NRA concealed course

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

1st freedom wrote:

Thor,,

You posted this to imply that you took an" NRA concealed course " when in fact it was a course put on by an independent co. SFI that uses the classroom space that is at the NRA range.

Well, perhaps we should let the NRA know that the private company using their space is insulting NRA members who exercise their rights and discouraging them from doing so. I am definitely going to write and call them. If they don't respond, I'll send in my membership card...this is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

This very Post has now made easy on me to cancel my NRA + MY WIFES NRA membership. I heard things thru the "Grapewine", but when I saw this...NOBODY told me that It was a DUCT TAPE post:cuss:. I have to take a Breath and regroup:X.

G*D D**N IT...and what we THOUGHT work with us works HARDER AGAINST US.

Word by mouth is a very effective "message board"

 

[DrMark]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

Well, perhaps we should let the NRA know that the private company using their space is insulting NRA members who exercise their rights and discouraging them from doing so. I am definitely going to write and call them. If they don't respond, I'll send in my membership card...this is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

FYI, from http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899...




[align=center]****************************[/align]Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons", and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

For more information on NRA's legislative efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, please visit http://www.NRAILA.organd http://www.Clintongunban.com.

STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON

Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.

Posted: 8/15/2007 3:22:01 PM



[align=center]****************************[/align]

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Deovin1 wrote:

I don't know their history but it seems like they had a lot stronger view of how gun ownership should be than they do now. It seems more geared toward hunters who just want to have a gun to spend a few weeks in the hills with. LOL Even Germany has that to some extent!

I actually think they used to be worse!! I think they're actually more pro-2A than they used to be. They used to be for an assault weapons ban (and still have board members who are for an AWB as can be seen above), but the board overall is against it. They're still mostly about hunting though.

They're also very bureacratic and there's alot of in-fighting between the departments. It's actually quite sad the way they bicker with each other. There's a reason some self-made lawyer got a gun case to the SCOTUS before THE biggest 2nd Amendment organization in the USA...the NRA fought about it for 15 years.



@UTC: Yeah, it makes me angry too!! I go back and forth...when I read the first post on this thread, I was sure I was canceling my membership...then I settled down and thought...ya know, they do some good. *shrugs* They're alright...they'll hopefully fight the AWB in the next Congress.

But I tell ya...the minority in the NRA that sneers at gun owners who exercise their full rights....that pisses me off like nothing else. They should know better.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

ama-gi...

This Guy is the DIRECTOR of NRA. If he thinks this way...

What is then the GENERAL thinking Process behind the ORGANIZATION NRA and therefore the Fight or Lack of Fight for our Gun Rights:cuss:

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

ama-gi...

This Guy is the DIRECTOR of NRA. If he thinks this way...

You're of course right, but keep one thing in mind. There are like...I think 90 people on the NRA's board of directors. So he's only one of many. If they kicked him off, I'd be more likely to stay.

One thing I'm really wondering though: do GOA and JPFO actually shephard legislation through states/Congress?? That's what I think the NRA's best purpose is. I'd prefer to give $$ to that than just having a membership card in an organization that writes alot of angry editorials (not saying that that's all the GOA and JPFO do....I'm wondering if that's the extent of it though).

Maybe I'll just give double to VCDL

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

DrMark wrote:

Joaquin Jackson says: In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

This statement doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to me. He says in one breath that he supports the full constitutional rights of citizens and then says in the next breath he wants to disarm them.

:cuss::banghead:

At least the NRA as an organization disavowed the statements.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Thats what I think I'll do this year, give what I would give to the NRA if I were a member to the VCDL. The actions of the NRA this have made me quit for awhile. I would hope they would reform because I still like the idea of the NRA.

 

[crossfireltd]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

crossfireltd wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Bulldog1967 wrote:

thorsmitersaw wrote:

You cnt defend your property. Is this true? I thought Virginia was a state where that was allowed?

Defense of property using lethal force is NOT authorized in VA.

In Texas AFTER DARK, but not VA.......yet....:banghead:

Well, if it's dark and there's an invader in your house, you can make a very rational case that you had a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.

From what I understand you cannot use a firearm or deadly force to protect "property". If you are in your home and an armed invader enters and you have no where to run and your back is "against the wall" then you may use a firearm or deadly force to protect yourself and your family. If an invader enters your property or breaks into your vehicle, it is wise to just call the police. Taking a shot at them or firing a warning shot can land you in a bit of trouble, at least here in Henrico County.

First, it's never wise to call the police, imvho. Besides, expecting the police to get there in time to help you if there's an intruder in your house is an insane expectation.

Second,your back does not have to be "against the wall." There's no duty to retreat in your home in VA. If you reasonably believe that the intruder will cause death or serious injury to you or the members of your family, you can use deadly force with or without your back against the wall. You can stand your ground. What I was saying was that if there is an intruder in your home, it is dark in the middle of the night and you can't see well, I think you can reasonably believe that your life is in danger and defend yourself. Courts generally give the benefit of the doubt when a person is in their home. Your home is your castle...your rights are greatest inside your home (which is why all rights spring from property rights).

