we should have access :jester:
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.
I think it has more to do with hosting site, class demand, class availability, and time constraints.
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..
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.
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.
There is something to be said for "bearing arms," to be the same physical goods, same training, and generally same access.
Well, as I said, I don't see the 2A linkage to a 'right' to receive LE training.
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.
A quick look lead me to these, sometimes you have to travel:
Paul Howe: http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/flyers/civilian_courses_15/cit_resp_active_shooter.pdf
Tom Givens: http://rangemaster.com/
Sig Academy: https://www.sigsaueracademy.com/productdisplay/close-quarter-long-gun-operator https://www.sigsaueracademy.com/productdisplay/close-quarter-pistol-operator
*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.
You have to remember that upper echelon leaders are many times politically driven. Many line officers are pro-2A, some are anti-2A and some don't care much one way or another.
glockshooter
03-21-18, 20:17
I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion the “police” are trying to restrict your guns. The police have absolutely no control over what the law is. It honestly sound like you are having a pity party because you can’t get into some class. As a cop i can tell you most cops i know are pro-gun.
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.
SeriousStudent
03-21-18, 20:46
About the last thing I want to do is show up at some 2-day CQB class with 7 dudes I have never laid eyes on.
You might be jocked up with plates and a ballistic helmet, but what happens when Cletus sends a rifle round through your armpit or neck? Ever treat a gunshot wound to the throat? I have, and it's quite messy.
If people want to learn stuff like this, then enlist in the Marines or Army on an Infantry contract. They will be happy to teach you.
Or feel free to sign on with LAPD, bust your ass for 5 years on patrol, then try out for Metro. Kick ass there for 5 years and work your way into D Platoon.
The popo ain't stomping on your rights. Anybody who has the skills and the stones can get the training they want - they just have to earn it.
Averageman
03-21-18, 20:51
Interesting.
I'm not really too concerned. I shoot IDPA once a month with a half dozen or so local LEO's, not many of them are setting the scores on fire due to superior training being available.
IDPA may not be the best determining factor of someone's skill, but if they're being so highly trained well,.....
I can see how if I really wanted the class it might upset me a bit, but I'm not seeing a vast difference in score that would lead me to believe the training is all of that.
If you want to learn to shoot better, the fundamentals plus a lot of practice time while shooting with folks who have a higher skill level than yourself is what's needed.
Although receiving a Class from a top tier training facility and an excellent trainer might be very helpful.
A) I don't want to pay to go someplace I'm not wanted.
B) I want some assurance that the juice is worth the squeeze.
What used to really tourque my crank was when people would only sell training ammo to Departments and LEO's only back in the bad old days.
I've addressed this point of view in courses I've instructed over the past 20+ years. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with training, it applies to the right to firearm ownership.
Any training conducted, targeted beyond basic skills, has the potential for injury should someone not follow strict procedure. If you are paid to carry a firearm for a living, you are subject to discipline or loss of employment should you make a significant mistake during live fire training. A person who is attending a paid course of instruction has less motivation to follow strict guidelines and procedures to ensure the safety of personnel who are training alongside them.
If you want advanced training, it is available. You will have to seek out a solid instructor who is teaching the course of instruction. Don't expect the primary focus of the course to be on rubbing elbows with LEO or active duty military personnel. The course should be focused on developing advanced skills, it's not a social gathering. Don't be surprised if personnel attending the course do not share their personal information with you.
If you want advanced police training, seek out employment with a LE agency. If you want advanced CQB training similar to training our combat troops are learning, join the military and request assignment to a combat unit.
I see serious student’s point. I also see the liability issue.
I’ll also be the one who says it, the tac team doesn’t want you to know the tactics they use. I have friends and family that are GBI, County SWAT, officers for larger cities, etc. I’ve asked several that have been to LE/Mil only training classes and each one stated that it was the tactics. My wife’s uncle said, “Guns don’t scare me. People who can shoot, they scare me. We never know if the next call out will be a squabble over the neighbors dog crapping in my yard or a determined, barricaded, competent shooter with a quality weapon that can put accurate rounds on us from 7 yards to over 100. The only advantages we have over someone like that are numbers and the fact that they don’t know what we’re going to do or when.”. Maybe he wasn’t telling the truth, but it made sense.
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.
This "used" to be a concern of mine. I thought they were getting some jedi level skill that was being denied to the private citizen. What I discovered was that things like "team tactics", "radio coordination" and shooting postures designed around body armor and 20 pounds of gear aren't necessarily of benefit to the private citizen.
I used to get together with my personal crew and practice team drills and things like that with the misguided belief that we might actually use this stuff one day. Then as the years went by it became harder and harder to get the "members of my team" to actually show up at the range for ordinary shooting.
So yeah, there is a lot of stuff MIL/LE does that would just be stupid for a private citizen to devote too much time and effort to. This is hampered by the fact that most private citizens lack the discipline and maturity to engage in coordinated shooting exercises and you end up with a gaggle of Yeagertards that sooner or later zap a member of B squad in the shoot house while doing multiple entry dynamic drills.
It's scary enough to shoot on a static line with somebody who can't master the much feared Serpa holster / Glock combination.
So if you are a door kicker, your training should be designed around kicking doors and what comes next. But if you are a homeowner, your training should be designed around defending your home and property. It's not like you are going to be flashbanging your living room as your clear your home. A lot of the stuff people learned in Mosul isn't going to be particularly applicable to your back yard. You aren't going to set up a sniper overwatch before you check out your garage to see what that noise was.
JSP10477 hit on a few points that are relevant. Another point is that without a verifiable paper trail confirming a person's training background and documented skill level, holding a course open to the general public can be an invitation to disaster.
If people want to learn stuff like this, then enlist in the Marines or Army on an Infantry contract. They will be happy to teach you.
Unless you're SOF, the (Army) infantry will be too busy doing layouts in the motorpool to actually train.
About the last thing I want to do is show up at some 2-day CQB class with 7 dudes I have never laid eyes on.
You might be jocked up with plates and a ballistic helmet, but what happens when Cletus sends a rifle round through your armpit or neck? Ever treat a gunshot wound to the throat? I have, and it's quite messy.
If people want to learn stuff like this, then enlist in the Marines or Army on an Infantry contract. They will be happy to teach you.
Or feel free to sign on with LAPD, bust your ass for 5 years on patrol, then try out for Metro. Kick ass there for 5 years and work your way into D Platoon.
The popo ain't stomping on your rights. Anybody who has the skills and the stones can get the training they want - they just have to earn it.
I don't think you have to "earn it", I just think you have to be able to "afford it." Nobody should have to commit 4 years of their existence to play in a kill house. You just need to sign up with three close shooting buddies and start with the "very basics" until everyone is on the same page and is able to apply what they have learned.
I know plenty of LAPD guys who I'd never want to be in a "live fire" team exercise with. The important questions is, am I ever going to need to know how to do this? I did it, it was enlightening to do and I assumed I would potentially need these valuable skills at the time, but that was almost 30 years ago and I've never really needed 95% of it.
The only really useful thing I learned is "don't shoot everything that moves, some of those moving things are on your team." And you don't need a killhouse or MOUT facility to learn that skill.
RetroRevolver77
03-21-18, 21:58
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with training, it applies to the right to firearm ownership.
Wrong.
To say that would be to ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment has to do with military training such that the citizenry are well regulated or trained- to fight as groups or militias, not just owning firearms.
