Wisconsin and the NRA

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Article from the NRA on-line publication:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_dd1f90be-099a-11e1-948f-001cc4c03286.html

So, the Wisconsin AG interpreted a law that requires proof of training as meaning a minimum of 4 hours, and the NRA said that was too strict? Yet the NRA's own Basic Handgun course is 8 hours, and is one of the courses that would be accepted.

I smell a rat, and it has "NRA" tattooed on its flank. While I don't think the Constitution requires training, I also don't think the Constitution requires a license or permit. The fact is, many states (my state among them) require proof of training before issuing a permit, and most if not all of those states accept that NRA Basic Handgun class for this purpose. So why would the NRA, which offers an 8-hour course, complain that a 4-hour course requirement is too strict?

Sadly, the only reason I can think of is that our friends in VA fear too may people would offer 4-hour courses in Wisconsin, thus reducing the number of people taking the 8-hour NRA class -- and, coincidentally, buying the NRA course materials for that class.

I'm an NRA member and a certified handgun instructor. That said -- there are times when I really hate the NRA.
 
I think you're reading too far into this. Even if the state acquiesced to the NRA and reduced or eliminated the training requirement, that would not invalidate any of the 4-hour classes that are "competing" with the NRA's. I would think that if the NRA really wanted to eliminate the "competition," they be arguing that 4 hours isn't enough rather than that it's too much.
 
There is nothing wrong with what Wisconsin is doing as far as their state is concerned. They are making it hard for their citizens to carry in other states.
The Constitutional Carry States have no training requirements and no permits, but some of them still have permits that can be used out of state.
 
The Pendulum swings !!!

Simple answer is that the pendulum now swings the other way. I always look to the day that it would settle in the middle. ... :rolleyes:

As in Iowa which will soon see one year of Shall Issue, it's not a perfect law but it certainly is a good law and welcomed.
Again, in Iowa, the requirement for new applicants, vary and it's possiblel to get a CCW with "0"-hrs. of training. In fact, you don't even have to own a handgun.... :eek:
For renewals, a live fire qualification is required. Most can be done in about 15-minutes. Good to see that our brothers to the north, are going through the same growing pains. ..... ;)

A few years back, there was a term that was being used; Demonstrated Responsibility

The measure is yours to make and;
Be Safe !!!
 
IMO, it's the requirement for training. You aren't required to under go training to vote, for freedom of speech, peaceable assembly or those other Rights, why is there one to 'Keep & Bear'?
 
While I don't think the Constitution requires training, I also don't think the Constitution requires a license or permit.
Click to expand...

What if government mandated training before you could sign up for an internet connection? What if government mandated training before you could vote? What if government mandated training before you could get married? What if government mandated training before you could get a credit card? What if government mandated training before you could...?
 
SW, as you should know from many of my other posts on this (and other) forums, you're preaching to the choir. I was not advocating for a training requirement. I think training is a VERY good idea -- but I also regard a training requirement as a prerequisite to issuing an (unconstitutional) license or permit to be an (unconstitutional) infringement on the RKBA.

All I was ranting about was the irony of the NRA, which REQUIRES that the Basic handgun class be 8 hours, objecting to Wisconsin's AG interpreting the law requiring training as a 4-hour minimum to be too restrictive. Mind you, the NRA didn't ask that the training requirement be removed -- they only objected to the 4 hour class interpretation. The AG has been duly slapped on the wrist and the law now stands as passed -- training is required, but there are no criteria as to what's acceptable.

Which conveniently makes it easier for NRA instructors to sell their 8-hour classes. And, to do an NRA Basic handgun class, the instructor has to purchase a student package for each student in the class. Bingo ==> The NRA sells more materials.
 
I understand training shouldn't be required in the minds of many.... I think it's a very good idea for most though.
 
Aguila Blanca,

I'm still confused i guess. Requiring only a 4 hour course makes it less likely that people will opt for the 8 hour NRA class.