This linkalso says you may use deadly force to prevent/stop an arson or burglary of your home, but ONLY if that level of defense was absolutely necessary to stop the activity. With those two things in mind, I would say that not only do you have a reasonable fear of harm to life and limb when there's an intruder at night in the dark, but if you demand that he leave and he doesn't do so, you are also defending your home, which is protected in VA. I have no caselaw or expertise to back any of this up...I'll look for some sometime.

In the daylight, I think the calculus is MUCHdifferent. You can see whether or not he's armed so you have more options. If he appears unarmed, you don't have a fear of harm to life and limb and you can probably get him out of your house with less-than-lethal means. In the daylight, if he was unarmed, I wouldn't shoot. In the nighttime, I'd assume he was armed and shoot if he disobeyed commands to leave.

And if you have any brains, don't talk to anyone about the incident (especially the police) until you've retained a lawyer. Talking to the police can only hurt you. Boston T. Party recommends you say, "I was forced to use my gun in self-defense against an armed intruder. Please send police." After that, shut up. You never know what law you may or may not have broken and you can't be sure what case law may have come down last week that could damage your case. Leave it to a lawyer.

I agree with your interpretation, and brings new insight into my understanding of the Virginia CCW law or interpretation thereof. As many have said "I would rather be judged by 12 rather than to be carried by 6". The instructor of my CCW course impathically stated the same, if you have used your handgun.......call the Police let them know what has happened and remain respectfully silent until your attorney arrives.

 

[vtme_grad98]

imported post

1st freedom wrote:

Thor,,

You posted this to imply that you took an" NRA concealed course " when in fact it was a course put on by an independent co. SFI that uses the classroom space that is at the NRA range. The NRA does not have a CC course, why would you word your thread as to imply it was something that it wasn't:question:

Maybe because VA state law doesn't recognize a CHP specific class unless it is taught by a NRA certified instructor, despite the fact that the NRA does not actually have an official CHP course.

Personally, I'm amazed that any NRA instructoris stupid enough to teach a CHP class in this state, since 18.2-308 also recognizes any NRA safety class (such as Basic Pistol or First Steps) for the purposes of getting a permit. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO guidance from the state on what you need to cover in a CHP class, or minimum standard for passing a CHP class, leaving an instructor wide open to lawsuits after the fact if some student of his actually has to defend themselves later on.

That is why I stick to only teaching Basic Pistol and First Steps. IfI know they intend to use it to get a CHP, I'll do my best to give them guidance on how to learn about current law by pointing them towards resources like www.virginia.gov and www.vcdl.org . But as long as I only taught them Basic Pistol, I'm not liable if they misunderstand state law later on. If I were to pull some CHP class out of my ass like every does, I no longer have that barrier of protection.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

The NRA is offering Personal Protection Outside the Home now. I've heard they do work on some concealed carry stuff in it.
http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=6226

 

[Mr. Y]

imported post

This statement doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to me. He says in one breath that he supports the full constitutional rights of citizens and then says in the next breath he wants to disarm them.

Big +1. He basically said that citizens shouldn't be allowed access to Full Auto.


"I am the only one in this room QUALIFIEDto carry the Gl*ck Fohtay"
BANG.

Jackson's comments show an institutional bias against the RIGHTSto keep and bear arms, favoring "privileged, state regulated with permission" ownership and carry.

In the words of master Yoda: "That... is why you fail"

 

[1st freedom]

imported post

I have a question THOR,

When the instructor started talking about the legal issues, did he state thatlaw was not part of the FIRST STEPS class?

 

[Thors_Mitersaw]

imported post

1st freedom wrote:

I have a question THOR,

When the instructor started talking about the legal issues, did he state thatlaw was not part of the FIRST STEPS class?

No. They said they were not legal advisors and blah blah blah but woudl go over some basics to familiarize you and what not. I hope everyone listened and noted that disclaimer...

With all this said: The range instruction I had was excellent. I made HUGE improvements in just50 roundswith an older gentlemen whose name escapes me at the moment.

 

[HankT]

imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:

HankT wrote:

1st freedom wrote:

Thor,,

You posted this to imply that you took an" NRA concealed course " when in fact it was a course put on by an independent co. SFI that uses the classroom space that is at the NRA range. The NRA does not have a CC course, why would you word your thread as to imply it was something that it wasn't:question:

Great question....

Maybe because:

it was held at a NRA range
at the NRA HQ
by NRA instructors,
I signed up for it at the NRA range,
I paid the NRA range office,
my certificate says NRA right on it.
They asked us to JOIN the NRA
The certificate is signed by NRA certified instructors...

why would I get the impression that it was a NRA course?

GEE, I FUNKIN WONDER??????

So, you agree you made a mistake then?

That you implied that you took an" NRA concealed course " when in fact it was a course put on by an independent co. SFI that uses the classroom space that is at the NRA range?

Seems like you simply looked at the wrong evidence. That's common with people who bash organizations. It's almost always true with NRA bashers...

 

[Mr. Y]

imported post

It appears that SFI **DOES** in fact (AB)use the NRA seal on their certificates. According to the training department, this is grounds to lose training certification for any other NRA instructors as the SFI curriculum, while incorporating accepted NRA materials deviates substantially from NRA class material.

In fact, the NRA Seal dominates the certificate, even over top of the SFI 'name'.

Regardless of whether the class is actually put on by the organization SFI, the certificate says NRA right at the top. OP has a legit point associating this with NRA.