You can probably start with Mil folks who have attended CQB schools and ask how long they are and depending on the unit, sustainment training, train ups for a certain jobs, etc. It's a skill that takes time and effort, more than most realize. Some people have a reference of a simple IPSC cardboard in a clean room and spend a day in a "house" and are now an expert in the field.
I think your better option for time, effort and money would be spent on individual tactics, home defense oriented training. Before I would even consider that-perfect manipulations and fundementals on the square range first. Of course there is more you can do on a range to prep yourself in a "house"
The popo ain't stomping on your rights. Anybody who has the skills and the stones can get the training they want - they just have to earn it.
All fair points. However, the popo stomp on people's rights every day by enforcing unconstitutional "laws." every day.
In general, all the posters in this thread have solid points -except for the "pity party" guy haha.
I think it's a little simplistic to simply say if you want the training, join some gov. organization. That's a good option, but I think that having civ options would also be a benefit to the larger citizenry.
I've addressed this point of view in courses I've instructed over the past 20+ years. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with training, it applies to the right to firearm ownership.
Any training conducted, targeted beyond basic skills, has the potential for injury should someone not follow strict procedure. If you are paid to carry a firearm for a living, you are subject to discipline or loss of employment should you make a significant mistake during live fire training. A person who is attending a paid course of instruction has less motivation to follow strict guidelines and procedures to ensure the safety of personnel who are training alongside them.
If you want advanced training, it is available. You will have to seek out a solid instructor who is teaching the course of instruction. Don't expect the primary focus of the course to be on rubbing elbows with LEO or active duty military personnel. The course should be focused on developing advanced skills, it's not a social gathering. Don't be surprised if personnel attending the course do not share their personal information with you.
If you want advanced police training, seek out employment with a LE agency. If you want advanced CQB training similar to training our combat troops are learning, join the military and request assignment to a combat unit.
None of this is secret. There is no shortage of "operators" who will offer training of any kind if you can get a paying group put together. Some of them are even "real deal" with some kind of actual background.
Simply by being a FFL/SOT I've been able to play on lots of playgrounds with lots of talented people. I didn't have to sign up, just had to know this person or that person and sometimes I was providing the toys and sometimes I was even providing the instruction in those unique situations where I was the most knowledgeable person at the moment.
I was probably 12 years old the first time actual green beret types started showing me things beyond basic marksmanship. I was just a product of my environment and my father happened to shoot with a bunch of NFA dealers and the people who spent a lot of time with NFA dealers, which not surprisingly included a lot of military, former military and law enforcement.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-22-18, 00:40
I often view it as skillset oriented. Most non-LE types do not know how to clear buildings/shoot from vehicles/etc.
Wow, I’m surprised by the responses I’ve seen here, particularly Serious Student.
Dear op, I’m sorry for my initial response in post number seven, let me change my response based on what’s been said.
Training should not only apply to those that *may* use the skill, job titles do not reflect on responsibility and accountability.
If someone wants to pay $800 or more to attend a class to gain skills they are highly unlikely to ever use, and all they want is to gain knowledge, why they hell shouldn’t they?
There’s bad eggs everywhere, job titles mean absolutely nothing, if their training is on par with the rest of the class, they will be held accountable if a mistake is made, just as every else will.
Most Leo’s I’ve interactived with are NOT gun guys, those on this site are the exception, not the rule. They are just as dangerous if not more on the range with a false sense of knowledge, instead of knowing that they ALWAYS have something to learn.
Acting like if you wanna learn something than enlist, is stupid. There should not be a monopoly or withholding knowledge to a certain section of the population for any topic.
If we were talking anything else, you would be pissed if someone on this site respond the way you did.
Withholding knowledge and skill to anyone who hasn’t “earned” it, I would say is extremely 2A. Remember the 2A isn’t about LEO/MIL, it’s about the people. All the people, I have the right to own a firearm, and with that I should have the right to know how to use it regardless of title.
Military service is not a prerequisite to firearm ownership, nor should it be the only option if you want to know how to use it.
I often view it as skillset oriented. Most non-LE types do not know how to clear buildings/shoot from vehicles/etc.
And that is because most non-LE types typically don't seek out and pay for that instruction. But that instruction is almost everywhere. There are tv shows devoted to teaching how to pie a room for home defense. There are lots of ranges where they do vehicle drills and all manner of "real world" training.
A long time ago somebody said "It's all about putting tools in your tool box and knowing which tool to use and when to use it."
This is one of the most eye-opening threads that I've seen.
People on here actually believe that civilians shouldn't have accesss to the same level of training as PD/MIL.
Until just now, I thought we were all on the same team.
This is one of the most eye-opening threads that I've seen.
People on here actually believe that civilians shouldn't have accesss to the same level of training as PD/MIL.
Until just now, I thought we were all on the same team.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. My thought is that many of the LEO/MIL only courses I've attended are labeled as such for one of three reasons:
1: as noted at the start of this thread, the host or the venue is restricted.
2: the belief that with a group of professionals (didn't say "experts") you have less of a vetting concern, and the people who show up will already have much of the basics down. There are many exceptions to this rule, and while most cops aren't gun/tactics guys, the ones who show up for training like this are more likely to be. It's also not always about shooting.
3: Some of these courses teach material that, while not really secret or super high-speed, just isn't geared towards a non-professional user. The LE only CQB courses I've attended have dealt not only with room clearing and managing hallways (good for everybody who carries a gun for self defense), but also a lot of end user specific material, such as:
Mission planning
Breaching
Vehicle takedown/tubular assault
Smoke/gas/NFDD usage
Arrest team tactics/ dealing with no-shoots
Porting and perimeter responsibilities
Shield work
Team tactics (you might find yourself in a situation where you have three buddies, but more is unlikely)
These are cool topics, and again, nothing that Jim-off-the-street couldn't learn, but it would frankly be a waste of time and money, not to mention that the gear list might contain things like shields, flashbangs, breaching gear, and other items that you wouldn't likely find outside of an LE armory.
I'd imagine that the MIL only course would cover things that aren't appropriate (as in I won't be using these TTPs or equipment while policing an American city) or worth the time for an LEO.
OP, have you tried contacting the instructor or the host to see if either you could attend if you provide some bona fides and a training resume, or if they offer an open enrollment equivalent. If you can find a course , then rock on- you'll learn some cool stuff and have some fun.
Nothing wrong with anyone learning CQB skills in this day and age, but LE or military focused courses are often not the best way for non-LE or military to learn. I hope this doesn't sound elitist; it just might not be the most efficient way for a non-cop or warfighter to learn how to protect themself or their home or inner circle.
Until just now, I thought we were all on the same team.
Is this the first time you’ve had an honest conversation with LE/Mil types? By no means are every officer or soldier elitist, but I’ve already stated what it’s about. The attitude is more prevalent in LE.
Here’s a good example. I went to school with several guys that ended up joining the local sheriffs dept. All used to be pro 2A. One night, some tard goes off the deep end, barricades himself in his house with a cheap ak and a half a case of wolf ammo. Well, ****** county’s finest respond and are held at bay for hours. The end result was running a tank through the guys house to end the stand off. One officer is hit by a round that ricocheted off the breaching vehicle. Now ask those guys their opinion on you owning a 6920, a D-60, and 100 rounds of 75gr TAP. Short answer, you shouldn’t be allowed to own it, definitely shouldn’t be taught to use it.
