Message from DNR to Hunter Safety Instructors

[HandyHamlet]

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

The thing is, whether you agree with it or not, training DOES serve a purpose. While I agree that mandates are unnecessary and unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that training is neither unneeded or "symbolic". A responsible adult should see the NEED for training based on a real assessment of their current knowledge base and skill set, whether the state requires it or not. Additionally, such training should be high-quality, professional, and relevant to the subject matter, whether state requires it to be or not.

If you are going to be "made" to "sit through" a training class, I don't understand why you would take one that has no relevance to the subject at hand just to spite the state. Seems counter-intuitive to common sense.

This whole training topic is like religion. Every time you bring it up people just get their undies in a bunch and start acting like you are attacking the concept. Really...

Classroom training is not a sacred cow. Really, its not...

That said, where did I say training doesn't serve a purpose? I never said that. I don't believe that.

With that said, there are thousands of ways to get trained that don't involve attending a class by someone who has gotten the governments stamp of approval as a firearms instructor. (though I have no problem with anyone using those resources for training either)

There are people who have a far above average knowledge of gun laws and defensive use of a firearm that have no "official" training credentials. For those people who have the human right to self defense and who, in order to be able to exercise it, need to get the magical government stamp of approval, the cheapest, most unobtrusive, least time consuming qualifying class may be the best use of their time and resources.

So why sit through a hunters safety class instead of going to a more expensive class?

Because if a person feels that their right to carry now is important and they don't have $150 laying around for a more expensive class, the $10 for hunters safety might be the best option.

 

[jpm84092]

Thank you.

Just a quick note, as to the bolded points above, keep in mind that there is no NRA requirement that the person who teaches the legal portion of either course NOT be a primary instructor in the class, only that such person does not teach that portion of the course in his/her capacity as an NRA instructor (they must meet one of the other qualifying criteria). In addition, the person must be certified to teach that area of law by the state in which the course is being conducted, so a Utah BCI instructor, for example, couldn't instruct the legal portion of either course if it was being conducted in any state other than Utah.

As to how advanced or intermediate either class actually is, the PPITH is certainly intermediate level. PPOTH, on the other hand, goes much farther into tactics, technique, and mindset and starts to get into the a number of "advanced" defensive shooting techniques. I've had students take the PPOTH course from me, for example, who described it as being at least as comprehensive, if not more so, than some the first level "advanced" courses they had attended with non-NRA (LE or former Military) instructors. I think the instructor(s) conducting the class makes a big difference as to just how much a student really gets out of it.

Your points are well taken Sir. I was trying to be conservative in my description of the NRA PPITH and PPOTH courses. In truth, particularly compared to some courses, they are intermediate level training and yes, PPOTH does allow the student to study and practice under some fairly advanced (hypothetical) scenarios. In that respect PPITH also would be described as intermediate as well.

And, your point is well taken on the legal instruction as well. If I need to teach both portions, i usually leave the room, change from an NRA shirt to my Utah Instructor Shirt with cloth badge, and then teach the legal section. I then change back and teach the rest of the PP course.

Thanks for the back and forth on NRA stuff. I think the forum members learned a lot about what NRA course is intended for what.

And, I agree that while no training should be mandated to exercise our 2A rights, the wise person will voluntarily seek out training and a trainer tailored to his/her needs. Some folks are already better qualified than some "instructor"s out there, even though they may not have the "papers". The point is that it should be a personal decision.

And yes, the quality of instruction is directly proportional to the quality of the instructor.

 

[cshoff]

This whole training topic is like religion. Every time you bring it up people just get their undies in a bunch and start acting like you are attacking the concept. Really...

Classroom training is not a sacred cow. Really, its not...

That said, where did I say training doesn't serve a purpose? I never said that. I don't believe that.

I believe you implied it with some of your statements above, such as your reference to it as "symbolic" or your tongue-in-cheek description of it being "magical", or even your assertion that, "....the quickest, easiest, least expensive possible course to satisfy the states bull$hit mandate should be embraced by us....". You seem to be advocating that folks take irrelevant training as a way to spite the state. Perhaps that is incorrect, but there certainly seems to be a lot of that implication in your posts.

With that said, there are thousands of ways to get trained that don't involve attending a class by someone who has gotten the governments stamp of approval as a firearms instructor. (though I have no problem with anyone using those resources for training either)

I dare say that the vast majority of instructors in this country do NOT obtain their credentials from the government. The NRA, for example, has over 65,000 certified civilian instructors. None of them obtain that certification from the state. Yes, there are a LOT of training options outside of mandated training courses, some of them much better than others.

