Concealed Carry Administrative Rule Changes

Patrick

Patrick

New Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
12
Location
Raleigh, NC
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Good evening, I tried to find the best Forum to post this under and settled on Training Classes but I yield to the moderators if there is a better location. I'd be grateful if you could help me find the right place.

I recently received a letter from Mr. Overton at DOJ (they administer the CC instructors in NC). The content of that letter is between the dashed lines below, ----- (the bold highlighting is mine). My concern is that there are a few record keeping requirements that DOJ is trying to insert that I don't think they should. With that said, I inquired about when the public hearing would be held to gather feedback about the rule changes and that meeting is being held (between the ==== line section) below. I thought there might be other parties who might want to make their voice heard at this meeting or in writing to DOJ. It is my intent to attend the public hearing and I'd love to have some company to let our voice be heard.

-Patrick
(NC Concealed Carry Instructor)

=========================
Rules 12 NCAC 09F .0103 .0104, and .0105 are scheduled for Public Hearing on August 9, 2023 at 10:00am at the Planning & Standards Committee.



Public Hearing: August 9, 2023

Time: 10:00am

Location: Wake Technical Community College, Public Safety Training Center, 321 Chapanoke Road, Raleigh, NC 27603



Comments may be submitted to:

Michelle Schilling

NC Department of Justice

Criminal Justice Standards Division

PO Drawer 149

Raleigh, NC 27602-0149



Or, email at [email protected]

=========================
-------------------------------------------

TO: All Concealed Carry Instructors
FROM: Bob Overton, CCH/RLEO Program Manager
REF: Concealed Carry Program Code Changes and Acadis Update
Date: June 23, 2023

The purpose of this document is to inform you of upcoming Concealed Carry Instructor Program Rule Changes effective October 1, 2023, and to update you on the transition to the Acadis System.


Rule Changes for CCH Instructor Program:

The NC Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission is in the process of adding and amending several rules within SUBCHAPTER 09F-SECTION .0100 of the NC Administrative Code which establishes the rules for the administration of the Concealed Carry Handgun Training Program for NC. These changes will take effect on October 1, 2023. Below is a summary of the changes that are being made by the Commission:

Code changes and additions effective October 1, 2023.

-All CCH classes must be taught in person. Virtual CCH classes are not approved by the Commission.

-No steel or metal targets may be used at distances less than 10 yards from the target.

-Not fewer than 30 days before commencing delivery of a CCH Course, instructor must submit to the Commission a Pre-Delivery Report that contains:
 Instructor name
 Type of course (NCJA MODEL, NRA, or USCCA) as approved by the Commission
 Date and location of the course

 Hours of course (minimum of 8 hours)
 Anticipated number of students


(the form will be provided to instructors)


-Not more than 10 days after the completion of the CCH course, submit to the Commission a Post-Delivery Report containing the following information;
 Instructor(s) name(s) if changes were made
 Actual number of attendees.


(the form will be provided to the instructors)


-All CCH instructors will maintain a roster of students completing each CCH Course in compliance with the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Retention and Disposition Schedule established to GS 121-4 and GS 132-8.1.

The Roster must include at a minimum;
 Each student’s legal name and contact information


The Roster must be available to Division Staff for audit purposes.

-CCH Instructors must provide a current copy of the Concealed Carry Handgun Training manual (Red Book) as published by the NC Justice Academy. The contents of this manual must be included in the curriculum for the CCH Course. (NOTE: The updated Red Book Volume VIII will be available by July 15 th , 2023, from the NC Justice Academy Bookstore)
Below is the link to the NCJA Bookstore Information:

Bookstore - NC Justice Academy

Hours of Operation Salemburg Campus Hours Monday through Thursday: 7:30 AM – 5:00 PM Friday: 7:30 AM – 4:00 PM Please call the Bookstore in Salemburg at (910) 926-6099 for […]
ncdoj.gov ncdoj.gov
emburg%20at%20(910)%20926%2D6099%20for%20more%20information.%C2%A0%20You%2
0may%20also%20contact%20them%20via%20email.%20We%20will%20be%20glad%20to%20

help%20you.


-USCCA Concealed Carry and Home Defense Instructor Certification has been approved as an acceptable certification for NC CCH Instructor Certification.