Ask yourself, would you want to face off against an equal armed, equal or possibly better trained opponent or take the easy win?
Once again, I am NOT saying this is the attitude of all LE and Mil.
Hey, our tax dollars pay for it, we should have access :jester:
Your tax dollars don’t cover enough of it to cover the liability, apparently.
About the last thing I want to do is show up at some 2-day CQB class with 7 dudes I have never laid eyes on.
You might be jocked up with plates and a ballistic helmet, but what happens when Cletus sends a rifle round through your armpit or neck? Ever treat a gunshot wound to the throat? I have, and it's quite messy.
If people want to learn stuff like this, then enlist in the Marines or Army on an Infantry contract. They will be happy to teach you.
Or feel free to sign on with LAPD, bust your ass for 5 years on patrol, then try out for Metro. Kick ass there for 5 years and work your way into D Platoon.
The popo ain't stomping on your rights. Anybody who has the skills and the stones can get the training they want - they just have to earn it.
Valid points, but I have those same worries ANY time I step on a range with other people I don’t know. Sometimes, I noted that “Cletus” has joined the police department.
I do believe that non-LEO/mil should be able to seek out what ever training they want. I also believe that it's OK to restrict courses to LEO/mil only if they want to. As previously mentioned, some LEO ranges won't allow Bob on them due to liability, security, etc. Our range requires one to enter our secured area to get to, we're blessed to have an indoor range in rainy country.
As some have brought up, If I'm doing a CQB/ building clearing class with other local cops, I'm not sure I'd want Bob in his gear with us because Bob won't be in the stack for the next mass shooting. My squad has 5 dudes at full strength and we shoot together quite a bit so we know what the others are thinking. Luckily 2 of them are on the joint SWAT team, one was a USCG boarding team member with multiple deployments, and my Sgt is a 20+ year SWAT bubba. Bob won't be there at 0200 as we make entry to a house with a violent DV going on and my suspect is a multi-time convicted violent felon with a LE safety advisory for weapons and fighting.
If Bob wants to pay and sign up for, get vetted, and attend a 2/3 day CQB, Nightvision, ninja vehicle fighting course or even something more basic like a tactical shotgun class he has my support. He may have to travel a little further and deal with shooting with a bunch of other non-LEO or military. That said, I'm ok with some classes be closed to cops and military only. I'll be honest, it's nice to be at a class in duty gear and not have every Tom, Dick and Harry talking to me about my gear and wanting to hear stories. We can just do work and learn.
Valid points, but I have those same worries ANY time I step on a range with other people I don’t know. Sometimes, I noted that “Cletus” has joined the police department.
Having said that, I have never found a shortage of high quality training courses that meet my civilian needs, and most of them have a contingent of 50% cops and 50% Cletus’s like me. I keep a close eye on ALL of them during the course. Being a cop doesn’t mean they are competent pistoleros.
A lot of cop training is procedural and boring, would be a waste of most civilians’ time.
Wrong.
To say that would be to ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment has to do with military training such that the citizenry are well regulated or trained- to fight as groups or militias, not just owning firearms.
But a single dude showing up demanding access to an LEO/MIL restricted class has nothing to do with him being in a well regulated militia. Well regulated units train together for the most part. Not to branch off too far but most of the zombie hunters/militia groups I've seen or met with have little to do with a well regulated militia that is willing and able to help defend their local area.
Also, saying 2a entitles you to attend any training class you want makes as much sense as saying Title 9 (requiring equal sports chances for kids at school) means a high school QB is entitled to go to private training camps and play books with the Patriots.
Having your TTPs be a "secret" is a good thing. I see no reason how a LEO, .mil or even a "militia" training group should not be able to deny access to their methods. Our "right" to train stops well short of someone else's right to pick who they allow in their training classes.
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 guess I should have asked the question, do you mean courses run by private schools or government funded training?
SWATcop556
03-22-18, 08:31
Let’s not get too far into the weeds on this one. That being said most of the more solid firearms handling training I’ve received has been from open enrollment classes. Elite teams on .mil or LE sides of the house usually go to competition shooters to learn how to shoot better, faster, and more accurate. Want to learn to shoot like those guys? Take a Robb Leatham or Bob Vogel class. To learn mission specific TTPs and SOPs it’s a completely different list of trainers. Most of the open enrollment “tactical” classes I’ve seen end up turning into a Tactical Response-ish circle jerk that’s you’d be better off missing anyways. If you want to learn, thoroughly vet the training material and instructor cadre.
All that being said most restricted classes are due to the location or the host having made the request. It is what it is.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 08:33
But a single dude showing up demanding access to an LEO/MIL restricted class has nothing to do with him being in a well regulated militia. Well regulated units train together for the most part. Not to branch off too far but most of the zombie hunters/militia groups I've seen or met with have little to do with a well regulated militia that is willing and able to help defend their local area.
Also, saying 2a entitles you to attend any training class you want makes as much sense as saying Title 9 (requiring equal sports chances for kids at school) means a high school QB is entitled to go to private training camps and play books with the Patriots.
Having your TTPs be a "secret" is a good thing. I see no reason how a LEO, .mil or even a "militia" training group should not be able to deny access to their methods. Our "right" to train stops well short of someone else's right to pick who they allow in their training classes.
T2C stated that the Second Amendment has basically nothing to do with training, only ownership. I pointed out that the Second Amendment has everything to do with training because of the militia. In direct opposition to the founding father's intentions is that all "militia" is now controlled by the federal government. As far as training, any civilian police training being paid for by tax payers should be open to the public. Of course they would have to qualify at certain levels to move onto the next level just as police do etc.
Let’s not get too far into the weeds on this one. That being said most of the more solid firearms handling training I’ve received has been from open enrollment classes. Elite teams on .mil or LE sides of the house usually go to competition shooters to learn how to shoot better, faster, and more accurate. Want to learn to shoot like those guys? Take a Robb Leatham or Bob Vogel class. To learn mission specific TTPs and SOPs it’s a completely different list of trainers. Most of the open enrollment “tactical” classes I’ve seen end up turning into a Tactical Response-ish circle jerk that’s you’d be better off missing anyways. If you want to learn, thoroughly vet the training material and instructor cadre.
All that being said most restricted classes are due to the location or the host having made the request. It is what it is.
I think we all get that, and that’s not our problem.
It’s when somebody comes in, not even insinuating, just out right saying some communists bullshit saying it’s OK to withhold knowledge unless you “earned” it or you need to know.
Acting elitist is wrong. Knowledge on ANY topic should be available to anyone who seeks it, regardless of job title or position in society.
T2C stated that the Second Amendment has basically nothing to do with training, only ownership. I pointed out that the Second Amendment has everything to do with training because of the militia. The perversion of that in direct opposition to the founding father's intentions is that all "militia" is now controlled by the federal government. As far as training, any civilian police training being paid for by tax payers should be open to the public. Of course they would have to qualify at certain levels to move onto the next level etc.
I agree firearms available to police should be available to non-police. I agree the 2A allows/expects a well regulated militia that should not stop them from training how they see fit. It does not mean that any trainer Civ or LE should be forced to accept anyone into their class. I can think of quite a few reasons to keep it private to LE and/or vetted non-LE some of which have already been mentioned here. I see nothing in the Second Amendment that ensures the right to equal training with any private, public or government group.