There are people who have a far above average knowledge of gun laws and defensive use of a firearm that have no "official" training credentials. For those people who have the human right to self defense and who, in order to be able to exercise it, need to get the magical government stamp of approval, the cheapest, most unobtrusive, least time consuming qualifying class may be the best use of their time and resources.

Sure there are. There are also folks out there who enjoy true ambidexterity. Of course, those folks are the exception to the rule. You could probably take all of the folks in Wisconsin that have "far above average knowledge of gun laws and defensive use of a firearm that have no "official" training credentials" and fill an average sized school bus with them (perhaps less). And of course, "above average" knowledge and skill is a highly subjective classification. Regardless, I still emphatically believe that training mandates are still unneeded and unconstitutional. Without a very perverted interpretation of "shall not be infringed", I don't know how any mandate for training or licensing could ever be justified.

So why sit through a hunters safety class instead of going to a more expensive class?

Because if a person feels that their right to carry now is important and they don't have $150 laying around for a more expensive class, the $10 for hunters safety might be the best option.

When a person already knows everything, and is beyond a point in his or her life where there might actually be somebody out there that can teach them something of importance, relevant to the topic at hand, then the cheapest, easiest, least relevant option is probably the best one to go with.

 

[cshoff]

Your points are well taken Sir. I was trying to be conservative in my description of the NRA PPITH and PPOTH courses. In truth, particularly compared to some courses, they are intermediate level training and yes, PPOTH does allow the student to study and practice under some fairly advanced (hypothetical) scenarios. In that respect PPITH also would be described as intermediate as well.

Definitely agree. You can certainly get a lot out of the training, but there are classes out there that provide much more advanced training than can be covered in a two-day NRA PPOTH class.

And, your point is well taken on the legal instruction as well. If I need to teach both portions, i usually leave the room, change from an NRA shirt to my Utah Instructor Shirt with cloth badge, and then teach the legal section. I then change back and teach the rest of the PP course.

Until the NRA changed the qualification language last year, we were able to teach those lessons in our capacity as Missouri CCW Authorized instructors. Last year, however, they changed the language to read "certified" rather than "authorized", meaning that the state must issue certification (credentials) to the instructor in question. Since Missouri does not have an instructor certification process, we can no longer teach those sections and be in compliance with NRA guidelines. We now have an attorney cover those lessons in our classes.

Thanks for the back and forth on NRA stuff. I think the forum members learned a lot about what NRA course is intended for what.

And, I agree that while no training should be mandated to exercise our 2A rights, the wise person will voluntarily seek out training and a trainer tailored to his/her needs. Some folks are already better qualified than some "instructor"s out there, even though they may not have the "papers". The point is that it should be a personal decision.

And yes, the quality of instruction is directly proportional to the quality of the instructor.

+1. Well said.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

I believe you implied it with some of your statements above, such as your reference to it as "symbolic" or your tongue-in-cheek description of it being "magical", or even your assertion that,"....the quickest, easiest, least expensive possible course to satisfy the states bull$hit mandate should be embraced by us....". You seem to be advocating that folks take irrelevant training as a way to spite the state. Perhaps that is incorrect, but there certainly seems to be a lot of that implication in your posts.

I don't follow this forum like I use to, so I don't know how familiar you are with what has been going on in-state.

We just pushed constitutional carry farther than it has been in most states (authored, introduced, passed out of senate committee) only to have it die on the floor of the senate because a bunch of pansies INSISTED that any bill that didn't have a training mandate and permit was "insane" "reckless" "extreme" "kook fringe".

Then those same legislators and talking heads who felt training was SOOO critical or we would turn into "the wild west" made hunters safety qualify you for the permit which we all know teaches you nothing about defensive use of a handgun.

That is the basis of my sarcasm in previous comments about the "magical" training and the symbolism over substance nature of what just happened here in Wisconsin. These legislators and talking heads can't have it both ways. If training is SO critical, why allow a training class that teaches nothing about defensive use of a gun? Why not just make drivers education qualify you? They can't have it both ways. Again, I know they are wrong that no training mandate is "extreme/reckless/whatever" but if they truly believe training must be in place, why allow training that has nothing to do with right to carry suffice? That is devoid of logic.