-Effective October 1, 2023, the Commission will not accept the Private Protective Services Firearms Trainer Certification for NC CCH Instructor Certification.



Both the Pre-Delivery and Post-Delivery forms have been attached for your use. They will also be posted on the website as we move closer to October 1 st . Remember, this will not take effect until October 1, 2023, so you will need only to complete Pre-Delivery and Post-Delivery Forms for classes being held after October 1. 2023. Please email the forms to my attention at
[email protected].

Acadis Transition
CJ Training and Standards has transitioned to the Acadis System. This is a phased transition that will evolve over the coming months. As of now, you will continue to mail in your paperwork as you always have, and the information will be entered and processed by staff into the Acadis System. As your paperwork is being processed, you will receive new instructor numbers that will be indicated on your paperwork as it is distributed back to you. You will use the new instructor number on your student certificates and all correspondence with CJ Standards,

As we transition, we will, in the future begin using Acadis exclusively for submittals, payment, and processing. We are not there yet; however, we are moving in that direction. You will get updates and directions in how this process will affect you and information on how to further use your Acadis Account.
As a first step, the Acadis Portal is available at the following link:
Every CCH Instructor has already been entered into the system, if you have not already accessed the Acadis Portal and need to get yourself set up for the first time, you can email [email protected] and let them know you should already be in the system, provide your name/DOB, and they will help get your access set up.
Once in place, this system will be more efficient and user friendly for instructors. We ask for your continued patience as we navigate this transition.
 
To get the same data, each of the 100 Sheriffs in NC would have to be forced to provide the State with this information.

Therefore the NCDoJ is effectively deputizing all CC instructors.

By what legislation was this authorized?

I am against every back-door gun registry attempt. This shenanigan is exactly that.
 
Jeppo said:
I can’t imagine any legitimate use NC could have for compiling a list of CHP class attendees. 🤬
Click to expand...
They already have a list of all the permits. The only thing the attendee list tells them is who took the class, but didn't apply for a permit.
 
I see two things happening here. First, CJ is looking to weed out the "backyard" instructors who do not comply with training standards. Bob audited one of my classes in January and we had a long discussion about this. Second, I believe the state is trying to guage how many certificates are issued against the number of students who actually apply for the permit. Does this create a registry of CCH holders? Maybe. Personally I'm not thrilled with this aspect but, it is what it is.
 
Miss Lily said:
I believe the state is trying to guage how many certificates are issued against the number of students who actually apply for the permit.
Click to expand...
Why would that be of interest to them (or anyone)? 🤔
 
At least your license plate is already tagged with the information that you have a permit ... but I am also wondering why they would need this course data?
 
Jeppo said:
Why would that be of interest to them (or anyone)? 🤔
Click to expand...
I can't imagine anyone actually cares, however, someone's family member, friend, donor, whoever wants a gov job so they will be tracking this particular data point for no good reason except to have a gov job and add their useless data point to a metrics report that someone will figure out a way to add another data point to track so their family member, friend, donor, whoever can get a gov job and to this particular part of the bureaucracy.
 
Is this a legislative or administrative change? Can any of the instructors get to the root of the change in order to gain a better understanding? It feels administrative which means it can also be reversed with a stroke of a pen if enough people raise concerns.
 
I just wanted to say thanks for the interest in this topic and to reply to some of the items raised in the discussion.

My understanding this is administrative code change managed by DOJ. There is a public hearing in my OP if you are interested in making your voice heard (especially if you are a CCH instructor in NC).
* I do not run public classes, I only teach people who have been recommended to me by other class participants.
* I fall into the "Backyard Instructors category". My classes are usually 4-6 people and I'm not teaching CCH for a profit motive. I give 110% for my students and not one student receives a cert that has not gone through all requirements of the model course.
* I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the Records Retention laws apply to CCH instructors, those laws are for state agencies.
* If DOJ wants to audit a class all they have to do is ask and I'm happy to include them in my next class but I don't like handing over the names of CCH students to DOJ (and that list is instantly out of date the minute the list is submitted). I've had students take the class and never obtain their permit.
* It is not a done deal, it is only a done deal if nobody opposes it. The public hearing is below in this bullet point and I would encourage anyone who is a CCH instructor to attend (or event if you are a CCH holder). I'm taking the vacation time.
Rules 12 NCAC 09F .0103 .0104, and .0105 are scheduled for Public Hearing on August 9, 2023 at 10:00am at the Planning & Standards Committee.
Public Hearing: August 9, 2023
Time: 10:00am
Location: Wake Technical Community College, Public Safety Training Center, 321 Chapanoke Road, Raleigh, NC 27603

Thanks again for the discussion, it helps to know I am not alone!