Compare it to the First Amendment, having the right to free speech doesn't give you the right to audit a senior debate class at a public university.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 08:55
I think we all get that, and that’s not our problem.
It’s when somebody comes in, not even insinuating, just out right saying some communists bullshit saying it’s OK to withhold knowledge unless you “earned” it or you need to know.
Acting elitist is wrong. Knowledge on ANY topic should be available to anyone who seeks it, regardless of job title or position in society.
That was the founding father's intention. Basically all able bodied men would actively participate in military style training within their areas so if called upon they could fight as a cohesive unit.
I agree firearms available to police should be available to non-police. I agree the 2A allows/expects a well regulated militia that should not stop them from training how they see fit. It does not mean that any trainer Civ or LE should be forced to accept anyone into their class. I can think of quite a few reasons to keep it private to LE and/or vetted non-LE some of which have already been mentioned here. I see nothing in the Second Amendment that ensures the right to equal training with any private, public or government group.
Compare it to the First Amendment, having the right to free speech doesn't give you the right to audit a senior debate class at a public university.
No, because in your illustration, a college course or colleges in general- are private institutions paid for by those whom attend. Police training is different. They are paid for by the taxpayers so as such all "able bodied" taxpayers should have equal access to the training. Not saying we're going to throw someone without experience into a live fire shoot house tactics course. However if a person has taken enough courses to qualify to advance to certain levels- then they should be allowed to participate. Local and state LE are civilians.
I think we all get that, and that’s not our problem.
It’s when somebody comes in, not even insinuating, just out right saying some communists bullshit saying it’s OK to withhold knowledge unless you “earned” it or you need to know.
Acting elitist is wrong. Knowledge on ANY topic should be available to anyone who seeks it, regardless of job title or position in society.
If I work hard and develop a proprietary system that achieves better results than the guy down the road how do you have the right to demand to be taught that system?
T2C stated that the Second Amendment has basically nothing to do with training, only ownership. I pointed out that the Second Amendment has everything to do with training because of the militia. In direct opposition to the founding father's intentions is that all "militia" is now controlled by the federal government. As far as training, any civilian police training being paid for by tax payers should be open to the public. Of course they would have to qualify at certain levels to move onto the next level etc.
The Second Amendment protects us in that government should not restrict your firearm ownership or the ability to seek out training. Restricting LE TTP's and SOP's has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. There are instructors in the private sector willing to teach advanced skills. You can learn a great deal from individuals in the private sector and in a lot of cases learn a lot more than the rank and file at a LE agency.
As a taxpayer, I do not want to fund training for private individuals with tax dollars. I also do not want to commit a LE firearms trainer from a 50 person agency to training several hundred other people, due to liability, use of resources, wear and tear on tax payer funded equipment, etc. How will the trainer know the skill (and safety) level of people who do not work for their agency prior to instructing them?
To say the Second Amendment should guarantee an individual should be able to train with a group of LEO or military personnel during scheduled training and qualifications is a stretch.
Acting elitist is wrong. Knowledge on ANY topic should be available to anyone who seeks it, regardless of job title or position in society.
Or the extent of their previous knowledge/training?
The argument would be relevant if training wasn’t readily available to non-cops.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 09:10
The Second Amendment protects us in that government should not restrict your firearm ownership or the ability to seek out training. Restricting LE TTP's and SOP's has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. There are instructors in the private sector willing to teach advanced skills. You can learn a great deal from individuals in the private sector and in a lot of cases learn a lot more than the rank and file at a LE agency.
As a taxpayer, I do not want to fund training for private individuals with tax dollars. I also do not want to commit a LE firearms trainer from a 50 person agency to training several hundred other people, due to liability, use of resources, wear and tear on tax payer funded equipment, etc. How will the trainer know the skill (and safety) level of people who do not work for their agency prior to instructing them?
To say the Second Amendment should guarantee an individual should be able to train with a group of LEO or military personnel during scheduled training and qualifications is a stretch.
As a taxpayer I do not want to fund training for civilian law enforcement that isn't open to the public either. Since LEO's are civilians, then in the spirit of the Constitution- they should be treated the same. They train together in Switzerland, all of them. Imagine if we did that here.
If I work hard and develop a proprietary system that achieves better results than the guy down the road how do you have the right to demand to be taught that system?
That’s a completely different topic and you know it. If you have a product sell your product you get to choose who you sell the product too. That’s fine.
It’s people saying that firearm ownership is right, but getting to learn how to use that weapon as a skill, well, that has to be “earned”.
As a taxpayer I do not want to fund training for civilian law enforcement that isn't open to the public either. Since LEO's are civilians, then in the spirit of the Constitution- they should be treated the same. They train together in Switzerland, all of them. Imagine if we did that here.
Would you agree to extensive record keeping of your private information and your training by a government agency? Would you agree to an increase in your property and income taxes to fund the additional costs of training more people?
Or the extent of their previous knowledge/training?
The argument would be relevant if training wasn’t readily available to non-cops.
Reread what I wrote in the context as a direct response to Serious Students post.
It’s not that training isn’t available, it’s that some skills should only be available to those that “earn” it.
That’s a completely different topic and you know it. If you have a product sell your product you get to choose who you sell the product too. That’s fine.
It’s people saying that firearm ownership is right, but getting to learn how to use that weapon as a skill, well, that has to be “earned”.
It isn't different at all. If high school public school coach (tax/public funded) develops a training methodology that turns a mediocre team into state champs I as a tax paying citizen in his district do not have the right to demand he teach me the system. The same way as if a local deputy develops a super smooth system for clearing a house I have no right to demand he teach me that system.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 09:22
Would you agree to extensive record keeping of your private information and your training by a government agency? Would you agree to an increase in your property and income taxes to fund the additional costs of training more people?
I'm already paying enough taxes however in such a case, those that chose to participate as civilians would probably pay for the additional costs for their slot in the classes. Simply, it would allow for a standardized method of training open to all rather than the hodge podge of courses offered on the civilian side. If a civilian qualified at certain levels, then they could move onto the next level if they chose to. I think if instructors opened this up in such a manner, they'd be surprised how many on the civilian side would want to participate.
It isn't different at all. If high school public school coach (tax/public funded) develops a training methodology that turns a mediocre team into state champs I as a tax paying citizen in his district do not have the right to demand he teach me the system. The same way as if a local deputy develops a super smooth system for clearing a house I have no right to demand he teach me that system.
OK so if my kid was going to that high school and wanted to play on the team to learn from that specific coach- then why couldn't he play if he was able bodied? Same thing.
I'm already paying enough taxes however in such a case, those that chose to participate as civilians would probably pay for the additional costs for their slot in the classes. Simply, it would allow for a standardized method of training open to all rather than the hodge podge of courses offered on the civilian side. If a civilian qualified at certain levels, then they could move onto the next level if they chose to. I think if instructors opened this up in such a manner, they'd be surprised how many on the civilian side would want to participate.
OK so if my kid was going to that high school and wanted to play on the team to learn from that specific coach- then why couldn't he play if he was able bodied? Same thing.
In that case where your kid is able to meet the requirements of time and ability to join the team he should get the teams general training and any training specific to his position. Just like if someone wants to meet the requirements of time and ability to join a department they should get the departments general training and training specific to his position. That doesn't mean your neighbor with no kids, who still pays school taxes, should be able to put on his old cleats and join in the practice though right?