Its a joke and a mockery and to be honest, I think more than anything else, the states new law does a disservice to personal development and education because I can tell you first hand that much of the talk on Wisconsin Carry's facebook page and many of the 100's of questions I get form people has nothing to do with a true understanding of right to carry issues and use of deadly force, but instead many are focused on meeting the government mandates. Like many nanny-state laws, it distracts from personal accountability and gets people thinking about satisfying the law, not thinking about their knowledge-base. People should be looking in the mirror and thinking about their skillset and knowledge and how they plan to develop that. Instead everyone is scurrying around figuring out how what meets the letter of the law.

Now before we go having a philosophical conversation about continuous improvement which no one can argue with, I believe that human beings who reach the age of majority without having gotten themselves in enough trouble with the law to prohibit them from owning/possessing firearms have demonstrated that they have ALL the common sense they need to BEGIN to carry in the manner of their choosing.

When I say we should embrace the quickest,easiest, least intrusive way to be able to "check the box" that is not saying I embrace that as all the training one could ever want and need, but I DO absolutely embrace it as a way to deal with (spite) the nanny-state requirement.

I dare say that the vast majority of instructors in this country do NOT obtain their credentials from the government. The NRA, for example, has over 65,000 certified civilian instructors. None of them obtain that certification from the state. Yes, there are a LOT of training options outside of mandated training courses, some of them much better than others.

Once again, you have mis-represented what I said in order to take issue with me.

Where did I say people received their credentials from the government?

I said that there are ways to get trained that don't come from instructors who got the government stamp of approval. In Wisconsin the state has decided who is and isn't going to be qualified to train people and will certify organizations who's instructors classes will satisfy their nanny-state requirement. And YES, the NRA will get the government stamp of approval.

So to be clear, that is not saying the government taught those trainers. It is to say that the government is giving their stamp of approval to those organizations,their instructors and their classes. Hopefully you can appreciate the distinction I made.

 

[cshoff]

I don't follow this forum like I use to, so I don't know how familiar you are with what has been going on in-state.

We just pushed constitutional carry farther than it has been in most states (authored, introduced, passed out of senate committee) only to have it die on the floor of the senate because a bunch of pansies INSISTED that any bill that didn't have a training mandate and permit was "insane" "reckless" "extreme" "kook fringe".

Then those same legislators and talking heads who felt training was SOOO critical or we would turn into "the wild west" made hunters safety qualify you for the permit which we all know teaches you nothing about defensive use of a handgun.

And I understand your frustration and disbelief with the legislatures lack of common sense. As I said above, legislators often pass laws that don't withstand the scrutiny of common sense and logic. This is a prime example of one of those situations.

That is the basis of my sarcasm in previous comments about the "magical" training and the symbolism over substance nature of what just happened here in Wisconsin. These legislators and talking heads can't have it both ways. If training is SO critical, why allow a training class that teaches nothing about defensive use of a gun? Why not just make drivers education qualify you? They can't have it both ways. Again, I know they are wrong that no training mandate is "extreme/reckless/whatever" but if they truly believe training must be in place, why allow training that has nothing to do with right to carry suffice? That is devoid of logic.

My guess is that the "logic", in their minds, was the fact that the Hunter Education course at least addresses basic firearms safety rules, and whether you are talking about rifles, shotguns, or handguns, the three rules are still the same and still always apply. But on that note, there isn't a mandated CCW course in existence (that I know of), that could even remotely be considered "advanced" or even be considered very relevant to the defensive use of a handgun. Nearly every state with a training requirement requires basic firearms safety training. These courses are designed to give the student at least a cursory knowledge of safe gun handling practices. In short, the state doesn't really care whether or not you can defend yourself properly with the gun, they just want to be sure that you've been instructed how to not accidentally or negligently hurt yourself or someone else. In addition, some states go a bit further and require a legal presentation to be made in the class as well.

Its a joke and a mockery and to be honest, I think more than anything else, the states new law does a disservice to personal development and education because I can tell you first hand that much of the talk on Wisconsin Carry's facebook page and many of the 100's of questions I get form people has nothing to do with a true understanding of right to carry issues and use of deadly force, but instead many are focused on meeting the government mandates. Like many nanny-state laws, it distracts from personal accountability and gets people thinking about satisfying the law, not thinking about their knowledge-base. People should be looking in the mirror and thinking about their skillset and knowledge and how they plan to develop that. Instead everyone is scurrying around figuring out how what meets the letter of the law.