-Patrick
 
I have to wonder if the DOJ is testing the waters.

This may be an administrative change that doesn't look like much, but are they or should they be allowed to do this, legally? If they make this change, then does it set a precedent for them to make more drastic changes in the future? Should these changes go through the legislature? Think of the ATF and the pistol brace rule.
 
Toprudder said:
I have to wonder if the DOJ is testing the waters.

This may be an administrative change that doesn't look like much, but are they or should they be allowed to do this, legally? If they make this change, then does it set a precedent for them to make more drastic changes in the future? Should these changes go through the legislature? Think of the ATF and the pistol brace rule.
Click to expand...
If you really want to throw a wrench into CCW classes do this: After establishing the 30 day prior reporting rule (which they are trying to do) make it so that the class can only be held if everybody that registered is in attendance.
 
Toprudder said:
I have to wonder if the DOJ is testing the waters.

This may be an administrative change that doesn't look like much, but are they or should they be allowed to do this, legally? If they make this change, then does it set a precedent for them to make more drastic changes in the future? Should these changes go through the legislature? Think of the ATF and the pistol brace rule.
Click to expand...
Related to your question, and eye opening: https://areaocho.com/the-three-branches/

The laws passed by Congress are called the United States code (USC). This is what the USC looked like in 1925. Note that all of the laws passed by Congress in the first 150 years of its existence were found in one book:
Click to expand...

That one volume represents all of the laws that were passed by Congress in the first 150 years of this country’s existence. That Federal Law library has now expanded immensely.

What was one volume in 1925 expanded to become 25 volumes just 90 years later.
Click to expand...

And that is DWARFED by the amount of administrative code, i.e. BS made up by these administrative agencies that is not law passed by congress, which is the only body that is supposed to be able to.
 
rdinatal said:
What problem is this change supposed to fix?
Click to expand...
I figured out what they're doing. The legislature is working on permitless carry. That bill requires training. Anyone taking a class, but not getting a permit may be planning on permitless carry (should that pass).
The state wants to know who might be carrying a gun.
 
Timfoilhat said:
I figured out what they're doing. The legislature is working on permitless carry. That bill requires training. Anyone taking a class, but not getting a permit may be planning on permitless carry (should that pass).
The state wants to know who might be carrying a gun.
Click to expand...
Come on, you know big brother don't care what you carry or if you carry.
 
Cricketdad said:
Come on, you know big brother don't care what you carry or if you carry.
Click to expand...
Is this sarcasm?
My explanation is the only thing that makes any sense. It's an answer that GRNC had no answer to when they wrote the alert.
" INVADE PRIVACY by requiring instructors keep to an auditable “roster” of students, including full legal name and “contact information” represents an invasion of privacy for students who take the course but do not, for whatever reason, choose to apply for a concealed handgun permit. Because NCDOJ maintains a database of concealed handgun applicants, the requirement is also redundant. Why does the state need names of people who don’t even apply for permits?"

The above quote completely misses the point when it states "Because NCDOJ maintains a database of concealed handgun applicants, the requirement is also redundant." This has little to nothing to do with redundancy. It's about a separate database of every state citizen that's qualified to permitless carry. A database that WRAL will happily publish when it's leaked or FOIAed. The previous work done to get the concealed carry database locked up very likely doesn't cover this new database.
Honestly, GRNC should be screaming about this .
 
Last edited:
Timfoilhat said:
Is this sarcasm?
My explanation is the only thing that makes any sense. It's an answer that GRNC had no answer to when they wrote the alert.
" INVADE PRIVACY by requiring instructors keep to an auditable “roster” of students, including full legal name and “contact information” represents an invasion of privacy for students who take the course but do not, for whatever reason, choose to apply for a concealed handgun permit. Because NCDOJ maintains a database of concealed handgun applicants, the requirement is also redundant. Why does the state need names of people who don’t even apply for permits?"