I'm already paying enough taxes however in such a case, those that chose to participate as civilians would probably pay for the additional costs for their slot in the classes. Simply, it would allow for a standardized method of training open to all rather than the hodge podge of courses offered on the civilian side. If a civilian qualified at certain levels, then they could move onto the next level if they chose to. I think if instructors opened this up in such a manner, they'd be surprised how many on the civilian side would want to participate.
It would not be left up to the instructors, the decision to allow additional people to train would fall to the head of the agency.
Costs, administrative and the expenditure of consumables, per person could be easily calculated. Releases of liability are easy to develop and keep on file. Verifiable proof of training and proficiency could be standardized. Classroom and range sizes would have to be determined based on demand.
Different agencies train differently. Most states have minimum training standards as a guideline and agencies can develop training that meets or exceeds those standards. How would training with agency A work out if you wanted to train with agency B? Would you have to start from square one with agency B?
When we held training and/or qualifications, firearm make, model and serial number was documented. The courses of fire and number of rounds expended by an individual was documented. The persons work and training locations were documented. All of this was kept in a database. Are you willing to provide all that information and consent to it being kept by the LE agency who is conducting the training you are attending?
There are a lot of points to consider.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 09:53
It would not be left up to the instructors, the decision to allow additional people to train would fall to the head of the agency.
Costs, administrative and the expenditure of consumables, per person could be easily calculated. Releases of liability are easy to develop and keep on file. Verifiable proof of training proficiency could be standardized. Classroom and range sizes would have to be determined based on demand.
Different agencies train differently. Most states have minimum training standards as a guideline and agencies can develop training that meets or exceeds those standards. How would training with agency A work out if you wanted to train with agency B? Would you have to start from square one with agency B?
When we held training and/or qualifications, firearm make, model and serial number was documented. The courses of fire and number of rounds expended by an individual was documented. The persons work and training locations were documented. All of this was kept in a database. Are you willing to provide all that information and consent to it being kept by the LE agency who is conducting the training you are attending?
There are a lot of points to consider.
That's the whole point of standardization. I wouldn't have a problem with them keeping my information because I'd hope they realize the benefit of having a huge force of trained civilians if needed. I remember when we had riots here in Cincinnati back in 2001, the cops were overwhelmed for what seemed like a week with all the chaos and a lot of officers got injured. It was the biggest city wide riot since the 1992 LA riots. They claimed it was only four days of rioting, it wasn't- some areas were going a week or longer. Now imagine if they made a broad band call to assemble their equally trained civilian counterparts that the police could utilize to safeguard the areas they've already cleaned out the rioters from. Imagine if they could have an additional ten thousand able bodied men at their disposal to help quell the riots. Same thing as when we lost power for half the city for a week- things started turning ugly then as well. Imagine if they had all these equally trained civilians to help out. That's the spirit of the Second Amendment, that the citizenry would be held to a standard of training to function as a militia unit during times of need.
I guess I should have asked the question, do you mean courses run by private schools or government funded training?
I meant civies having no comparable alternative offered anywhere -or just restricting the class because we're cops, you're not regardless of the civie skill level. I never stated or intended my statements to be construed as these LEO/MIL restricted classes must be *forced* to accept ppl.
Most of the open enrollment “tactical” classes I’ve seen end up turning into a Tactical Response-ish circle jerk that’s you’d be better off missing anyways. If you want to learn, thoroughly vet the training material and instructor cadre.
Without being in the know, it's hard for an average guy to vet the material itself. I'm average.
I personally have access to a family member who trained cops to shoot and was on the back side of Bragg before that. He taught me to shoot. He is also constantly looking at these classes, saying that he thinks they would be a waste of time for me for the same "tactical circle jerk" you mentioned.
sidewaysil80
03-22-18, 10:40
Entitled much?
If you want to take a course thats restricted, find one that isn’t and take that one instead. Lets be brutally honest here: LEO/mil (mostly) attending these courses are because they face these situations on a daily basis. Most non-LEO/mil types at these things are playing dress up and doing it for fun. In no way am I knocking them or saying they shouldn’t be able to get the same training, but what does it matter if a PRIVATE BUSINESS wants to teach a restricted class.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 11:06
Entitled much?
If you want to take a course thats restricted, find one that isn’t and take that one instead. Lets be brutally honest here: LEO/mil (mostly) attending these courses are because they face these situations on a daily basis. Most non-LEO/mil types at these things are playing dress up and doing it for fun. In no way am I knocking them or saying they shouldn’t be able to get the same training, but what does it matter if a PRIVATE BUSINESS wants to teach a restricted class.
Far more civilians as a percentage per capita are killed every year by criminals than LEO's. The response time of most agencies could be tens of minutes from the time an occurrence takes place. So saying it's "dress up" for the people whose lives are at risk more is not true. Civilians would take training seriously if it were offered in a manner that is available to the civilian LEO's.
sidewaysil80
03-22-18, 11:33
Far more civilians as a percentage per capita are killed every year by criminals than LEO's. The response time of most agencies could be tens of minutes from the time an occurrence takes place. So saying it's "dress up" for the people whose lives are at risk more is not true. Civilians would take training seriously if it were offered in a manner that is available to the civilian LEO's.
What do deaths have to do with it? Again, I’m talking about people using CQB as part of their job and working in a set team on a daily basis. Those folks are there as they use those skills daily for work, not the guy doing a class once every couple of months (regardless of motivation) yet will never be in a stack as part of his job.
Just to reiterate, I have no issues with civilians getting the training. But if professionals want to get said training exclusively thats their perogative.
Lastly,
You are using flawed logic to say civilians are more at risk than LEO/Mil. Please find me any profession that has as many line of duty deaths (non accidental) as Law Enforcement or Military. When off duty,Leo/Mil are just as at risk as any other civilian, but then they go to work and put themselves in high risk situations.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 11:49
How many civilians execute cqb in small teams on a daily and/or weekly basis?
Again, as I stated, far more civilians are killed by criminals per capita than LEO's because civilians are the general target of criminals. LEO's respond to crime that is being acted upon the civilians. I guess I fail to see why training civilians to an equivalent level of basic LEO's wouldn't be beneficial to society when it's the civilian lives that are at actual risk.
sidewaysil80
03-22-18, 12:01
Again, as I stated, far more civilians are killed by criminals per capita than LEO's because civilians are the general target of criminals. LEO's respond to crime that is being acted upon the civilians. I guess I fail to see why training civilians to an equivalent level of basic LEO's wouldn't be beneficial to society when it's the civilian lives that are at actual risk.
ONE MORE TIME:
I’m not talking about basic level. I’m talking about CQB schools that would potentially stick a random civilian into a stack comprised of a full time tac team. Or a full time tac team sharing training with a group of civilians that are not on that level. It’s a potential/unecessary distraction for the guys who are doing this stuff on a daily basis.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 12:35
ONE MORE TIME:
I’m not talking about basic level. I’m talking about CQB schools that would potentially stick a random civilian into a stack comprised of a full time tac team. Or a full time tac team sharing training with a group of civilians that are not on that level. It’s a potential/unecessary distraction for the guys who are doing this stuff on a daily basis.
If a civilian has taken the same courses over x amount of years and is at that same level as a civilian LEO- then why not? I'm not advocating throwing untrained civilians into live fire shoot houses. However, eventually, with optional training as long as the courses were standardized- then they should be able to complete that level of training. The reason, because the civilians are the ones who are at actual risk as well as off duty LEO's with their families. I could see crime dwindling to nothing if this was available nationwide. It's one thing to have civilians go through CCW courses, it would be another to have them completing CQB courses and tactical course- which should be available to them. Problem with the private sector training is there is no standardization- at all.