I'm not sure how it will be handled in a Wisconsin-compliant course, but in the Missouri course, we actually discuss, in depth, unlawful use of weapons laws as well as defense of justification laws. When, where, and how a person may use physical and deadly force, and how a person is held accountable for those actions, are all a part of that training. In addition, we make it VERY clear to the folks taking these classes that the course curriculum is BASIC firearms safety training, NOT a self-defense class. Of course, Missouri developed it's own training requirements that are unique to our statutes. An NRA Pistol class or a hunter education class, for example, will NOT meet our training requirements.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, if the training is conducted properly, there is no reason why it can't address the issues you've brought up (right to carry issues and use of deadly force), and address them in detail. So while a student may go into the class more concerned with statutory minimum standards, he or she CAN get information on those other, very important subjects. That said, it's highly unlikely those issues will ever be addressed, even remotely, in a hunter education class (bringing us back to the conundrum mentioned above).

Now before we go having a philosophical conversation about continuous improvement which no one can argue with, I believe that human beings who reach the age of majority without having gotten themselves in enough trouble with the law to prohibit them from owning/possessing firearms have demonstrated that they have ALL the common sense they need to BEGIN to carry in the manner of their choosing.

When I say we should embrace the quickest,easiest, least intrusive way to be able to "check the box" that is not saying I embrace that as all the training one could ever want and need, but I DO absolutely embrace it as a way to deal with (spite) the nanny-state requirement.

I understand, and thanks for the clarification.

Once again, you have mis-represented what I said in order to take issue with me.

Where did I say people received their credentials from the government?

I said that there are ways to get trained that don't come from instructors who got the government stamp of approval. In Wisconsin the state has decided who is and isn't going to be qualified to train people and will certify organizations who's instructors classes will satisfy their nanny-state requirement. And YES, the NRA will get the government stamp of approval.

It was never my intention to misrepresent what you said as a way to "take issue" with it. The truth is, the vast majority of instructors out there have credentials that are "recognized" by various states as making them qualified to teach the state-mandated training. To somehow paint those folks in a bad light because the state decided to recognize those credentials (through no fault or influence of their own), seems a bit unfair.

So to be clear, that is not saying the government taught those trainers. It is to say that the government is giving their stamp of approval to those organizations,their instructors and their classes. Hopefully you can appreciate the distinction I made.

The distinction, however, is a blurred one, IMHO. If you won't advocate for people to seek out training from "government approved" instructors, than who, exactly, would you advise them to seek out training from? Your options become very, very limited once you eliminate NRA instructors, and instructors who hold credentials from state-run organizations, or other organizations that the state has "approved".

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

It was never my intention to misrepresent what you said as a way to "take issue" with it. The truth is, the vast majority of instructors out there have credentials that are "recognized" by various states as making them qualified to teach the state-mandated training. To somehow paint those folks in a bad light because the state decided to recognize those credentials (through no fault or influence of their own), seems a bit unfair.

my original comment:

With that said, there are thousands of ways to get trained that don't involve attending a class by someone who has gotten the governments stamp of approval as a firearms instructor. (though I have no problem with anyone using those resources for training either)

How is that painting folks who's training courses get the government stamp of approval in a bad light? I said right there "I have no problem with anyone using those resources for training either. How could it be more clear?

My point IS (to restate what I already said) there are THOUSANDS of ways to get training. I've never had any course besides hunters safety but I'll bet with all of my legal research, DVD's, books, and training manuals I've borrowed from friends and read over the years I could give plenty of people who have taken instructor based courses a run for their money or more.

I've heard people say they took a class and "should have just bought the book".

EVERYONE learns differently. Too often the montra is "take a class take a class, take a class" and I'm suggestion people be aware there are a plethora of other resources in addition to those. I understand that IS NOT something instructors will agree with, but they have a profit motive to promote their business, I do not. (now before you take issue with that comment, I'm a capitalist, so I have no problem with profit)

 

[cshoff]

my original comment:



How is that painting folks who's training courses get the government stamp of approval in a bad light? I said right there "I have no problem with anyone using those resources for training either. How could it be more clear?

Sure, after you made it abundantly clear that you despise the idea of government approved/mandated training, and then went on to associate certain trainers with that government mandate/approval, you then came back with your disclaimer (in parentheses), that you didn't have a problem with people using those training resources.

I stand corrected. It sounds like a full-fledged endorsement to me...........lol ......... But really, this would be like saying, "THESE INSTRUCTORS SUCK, but I don't have a problem with people using them". I don't think it takes a very perceptive person to comprehend your implication.