The above quote completely misses the point when it states "Because NCDOJ maintains a database of concealed handgun applicants, the requirement is also redundant." This has little to nothing to do with redundancy. It's about a separate database of every state citizen that's qualified to permitless carry. A database that WRAL will happily publish when it's leaked or FOIAed. The previous work done to get the concealed carry database locked up very likely doesn't cover this new database.
Honestly, GRNC should be screaming about this .
Click to expand...
Of course it's sarcasm.

I could answer your statement but, because I don't know you or whoever else might be reading this forum, I won't.

Go to the meeting.
 
Last edited:
Cricketdad said:
Of course it's sarcasm.

I could answer your statement but, because I don't know you or whoever else might be reading this forum, I won't.

Go at the meeting.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the need for opsec, but it also kind of drips of cop out.
If you guys knew what was up you should be talking about it. Instead you seem to be grasping to make this sound outrageous in the alert that was posted. Thing is, nobody cares that trainers might have to work harder at administrative duties.

I am a member of GRNC. I don't do meetings.
I used to be very active with Illinois Carry. It was common there as well to not always say what's going on or share inside baseball online. We were well aware of "them" in our forum well before we actually heard a rep repeat a post word for word that had just been posted minutes earlier. It just provided proof of what we knew, and gave us the opportunity to write nastygrams to the gun banners so we could see them react on the livestream in real time. Anyway, I digress. I'm totally burned out. I'm done with secret meetings.
I'm not terribly impressed with the way GRNC doesn't communicate with us. The press releases for the wins are nice, but I'd like to see more of a community surrounding the fight and the next steps. Maintaining that community is important so that it's ready to go when the composition of the state government flips the wrong way in this purple state.

If you or someone else from GRNC wanted to crash our First Friday lunch at the Pineville Tavern I'm sure you'd have our attention long enough to handle a monthly update. Then you could eat a burger and BS with us as a member of our little community.
 
Last edited:
Good evening,

I'm planning on attending the meeting and to speak in objection to the administrative rule changes. I've had some time to consider them and I thought I would share some of my objections to share with you and to potentially adopt some of your concerns when I speak. It is not my intent to speak for anyone but I am always trying to refine what I would say to make it more impactful.

So here goes:

======================
Good afternoon, my name is Patrick, I am a concealed carry pistol instructor in North Carolina. I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed rule changes.

#1 Regarding "Not fewer than 30 days before commencing delivery of a CCH Course, instructor must submit to the Commission a Pre-Delivery Report", I am a small instructor and I teach only private classes. Many times the students who may attend are not established 30 days out. There appears to be no penalty for inaccurate information with regard to this requirement and if the information is not accurate it should not be collected. To meet this requirement it would seem most instructors could simply submit a form, regardless of accuracy, to meet the rule change. This would indicate the data is of little, or possibly no value, and only adds overhead to the process.
#2 Regarding, "Not more than 10 days after the completion of the CCH course, submit to the Commission a Post-Delivery Report". It is unclear the purpose of this information being submitted to the Commission. Some students will audit the course and never apply for a concealed carry permit or may not pass the class. Again, this simply adds more overhead to teach a class and does not improve any specific information for the Commission.

These forms seem to be problematic from creation to disposal of the record, with no requirement for accuracy. Acadis, the system to maintain this information, is not ready. Additionally, what happens if the record is lost in the mail or is delivered after the deadline due to mail delays.

#3 Regarding, "All CCH instructors will maintain a roster of students completing each CCH Course in compliance with the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Retention and Disposition Schedule established to GS 121-4 and GS 132-8.1". GS 121-4 establishes the powers and duties of the department of Natural and Cultural Resources, it bears no relationship to the operations of concealed carry instructors throughout the state who are not North Carolina State Employees. GS 132-8.1 pertains to the records generated by the operations of State Government entities and has no bearing on the information collected by private business in regard to the students that may attend a class. Furthermore, emerging privacy best practices would inform customers of how their data would be used. Additionally, the information collected from students may include name, address, phone number, email or other Personally Identifiable Information. It is an obligation of the Commission to tell instructors and students how the data will be used, share with who, the retention schedule of the data in question. Sharing this information with DOJ, a criminal justice organization, may violate the 4th amendment if instructors are "required" to share this information with the Commission.