Here's a rabbit hole to go down and ponder and one can see another reason folks may not want to have the burden of vetting attendee's.
Code of Virginia
Table of Contents » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 9. Crimes Against Peace and Order » § 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited
Section
Print PDF email
§ 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited.
A person shall be guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:
1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or
2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.
1987, c. 720.
I meant civies having no comparable alternative offered anywhere -or just restricting the class because we're cops, you're not regardless of the civie skill level. I never stated or intended my statements to be construed as these LEO/MIL restricted classes must be *forced* to accept ppl.
Local gun clubs in my area permit small police agencies with limited training budgets to use their facilities to train at no cost to the agencies. If a LEO is injured while training, the issue is covered under Worker's Comp. If a non-LEO observer is injured during a training exercise we get sued, so we restrict attendance. If someone who is not employed by an agency is injured on a government range the same issues apply. That is the primary reason we restrict attendance.
A lot of police training was developed after trainers took courses in the private sector and incorporated techniques applicable to job requirements into their training. Many of those trainers paid to attend courses out of their own pockets, myself included.
Find courses presented by a trusted trainer who has open enrollment and you will most likely receive as good or better training than a lot of LE agencies are receiving.
noonesshowmonkey
03-22-18, 13:41
About the last thing I want to do is show up at some 2-day CQB class with 7 dudes I have never laid eyes on.
You might be jocked up with plates and a ballistic helmet, but what happens when Cletus sends a rifle round through your armpit or neck? Ever treat a gunshot wound to the throat? I have, and it's quite messy.
If people want to learn stuff like this, then enlist in the Marines or Army on an Infantry contract. They will be happy to teach you.
Or feel free to sign on with LAPD, bust your ass for 5 years on patrol, then try out for Metro. Kick ass there for 5 years and work your way into D Platoon.
The popo ain't stomping on your rights. Anybody who has the skills and the stones can get the training they want - they just have to earn it.
For those with literacy / reading comprehension problems, or just a short attention span:
www.goarmy.com
www.marines.com
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/careers/careers.page
http://www.joinlapd.com/recruitment.cfm?section=apply
Warrior skills can be a hobby. I studied medieval japanese martial arts, to include the use of swords and knives, etc. It was a lot like learning to play an antique violin, studying classical music. It was beautiful, interesting, vital, powerful, moving, etc. That is a far cry from learning actual team fire and movement.
Warrior skills in the modern context, with direct applicability, and trained with modern equipment are not, however, a hobby.
That said, you can find plenty of good training from various instructors, many of whom have impressive resumes from distinguished units/SMUs.
There are plenty of subjects that are LE/.mil sensitive, and the matters at hand include constitutionality, the extent of intrusiveness, applicability towards the endangering of the public good... the list goes on and on. Frankly, if you haven't sworn an oath, gone through selection and vetting, gone through initial training (which training includes education on the above listed matters), then you don't have any business getting too deep into certain subjects. This is America, and you might could find someone to teach you, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
If a civilian has taken the same courses over x amount of years and is at that same level as a civilian LEO- then why not? I'm not advocating throwing untrained civilians into live fire shoot houses. However, eventually, with optional training as long as the courses were standardized- then they should be able to complete that level of training. The reason, because the civilians are the ones who are at actual risk as well as off duty LEO's with their families. I could see crime dwindling to nothing if this was available nationwide. It's one thing to have civilians go through CCW courses, it would be another to have them completing CQB courses and tactical course- which should be available to them. Problem with the private sector training is there is no standardization- at all.
There is no standardized training for LEO either. Some states have a standard building clearing stuff at the academy but most departments have their own policies and procedures.
The same level of training at room clearing is available to leo and non-leo. Honestly if you spend the time and money you can likely get better gear and training as a non-le than most LE gets in room clearing.
Mixing the two shouldn't be required though. Pro-words, comms, room marking and other procedures a department uses are "secret" for a reason. Just like if you develop a home defense strategy and practice it with your family/militia/block you wouldn't want to share those with the world.
If you want to do police things become a police person. If you want to do room clearing for self defense or militia style things go do that. As it stands no local, state or federal agency is going to integrate a non-LE team into their warrant service short of some end of the world scenario. There is too much legal liability they face to do that. So knowing exactly how the department in your area does it will do you no good.
Are there any specific tactics tought to LEO/MIL, or any specific courses in general for that matter, that are not offered to civilians at all? I'm sure some places may limit who they teach what to, but I seriously doubt you couldn't find someone else willing to teach it to Joe nobody. As far as I can tell, you can seek out just about any kind of training as a civilian so long as you meet the instructor's minimum standards to attend and have the money.
I know there are civi classes on room clearing in a team setting, night vision specific classes, force on force simunition training, precision rifle courses, SERE style courses, etc.. What exactly ISN'T available to civilians?
I mean, I'm sure it's difficult to find classes on how to run an M203 or blow the hinges off of a door frame for entry, but I'd bet that has more to do with the inability of civilians to access that kind of equipment more than anything. No point in offering high speed, door kicker courses if no one shows up. The point, most of the time, is to make money after all..
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 16:14
This thread highlights exactly why it's necessary to keep in line with what the founding father's intended and that is well disciplined militia level trained groups of civilians.
7n6
sidewaysil80
03-22-18, 16:36
If a civilian has taken the same courses over x amount of years and is at that same level as a civilian LEO- then why not? I'm not advocating throwing untrained civilians into live fire shoot houses. However, eventually, with optional training as long as the courses were standardized- then they should be able to complete that level of training. The reason, because the civilians are the ones who are at actual risk as well as off duty LEO's with their families. I could see crime dwindling to nothing if this was available nationwide. It's one thing to have civilians go through CCW courses, it would be another to have them completing CQB courses and tactical course- which should be available to them. Problem with the private sector training is there is no standardization- at all.
Respectfully I am withdrawing from our dialogue because it is clear our views/opinions really have no common ground. The fact that you think civilians are more at risk than mil/leo means we won’t agree on anything.
Is this the first time you’ve had an honest conversation with LE/Mil types? By no means are every officer or soldier elitist, but I’ve already stated what it’s about. The attitude is more prevalent in LE.
Here’s a good example. I went to school with several guys that ended up joining the local sheriffs dept. All used to be pro 2A. One night, some tard goes off the deep end, barricades himself in his house with a cheap ak and a half a case of wolf ammo. Well, ****** county’s finest respond and are held at bay for hours. The end result was running a tank through the guys house to end the stand off. One officer is hit by a round that ricocheted off the breaching vehicle. Now ask those guys their opinion on you owning a 6920, a D-60, and 100 rounds of 75gr TAP. Short answer, you shouldn’t be allowed to own it, definitely shouldn’t be taught to use it.
Ask yourself, would you want to face off against an equal armed, equal or possibly better trained opponent or take the easy win?
Once again, I am NOT saying this is the attitude of all LE and Mil.
This is similar to radical feminists and rape victims thinking all males should be castrated. When LAPD shot up the wrong truck during the Chris Donner thing, people here weren't suggesting that those cops should be disarmed.