My point IS (to restate what I already said) there are THOUSANDS of ways to get training. I've never had any course besides hunters safety but I'll bet with all of my legal research, DVD's, books, and training manuals I've borrowed from friends and read over the years I could give plenty of people who have taken instructor based courses a run for their money or more.

Being how I am a regular member of a training team that is responsible for training and evaluating instructor candidates for certification recommendations, I don't doubt that at all. Quite frankly, many new, as well as many veteran, instructors aren't nearly as up to speed as they should be. Taking an instructor certification course is only the FIRST step in becoming an instructor. It takes a LOT of work after that step to become a good, well-informed, and capable instructor. In fact, the article I wrote for the Missouri CCW Instructor blog this month focused on just that (kind of ironic). In case you're interested: http://moccwi.blogspot.com/2011/07/firearms-training-what-makes-good.html

I've heard people say they took a class and "should have just bought the book".

Been there, done that. But I take full responsibility for those mistakes. As a prospective student, it was my fault for not doing my homework. I failed to research those courses, ask questions, get references, and check those references. Can't blame the instructor for that.

EVERYONE learns differently. Too often the montra is "take a class take a class, take a class" and I'm suggestion people be aware there are a plethora of other resources in addition to those. I understand that IS NOT something instructors will agree with, but they have a profit motive to promote their business, I do not. (now before you take issue with that comment, I'm a capitalist, so I have no problem with profit)

Absolutely. Training doesn't have to be one dimensional, nor should it be. Books, DVD's, magazines, manuals, even participation in internet discussions, can all be good training tools. My shelves are filled with books, manuals, research papers, DVD's, and other odds and ends I've picked up over the years. They have been and will continue to be invaluable to me as I continue my journey to becoming a good instructor. That said, I've yet to find anything that can take the place of quality, person-to-person instruction with a professional, capable instructor (with plenty of emphasis on the attributes of "professional" and "capable").

As to a profit motive, it varies from one instructor to the next. I've given away (and lost money on) many training courses. In fact, I've never denied someone training who approached me with a legitimate hardship. That is NOT why I became an instructor. Just the same, those folks that sell you your books and DVD's are making a profit just like the guy selling you a training course is. It's not like capitalism only exists in the person-to-person training field.

BTW - I've really enjoyed the discussion with you, despite some minor disagreements on some of the finer points.

 

[jpm84092]

Adjustment Period

With respect to concealed carry, Wisconsin has been a "right denied" state for so long, that a protracted adjustment period is likely to be needed as SB-93 slowly becomes the Law of The Land in Wisconsin. It is one thing to point out that 47 other states have a permit system in place (VT does not, but has Constitutional Carry), and it quite another for WI citizens to realize that WI is not all that different than MN, MI, IA, or even UT (except that UT has more Mormons). The anti-s have a million dooms-day and Wild West scenarios to play out in the media, even though SB-93 will become Law. And the average WI Citizen cannot really relate to folks living in AK, AZ, WY, KY, TN, OH, UT, or other "shall issue" States. The fact that some other states have a decade or more of experience with concealed carry does not mean a thing to the folks living in Sussex, Mauston, Ashland, Janesville, Monroe, Viroqua, Eau Claire, or Oshkosh. And, especially not Madison or Milwaukee.

When I lived in WI, I remember voting for the WI Constitutional Right to Bear Arms and wondered how the prohibition on Concealed Carry was lawful given that amendment to the WI Constitution. It was not then and is not now. Still, it has taken all these years to get concealed carry (and enhanced legal protection for open carry) enacted into WI Law. This is a political reality and a fact of life in WI. It is fortunate for freedom loving citizens in WI that a 2A friendly organization like WI Carry exists to shepherd the fight for their 2A rights.

This thread is about firearm safety instruction. I agree that the WI Legislature's intent was to be sure that persons issued Concealed Weapons Permits knew a thing or two about firearm safety. To be quite frank with this forum, the WI law is the most wimpy training requirement I am aware of in states that require training for a concealed firearm permit (except for VT, AZ, AK, who have Constitutional Carry and WY who allows Constitutional Carry only for its' own citizens). And, whether by self-study, range practice, or formal instruction by a "certified" instructor, I encourage my former friends and neighbors to carefully consider what level of training best suits you, your household, and your family.

Some of you may want to attend a ton of classes and become as proficient as members of Seal Team 6. Others will want to just be familiar with handguns and to be safe. Whatever your decision, I hope it is not based solely on economic realities, but rather on your personal situation (economic realities included). What is your life and that of our loved ones worth to you?

Carry on my friends.