I cannot understand how these administrative changes enhance the Concealed Carry Pistol class, the students experience nor how it would assist the Commission in it's administration of the standards for CCP in North Carolina. I would like to hear from the Commission a response to these questions either here today, or if necessary, from a series of public information requests.

Once again, I would like to voice my opposition to these administrative rule changes. The purported justification of GS 121-4 and GS 132-8.1 as a basis to create these records is out of the scope of either set of statutes and creates a record of PII information that may require audits of Acadis to ensure the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of these records. Audits of this nature should be performed on a periodic basis which would generate additional cost and burden on the Commission. Additionally, providing information about students to a criminal justice organization may cause a 4th amendment violation. These changes are unnecessary, inaccurate, overreaching and burdensome, I object to them all.


======================
This is my first pass, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.

-Patrick
 
Patrick said:
Good evening,

I'm planning on attending the meeting and to speak in objection to the administrative rule changes. I've had some time to consider them and I thought I would share some of my objections to share with you and to potentially adopt some of your concerns when I speak. It is not my intent to speak for anyone but I am always trying to refine what I would say to make it more impactful.

So here goes:

======================
Good afternoon, my name is Patrick, I am a concealed carry pistol instructor in North Carolina. I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed rule changes.

#1 Regarding "Not fewer than 30 days before commencing delivery of a CCH Course, instructor must submit to the Commission a Pre-Delivery Report", I am a small instructor and I teach only private classes. Many times the students who may attend are not established 30 days out. There appears to be no penalty for inaccurate information with regard to this requirement and if the information is not accurate it should not be collected. To meet this requirement it would seem most instructors could simply submit a form, regardless of accuracy, to meet the rule change. This would indicate the data is of little, or possibly no value, and only adds overhead to the process.
#2 Regarding, "Not more than 10 days after the completion of the CCH course, submit to the Commission a Post-Delivery Report". It is unclear the purpose of this information being submitted to the Commission. Some students will audit the course and never apply for a concealed carry permit or may not pass the class. Again, this simply adds more overhead to teach a class and does not improve any specific information for the Commission.

These forms seem to be problematic from creation to disposal of the record, with no requirement for accuracy. Acadis, the system to maintain this information, is not ready. Additionally, what happens if the record is lost in the mail or is delivered after the deadline due to mail delays.

#3 Regarding, "All CCH instructors will maintain a roster of students completing each CCH Course in compliance with the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Retention and Disposition Schedule established to GS 121-4 and GS 132-8.1". GS 121-4 establishes the powers and duties of the department of Natural and Cultural Resources, it bears no relationship to the operations of concealed carry instructors throughout the state who are not North Carolina State Employees. GS 132-8.1 pertains to the records generated by the operations of State Government entities and has no bearing on the information collected by private business in regard to the students that may attend a class. Furthermore, emerging privacy best practices would inform customers of how their data would be used. Additionally, the information collected from students may include name, address, phone number, email or other Personally Identifiable Information. It is an obligation of the Commission to tell instructors and students how the data will be used, share with who, the retention schedule of the data in question. Sharing this information with DOJ, a criminal justice organization, may violate the 4th amendment if instructors are "required" to share this information with the Commission.

I cannot understand how these administrative changes enhance the Concealed Carry Pistol class, the students experience nor how it would assist the Commission in it's administration of the standards for CCP in North Carolina. I would like to hear from the Commission a response to these questions either here today, or if necessary, from a series of public information requests.

Once again, I would like to voice my opposition to these administrative rule changes. The purported justification of GS 121-4 and GS 132-8.1 as a basis to create these records is out of the scope of either set of statutes and creates a record of PII information that may require audits of Acadis to ensure the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of these records. Audits of this nature should be performed on a periodic basis which would generate additional cost and burden on the Commission. Additionally, providing information about students to a criminal justice organization may cause a 4th amendment violation. These changes are unnecessary, inaccurate, overreaching and burdensome, I object to them all.


======================
This is my first pass, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.

-Patrick
Click to expand...
Sounds measured and well thought out. Kudos and thank you.