I get that these are not YOUR opinions, but I don't care who had to deal with what radical / extremist who had an AK / AR or whatever. That is the job if you are LE or MIL. It's no worse than us training Afghans who become the Taliban or Mexican Special Forces who become drug cartels.
All you can do with private citizens is make sure they are not prohibited persons prior to training.
Wow, I’m surprised by the responses I’ve seen here, particularly Serious Student.
Dear op, I’m sorry for my initial response in post number seven, let me change my response based on what’s been said.
Training should not only apply to those that *may* use the skill, job titles do not reflect on responsibility and accountability.
If someone wants to pay $800 or more to attend a class to gain skills they are highly unlikely to ever use, and all they want is to gain knowledge, why they hell shouldn’t they?
There’s bad eggs everywhere, job titles mean absolutely nothing, if their training is on par with the rest of the class, they will be held accountable if a mistake is made, just as every else will.
I think that there is perhaps some exasperation on some of the folks involved in this discussion because, on the one hand, there are several valid reasons that folks may restrict a course to LE only - rang wishes and insurance being two of the most likely reasons, safety concerns aside.
Additionally causing exasperation to some, including me, are the folks who seem to be advocating that trainers BE REQUIRED to train both civilian and military/LE personnel. This flies in the face of the stance that many of us have taken in issues of personnel choice, for example in the in the wedding cake case.
Finally, it is not that hard to find courses taught by legitimate SME's on the subject, I provided a list to the OP. His concern seems to be that they aren't offered locally. Well guess what, most of us have to travel, I'm hoping to attend several of these this year, note the mileage:
Vickers 2day 1911 Operator Course May 19, 20, 2018 $575
Vickers 2-day Instructor Development Course May 21-22, 2018 $650
Lincoln IL – 10:29 663mi
Vickers 2-Day Advanced Handgun August 3 and 4, 2018 $575.00
Vickers 2-Day Carbine Operator August 5 and 6, 2018 $575.00
East Grand Forks MN – 12:10 799mi
Vickers 1 day Advanced Marksmanship Drill Sept 21, 2018 $300
Vickers 2 day Advance Carbine Operator Sept 22-23, 2018 $575
Gainesville TX – 7:16 343miles (north of Denton)
CSAT – Paul Howe – Tac Pistol Operator – Sept 22-23, 2018 $600
Nacogdoches, TX – 9:06 573mi
Vickers 2-Day Advanced Handgun Oct 26-27, 2018 $575.00
Omah NE
CSAT – Paul Howe – Tac Rifle – Nov 10-11, 2018 $600
Nacogdoches, TX – 9:06 573mi
Vickers/Leatham 3 Day Advanced Handgun Nov 30 – Dec 2, 2018
CasaGrande AZ – 17:26 1,090mi
Point is, unless you are lucky enough to live near a quality trainer, you are going to have to travel.
Most Leo’s I’ve interactived with are NOT gun guys, those on this site are the exception, not the rule. They are just as dangerous if not more on the range with a false sense of knowledge, instead of knowing that they ALWAYS have something to learn.
Acting like if you wanna learn something than enlist, is stupid. There should not be a monopoly or withholding knowledge to a certain section of the population for any topic.
If we were talking anything else, you would be pissed if someone on this site respond the way you did.
Withholding knowledge and skill to anyone who hasn’t “earned” it, I would say is extremely 2A. Remember the 2A isn’t about LEO/MIL, it’s about the people. All the people, I have the right to own a firearm, and with that I should have the right to know how to use it regardless of title.
Military service is not a prerequisite to firearm ownership, nor should it be the only option if you want to know how to use it.
There are plenty of training opportunities for both civilian and governmental personnel. They may not always be conveniently located, but they are out there.
As mentioned, just as you have a 'right' to receive training in weapon usage, the trainer should have a 'right' to choose to whom he provides his services.
I think a lot of sentiment - you want the training, join the mil - was directed at the OP's attitude which seemed to be demanding accomodation, but that's just me.
sidewaysil80
03-22-18, 16:44
Most of the time I’ve seen the same courses/material listed, except one is restricted and one is open. It’s not as if you are being denied the material, its just that likely due to logistics they don’t intermingle them.
There are plenty of training opportunities for both civilian and governmental personnel. They may not always be conveniently located, but they are out there.
As mentioned, just as you have a 'right' to receive training in weapon usage, the trainer should have a 'right' to choose to whom he provides his services.
I think a lot of sentiment - you want the training, join the mil - was directed at the OP's attitude which seemed to be trending snowflakish, but that's just me.
I told myself I was done in this thread...
Perhaps you’re right, maybe it was aimed at the @OP, but the way the response was worded rubbed me, and others the wrong way.
In my original post (#7) was completely understanding of why closed training classes exist, I get it. I’m not saying we should all force our way into whatever classes we wish, but then Serious Student saying we don’t have the right to learn those tactics unless we “earn” them is what set me off.
I get not wanting to be in classes with fudds, I don’t want to be either. I hate public ranges for the exact same reason.
My argument was never about being allowed into whatever classes I wish, it was solely about (from SS post onward) having the right to learn those skills, when I so choose, and not when those skills have been “earned”.
There is no prerequisites to gain knowledge in this country, you don’t have to earn the right to learn something, you just have to be willing to learn it. That’s where my issue begun and ended here.
This Constitutional debate is ridiculous. The Constitution lays out rules to keep the government in check. The trainers being discussed are part of a business. If you don't like it, don't give money to that company. Crying about it violating 2A rights is no different than crying because a bakery won't make you a Nazi cake. You want the government to step in and say that the company has to do make whatever the customer wants because of the 1A?
I think a lot of sentiment - you want the training, join the mil - was directed at the OP's attitude which seemed to be trending snowflakish, but that's just me.
Backhandedly calling me a snowflake isn't a good look.
I never once stated a private business or individual should be forced to make any changes nor did I say any of these training restrictions violates the 2nd amendment as a law; ergo I never implied that governmental regulation should get involved. I did however postulate (i.e. not bitching -which wasn't an edit) the meaning, idea, and spirit of the 2A.
The purpose of this thread was discussion, not lobbing personal insults.
SeriousStudent
03-22-18, 18:27
Reread what I wrote in the context as a direct response to Serious Students post.
It’s not that training isn’t available, it’s that some skills should only be available to those that “earn” it.
And is it readily available to non-cops.
Reread my post. The part about a 2-day CQB class with 7 dudes I have never seen before. As in, the very first sentence.
Do you want to go to a class where people have you doing dynamic room clearing with live ammo, going in cold with people you have known for just hours?
Not me. And not anybody smart.
When I was taught CQB, it was weeks. As in, walk with no weapons at all, then unloaded weapons, then blanks, and finally live rounds. Then full speed, then in the dark.
Those were evolutions that last weeks. Not hours. And with a squad of guys I had known and led for a year.
That's my point. The only way to get good at this without being at a unacceptable level of risk is a LOT of training with people you know.
The best way to do that is as a cop or service member. If you can take weeks off from work to do that, then rock on.
Exactly how many people need that kind of team tactics? If you live in that kind of neighborhood, I'd recommend moving.
And I'll be happy to tell you a dirty little secret. 99.99 percent of folks would be dramatically better served taking a class like Armed Movement Inside Structures (AMIS) by Craig Douglas. How to use your weapon, your light and skills in an unlit and unfamiliar structure with active role players.