But requiring less than 4 hours makes it even less likely that people will opt for the 8 hour NRA class.

I do not see how the NRA benefits, financially or otherwise, by arguing for a shorter class. If they were trying to manipulate the law into sending people flocking to 8 hour NRA classes wouldn't the NRA argue for an 8 hour class, which they already provide?

Since few people will sign up for an 8 hour NRA class when something less will meet the requirement then the NRA will sell fewer class seats and fewer packets.

I don't see a problem here. If anything the NRA behaved better than one would expect.
 
All I was ranting about was the irony of the NRA, which REQUIRES that the Basic handgun class be 8 hours, objecting to Wisconsin's AG interpreting the law requiring training as a 4-hour minimum to be too restrictive. Mind you, the NRA didn't ask that the training requirement be removed -- they only objected to the 4 hour class interpretation. The AG has been duly slapped on the wrist and the law now stands as passed -- training is required, but there are no criteria as to what's acceptable.

Which conveniently makes it easier for NRA instructors to sell their 8-hour classes. And, to do an NRA Basic handgun class, the instructor has to purchase a student package for each student in the class. Bingo ==> The NRA sells more materials.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how having no minimum time requirement for training classes makes it easier for the NRA to sell theirs than a 4 hour minimum. Either way, both the NRA's and substantially shorter classes meet the legal requirement. If anything, getting the minimum time requirement increased the NRA's "competition" rather than removing it.

Quite honestly, behavior such as you suggest seems very out of character for the NRA. Unlike certain other gun rights organizations, the NRA very rarely criticizes their pro-2A counterparts. The few times they do, such as with their criticism of the American Shooters and Hunters Association, their criticism is almost always pretty well founded.
 
Last edited:
They got a needlessly restrictive law repealed. What's the big deal? That's exactly what I expect them to do with the money I give them.
 
Aguila Blanca,

I do not see the logic of your statement claiming the NRA wanted the 4 hour minimum requirement removed so they would get more students to take the NRA Basic Pistol Course which currently has a NRA minimum of 8 hours. Additionally, the NRA Basic Pistol Course was created by the NRA to be just as the title explains - basic pistol. There are many who claim to be experienced shooters who find the course very informative and useful as there were some basic fundamentals or principles that they did not know, but it is still a basic course. The NRA Basic Pistol Course was NOT designed to be a concealed carry course as it does NOT cover how to draw from a holster, when to draw, ammunition and firearm considerations for concealed carry, shooting in an uncontrolled environment (shooting in public - a non-range environment) nor any section on law regarding showing you have a firearm and use of force, etc.

There are several states that have determined the NRA Basic Pistol course is a course that will satisfy their requirements for that state. The NRA did not create the NRA Basic Pistol Course as a concealed carry course. The NRA course that is geared towards concealed carry is the NRA Personal Protection Outside The Home - and this course has two prerequisites - NRA Basic Pistol Course and NRA Personal Protection Inside The Home.

You seem to imply that you are a NRA Certified Instructor with a certification in pistol. Is this the case as a NRA Certified Pistol Instructor would know the above information.
 
Neither the Second Amendment, nor any of the other nine making up the Bill of Rights, are absolute in their interpretation. For example:
  • While you don't have to attend any training class to use the First Amendment, you are limited as to what you can say without consequence. You can't slander, and you can't use what the courts term as "fighting words".
  • The Fourth Amendment doesn't extend to what a police officer may seize, if it's in "plain sight" or within reach of the defendant.
  • The definition of a "speedy trial" outlined in the Sixth Amendment, doesn't force a defendant to court the day after he/she is arrested.
The U.S. Constitution functions with what some have defined as a "delicate balance". It's up to each citizen of the United States to insure that liberties are not infringed, but that those liberties don't go so far and infringe on the freedom of others.
 
Yet the NRA's own Basic Handgun course is 8 hours, and is one of the courses that would be accepted.
Click to expand...

the amount of time for a voluntary course it a long way from a minimum duration for a required course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top