I hope they actually listen…
 
Timfoilhat said:
I appreciate the need for opsec, but it also kind of drips of cop out.
If you guys knew what was up you should be talking about it. Instead you seem to be grasping to make this sound outrageous in the alert that was posted. Thing is, nobody cares that trainers might have to work harder at administrative duties.

I am a member of GRNC. I don't do meetings.
I used to be very active with Illinois Carry. It was common there as well to not always say what's going on or share inside baseball online. We were well aware of "them" in our forum well before we actually heard a rep repeat a post word for word that had just been posted minutes earlier. It just provided proof of what we knew, and gave us the opportunity to write nastygrams to the gun banners so we could see them react on the livestream in real time. Anyway, I digress. I'm totally burned out. I'm done with secret meetings.
I'm not terribly impressed with the way GRNC doesn't communicate with us. The press releases for the wins are nice, but I'd like to see more of a community surrounding the fight and the next steps. Maintaining that community is important so that it's ready to go when the composition of the state government flips the wrong way in this purple state.

If you or someone else from GRNC wanted to crash our First Friday lunch at the Pineville Tavern I'm sure you'd have our attention long enough to handle a monthly update. Then you could eat a burger and BS with us as a member of our little community.
Click to expand...
As a member you should know that every single one of us are volunteers.
I had to look up Pineville. Looking around the map, it's the time I noticed, all but two volunteers that actually keeps GRNC functioning live North of I40. I live in Cumberland. The other lives in Mecklenburg and is currently running the Concord Gun Show. He is the closest to you but is in his upper 70's. I'll contact him and see if he's up for a road trip.
 
Cricketdad said:
As a member you should know that every single one of us are volunteers.
I had to look up Pineville. Looking around the map, it's the time I noticed, all but two volunteers that actually keeps GRNC functioning live North of I40. I live in Cumberland. The other lives in Mecklenburg and is currently running the Concord Gun Show. He is the closest to you but is in his upper 70's. I'll contact him and see if he's up for a road trip.
Click to expand...
He declined. I'm not surprised. He's older than I am and I don't stray far from home.
 
Cricketdad said:
He declined. I'm not surprised. He's older than I am and I don't stray far from home.
Click to expand...
Thanks for checking. I don't stray far from home much either and I'm not quite that old yet.
 
Cricketdad said:
Come on, you know big brother don't care what you carry or if you carry.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you vote … and how many prior felonies you have (the more the betterer for quick, no bail release) … and how disenfranchised an upbringing you still suffer from … and …
 
vp9c said:
Sounds measured and well thought out. Kudos and thank you.

I hope they actually listen…
Click to expand...

I agree. Extremely well written and rational.

ALL THE OPPOSITE of how Leftist bureaucrats‘ minds work.


And, what a coincidence I would happen across this CFF thread, shortly after receiving the below, just hours ago:


Do As I Say and Not As I Do!

<snip>
3 Aug 23

“I can look my own badness in the face and accept its existence, while you are busy covering your mirror with a white linen sheet.

“When I sin, I know I'm sinning, while you have fallen prey to your own fabricated illusions.” - - C JoyBell


Curious the way woke bureaucrats, politicians, media types, and corporate whores so piously vilify people like us who go armed and competently train with those arms.

Of course, while condemning us for owning and carrying guns, they’re all hypocritically (and very quietly) doing the same thing, in much the same way they oh-so self-righteously excoriate honest wealth, while hiding their own!

According to them, we are all “paranoid” (and of course, “racist”), because we’ve taken reasonable precautions during the current crime-wave, and are constantly prepared, mentally and physically. After all, we don’t dwell in well-protected bunkers, as they do.

Not surprisingly, inherently dishonest corporate types are making it their business to cynically announce that weapons are “banned” from their property. Hence, malls, restaurants, theaters, even parking lots become assumptive “weapon-free zones,” all supposedly at the stroke of a pen.

Of course, such bans never apply to them personally, nor to their bodyguards.

Nor do they really expect anyone to pay much attention to these inherently fraudulent “bans,” particularly violent criminals, but they impose them anyway, so as to “look good” to leftist politicians they suck-up to.

Yet, many among the naive are those foolish enough to actually pay respect to these laughable bans.

Thus, violent, armed criminals, like James Holmes (the Aurora, CO movie-theater murderer), are able to select places where they can casually murder the innocent with little risk to themselves.