I get it, it's really cool to strap on a plate carrier and run a carbine. Been there, done that.
But I don't walk around with that kind of gear. It's a flashlight, G19 and a Smith 342. That's what I constantly drill with.
Make more sense now?
As a cop there are classes that even I don't get to go to. Is that double unfairsy?
CQB courses/swat school...gotta be on a team
Advances pistol/carbine/subgun/shotgun/etc courses...gotta be assigned to a team.
RetroRevolver77
03-22-18, 18:42
Respectfully I am withdrawing from our dialogue because it is clear our views/opinions really have no common ground. The fact that you think civilians are more at risk than mil/leo means we won’t agree on anything.
I'm not comparing military with civilian LEO's as they are two entirely separate entities with different tasks. What I am saying is that civilians are actually living in the areas where LEO's patrol. The risk is far greater for the civilians who live in those types areas on day in, day out basis. In spirit of the actual Constitution as it is written, training civilians to be able to defend themselves would at least give them the tools necessary to combat the crime that they live in and around. The well regulated militia portion of the 2nd Amendment pertains directly to civilians such that they are able to defend not just their homes but also their neighborhoods, cities, and the nation as a whole.
Backhandedly calling me a snowflake isn't a good look.
I never once stated a private business or individual should be forced to make any changes nor did I say any of these training restrictions violates the 2nd amendment as a law; ergo I never implied that governmental regulation should get involved. I did however postulate (i.e. not bitching -which wasn't an edit) the meaning, idea, and spirit of the 2A.
The purpose of this thread was discussion, not lobbing personal insults.
I edited my post.
There seems to be a misconception Id like to clear up. LEO/Mil restricted classes are usually not paid for with tax dollars. If they are, Im owed thousands of dollars. I, as a civilian and LEO, have paid for all course tuition and necessary ammunition out of my own pocket and Ive used my accrued/vacation time just like anyone else. This is generally true from what Ive seen in a few dozen classes. The only exception is a few guys have received a case of ammo or got to drive a company car. Thats the exception and not the norm.
Restricted enrollment classes are usually hosted at police or government facilities. Police administrators are more concerned with liability than who learns what. My city will absolutely never host a class that isnt taught to our officers by our range staff. Ive been to two of our department classes over twelve years and they were pathetic. The outside firearm instructors and training companies dont approach the police agency to teach them. The classes are usually a result of one or two guys putting in a lot of work coordinating the facility, finding an instructor, finding students, handling the schedule, etc. I know this because I know the guys putting in the work. Ive seen classes canceled because they couldnt get enough cheap-ass cops to pay for training and ammo. Which isnt surprising with courses approaching the $800 mark these days. Would they have liked to have had non-LEO there to keep the course happening? Of course, but bureaucracy is a bitch.
Open enrollment classes are generally held at public or club facilities. These classes are also the result of one or two guys putting in a lot of work coordinating the facility, finding an instructor, finding students, handling the schedule, etc. Occasionally these classes are at government facilities because the person coordinating everything is probably a police trainer who wants to train anyone interested, including their buddies who can pay for it. A couple club ranges Ive trained at required a range fee from non-members. Their house, their rules. I dont complain.
Its far less about who is learning what, and more about who is hosting the course and what they have access to. Ive learned nothing at one kind that wasnt available at the other.
And is it readily available to non-cops.
Reread my post. The part about a 2-day CQB class with 7 dudes I have never seen before. As in, the very first sentence.
Do you want to go to a class where people have you doing dynamic room clearing with live ammo, going in cold with people you have known for just hours?
Not me. And not anybody smart.
When I was taught CQB, it was weeks. As in, walk with no weapons at all, then unloaded weapons, then blanks, and finally live rounds. Then full speed, then in the dark.
Those were evolutions that last weeks. Not hours. And with a squad of guys I had known and led for a year.
That's my point. The only way to get good at this without being at a unacceptable level of risk is a LOT of training with people you know.
The best way to do that is as a cop or service member. If you can take weeks off from work to do that, then rock on.
Exactly how many people need that kind of team tactics? If you live in that kind of neighborhood, I'd recommend moving.
And I'll be happy to tell you a dirty little secret. 99.99 percent of folks would be dramatically better served taking a class like Armed Movement Inside Structures (AMIS) by Craig Douglas. How to use your weapon, your light and skills in an unlit and unfamiliar structure with active role players.
I get it, it's really cool to strap on a plate carrier and run a carbine. Been there, done that.
But I don't walk around with that kind of gear. It's a flashlight, G19 and a Smith 342. That's what I constantly drill with.
Make more sense now?
Yeah, all of that, especially the part in bold. Only way it would work is if you brought in your own group of already rkp shooters and you had the time to develop skills.
This one is easy to see both sides of.
On one hand people who have put in the time to be part of specialized law enforcement or special military whatever sometimes have a sense of entitlement where they don't think anyone who hasn't put in the work shouldn't be shown what they have been shown. I don't agree with that perspective, but I can understand it.
On the other hand, you have people with strong opinions about their rights who believe that simply be stating they are "militia" they should be issued a M4, a M249 and a 203 launcher and receive free airborne training upon demand with the same ease as requesting an abortion. I don't agree with that perspective either, but I can understand it.
Thankfully a middle ground exists. If you have the money and enough dedicated people you can get your group trained up to a level that is actually pretty impressive. Even more if you focus on skill sets you are "most likely" to employ you can really put something together. And if you actually practice what you have been taught, you pretty quickly discover you don't need a lot of advanced training.
SeriousStudent
03-22-18, 22:46
SteyrAUG is absolutely correct, some people do feel that way.
On my part, I really do not view it as a sense of entitlement. I view it as a recognition of the dangers involved.
This shit is really, really dangerous. I'm just talking rifles. Let's not even bring up explosive breaching or distraction devices.
I spent last weekend at the Rangemaster Tactical Conference. Somebody a lot smarter than me said "Don't pay for your training out of your entertainment budget."
If you want to go have fun, then by all means go have fun! I have all sort of suppressed fun stuff, because they are fun as hell.
But don't confuse a weekend spent with a particular subset of people as training. Pat Rogers (God rest his soul) coined the term "Entertrainment". He was right about that.
Digital_Damage
03-23-18, 18:12
well... for me, their training their rules. Simple as that.
I make my own Nazi cakes. This way I am guaranteed that they won't be poisoned and there won't be some furor over it.
This Constitutional debate is ridiculous. The Constitution lays out rules to keep the government in check. The trainers being discussed are part of a business. If you don't like it, don't give money to that company. Crying about it violating 2A rights is no different than crying because a bakery won't make you a Nazi cake. You want the government to step in and say that the company has to do make whatever the customer wants because of the 1A?
I make my own Nazi cakes. This way I am guaranteed that they won't be poisoned and there won't be some furor over it.
I buy a lot of stuff from these guys - http://www.wilton.com/shop-tools/
For a good icing for a deviant political party cake you cant go wrong with a nice cream cheese frosting - https://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/cream-cheese-frosting/554e069d-b269-47f6-bbb9-5bdc24b3695f
Take it from me, the cake itself can suck, you put on a thick base of the cream cheese, decorate it with some Nazi shit and those Henry Gibson's won't know what hit them. You put on a thick enough base and they'll rave even if you do the decorating with icing made of Crisco and powdered sugar.
(tongue firmly in cheek - first wife ran a Baskin-Robbins and was a pro cake decorator)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.