The Tops Supermarket murderer in Buffalo, NY (eighteen-year-old Payton Gendron) also selected the right place to begin his murderous rampage, because he believed (correctly) that few shoppers there carried arms.

These offenders had evil plans, and carried them out with scant interference.

Conversely, their hapless victims were voluntarily hamstrung, by law and “corporate policy”

That’s exactly the way leftists want it. Leftists love “victims,” just as long as they never aspire to be anything other than victims!

Leftists promote and empower evil, while simultaneously condemning all that is virtuous, prudent, and honorable, because they themselves are neither good nor decent, and they know it.

And, you can rest assured these same leftist hypocrites are themselves, well armed and well protected.

And then they have the insolence to beg for your vote!

/John Farnam, https://defense-training.com/quips/

<end snip>
 
I’m currently sitting in the meeting. The chairperson announced that they will be taking care of their normal business before they get to the CCH rule making agenda. So, we have to sit through an hour of blah-blah-blah before they get to our topic. :mad:
 
Toprudder said:
I’m currently sitting in the meeting. The chairperson announced that they will be taking care of their normal business before they get to the CCH rule making agenda. So, we have to sit through an hour of blah-blah-blah before they get to our topic. :mad:
Click to expand...
Thanks for attending
 
Toprudder said:
I’m currently sitting in the meeting. The chairperson announced that they will be taking care of their normal business before they get to the CCH rule making agenda. So, we have to sit through an hour of blah-blah-blah before they get to our topic. :mad:
Click to expand...
Par for the course, i'm afraid.
They will push the gun topic later and later hoping people will have to leave without commenting. when comments are opened, they order them so that the anti-gun side goes first to get their time in talking about how scary guns are, and that anybody carrying a gun (especially in the meeting) is a threat and is attempting to chill their 1A right.

More than once... Seen it, waited through it, talked on it, and I even took heat for going on record and saying "aggressive things" (according to university spies... meanwhile, the text of what i said is documented in public record and was not aggressive at all).

a8d36962-a7b2-4f96-99f2-68dae7d97f81_text.gif
 
I sat through all the comments (1.5 hrs?) and did not hear any anti-gunners comment. I think they took the speakers in the order they signed up. The NRA guy sounded rather moronic, sounded almost completely unprepared.

The main objections were the pre and post reports, and the fact that turning over an attendance list violates federal privacy laws.

It was interesting that the original rule of 30 days before, and 7 days after, had been changed to 7 days before and 14 days after.

After listening to their reasons for changing the rules in the first place, I understand and agree with their intentions (weeding out bad instructors - examples given) but I disagree with their proposed solutions. They should not have to place undue burden on all of the instructors, and I fail to see how some of the changes would fix anything.
 
How much of an issue are lousy instructors? CCW classes are not exactly hard to find and I'd think word gets around quickly these days with what was it called, the interweb and what?
 
Toprudder said:
I sat through all the comments (1.5 hrs?) and did not hear any anti-gunners comment. I think they took the speakers in the order they signed up. The NRA guy sounded rather moronic, sounded almost completely unprepared.

The main objections were the pre and post reports, and the fact that turning over an attendance list violates federal privacy laws.

It was interesting that the original rule of 30 days before, and 7 days after, had been changed to 7 days before and 14 days after.

After listening to their reasons for changing the rules in the first place, I understand and agree with their intentions (weeding out bad instructors - examples given) but I disagree with their proposed solutions. They should not have to place undue burden on all of the instructors, and I fail to see how some of the changes would fix anything.
Click to expand...
I was not able to make it to the meeting yesterday. By chance did they say if the instructors must receive approval after submitting the pre delivery before teaching the class? I work for a community college and we have to submit pre deliveries and wait on approval from training and standards before teaching any commission course. I ask because it is rare to receive the approval within 7 days.
 
Average Joe said:
I was not able to make it to the meeting yesterday. By chance did they say if the instructors must receive approval after submitting the pre delivery before teaching the class? I work for a community college and we have to submit pre deliveries and wait on approval from training and standards before teaching any commission course. I ask because it is rare to receive the approval within 7 days.
Click to expand...
I don't remember anyone saying anything about approvals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom