Friday, March 12, 2010

When Our Own Oppose Gun Rights...

Sebastian over at SNOWFLAKES IN HELL has a very disturbing letter from Insight Firearm Training Development, an Arizona training facility, urging people (apparently former students) to write their representatives urging them to OPPOSE Arizona's move to institute permitless concealed carry a la Alaska and Vermont. From the "canned" letter:
Dear Representatives:
I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law. I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations. Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state...
If this letter is valid, and it certainly appears to be, it's nothing but a cheesy commercial for Insights that shows they're perfectly willing to sell us our rights to make a buck...and that is DAMNED unacceptable! If the letter is a mistake, I'd be happy to apologize. If there's an explanation, I'd like to hear it. And soon.


Rob Robideau said...

What a sellout!

Ironwood Leather said...

Mike, I suspect this letter is NOT affiliated with the training center. First off, the training center in Prescott (area) is GUNSIGHT, not "Insight." Gunsight was affiliated with and/or founded by the late, great shooter Jeff Cooper. Of course, there may be a flaky CCW training vendor called "Insight" but I doubt it. Second, this has probably been penned by some student of our very inferior CCW training classes (the quality of training is sporadic at best). I'd recommend contacting Gunsight directly. They're in the Prescott Valley / Chino Valley area and have an excellent website. P.S. Hello from Marcy, your fellow alumni of the holster class!

Dandapani said...

What words from "shall not be infringed" are not clear? Training is nice. Training is helpful. Training must not be required. SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED!

Grouchyman said...

Actually, there really is an Insight Training in Prescott -

Making a buck at the expense of our rights - they'll never see so much as a dime from me.

Mickey3Gun/Funseeker said...

Anybody who is truly a responsible firearms owner will seek the proper training (regardless if it requires a "permission slip" from the government or not. I concur, if the letter is truly from Insight or any other any training company for that matter, we should express our displeasure with our wallet. They have the right to their opinion, we have the right with whom to spend our training dollars with. Let's exercise our rights!

rosscarter said...

Integrity is doing the right thing even if it's against your own interests.

Jkwas said...

Ok, I'll play devils advocate here. Doesn't it make sense that if you're going to be carrying a gun you should at least be aware of the legalities involved?
I agree. You shouldn't have to have a permit to carry, but there should be emphasis on education. Even if it's just a certificate of completion of a safety/carry course.
Of course if they only taught this stuff in school like drivers ed.....

Hazcat said...

I feel the same about Harley Davidson. They backed a law here in FL requiring additional training for MC licensee before you can even take the test. Guess who gives the training at $300 a head! Sounds like Insight is doing the same thing. Bastards!

Moosejaw said...

how Zumbo-esq.

JohnJacobH said...

RKBA has always been a 360 degree battlefield and will always be such.

The most alarming aspect of these CCW courses is their penchant to parrot the (State)Attorney General's de jour INTERPRETATION of statute which leads to high levels of (F)ear,(U)ncertainty,(C)onfusion and (D)oubt about issues such as "duty to retreat", "provocative acts" and even whether the law requires complete and total concealment (no 'printing' through clothes) from one state to another.

Instructors will almost always opt for the most universally restrictive 'safest' option to teach their classes, the Constitution or Magna Carta be damned.

In Liberty,

Anonymous said...

Sad thing is there's an Insights Training in the Pac NW that's really good. I'd hate to see them hit with the same brush.

Anonymous said...

The training reffered to is in fact Insight Firearms Training in Prescott Arizona. Not Gunsite which is in Paulden Arizona. I don't subscribe to the issue at hand. I belive in free carry. However I too feel very enlightened having taken my CCW class at Gunsite. Lots of good intel handed out. Bottom line is CARRY! Get some training and stay profficient.

Airsoft Guns said...

Good article, i would like to share here every one should have proper training how to use weapon just for self defense.

Fiftycal said...

It's called business. Or at least the shortsighted, one quarter at a time "business". Maybe the guy thinks that when the bill fails, as is likely, more people will come to his place for training and he can sell it before such a bill passes. He has no more comitment to the second amendment than Jimmy Johnson has to Lowe's or whatever.

He has to figure this will bring him more business than he will lose. Reminds me of Larry Pratt of GOA. He opposed the Texas concealed carry law when it came up because it was a "government license of a right". Of course he had his own license in Virginia.

Anonymous said...

They sell training so they want training to be mandatory. There's a common thread here. John Stossel, Fox News, has had a few recent shows on discussing licensing and training and it seems that this thread permeates the whole government desire to control everything under the guise of "protecting the populace". The objective is hard to argue with, but the results are far from the objective. Here, with concealed carry, it's hard to argue that training isn't a good thing, but the mandatory part as here in Michigan, it actually causes the exclusion of those with lower incomes and the unemployed because it costs so much. These people may be forced to consider getting the training as "discretionary" and may opt-out, thus losing their rights.
On the other hand, most of us that got the training will argue that it was good to have gotten it. If it wasn't mandatory and therefore a "monopoly", then it would not cost as much and most "carriers" would seek to get the training without being told it is madatory.
Americans are smart enough to figure out what is right for themselves. We don't need the government putting their mark on everything and superseding the original intent.
Life Member

nj_larry said...

Life Member you hit the nail on the head. I always liked Stossel but didn't realize how much of a libertarian he is (no wonder ABC couldn't stand him). If I had to guess, I would say he is the only real libertarian voice on TV. His show on licensing was a gem.

Matthew said...

Aside from it being a Right (and no training being required to publish or vote or serve on juries or testify in court or to exercise any other duty or right of a citizen)...

From an utilitarian standpoint the burden is on those who support mandatory training, particularly at a cost, to explain why states without training requirements for carry (both OC and CC) have essentially identical rates of misuse and accidents as states with such requirements.

If they cannot demonstrate a statistically significant difference made by training their argument has no validity.

Anonymous said...

Letter sent to Insight:
Did you guys actually write this letter urging people to contact their representatives?

"I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required, etc."

While I agree that training and familiarity with the law is GREAT to have, it need not be mandatory.
(Remember Alaska and Vermont?)

Being in the business of CCW classes puts you in a position to make money if classes are mandatory in the future. NICE OF YOU TO URGE PEOPLE TO KEEP FEATHERING YOUR NEST.

Thanks for giving me the encouragement to get involved. I am going to get as many people as I can to contact their representatives and try to get this bill passed.

Anonymous said...

what a bunch of dildoes, their commercial interests are clearly driving the bus on this, very Zubo'esque, I hope they get what is comming to them commercially because of this

Robin said...

Typical rent-seeking behavior.

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of all the FFL holders who applauded the ATF yanking the FFL's of "kitchen table" gun dealers some years back.

Anonymous said...

I took my CCW class from Insight. They make a living from these classes among others they offer. The lead instructor actually said that if he could take ALL the guns away he would support a total ban. He did state that you cant insure that all the guns are gone and we need to protect ourselves.

IHL said...

All of you that have posted negative comments about this no matter which way you look at it are oblivious to the benefits that getting a CCW in the state of AZ no matter who teaches the class. a) Those who might want to keep their permits or acquire one could for the obvious benefits including freedom from NICS checks. b) carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol and, of course, c) the reciprocity feature.
To those of you that want to stay under the radar, they know more about you than you think they know. Last but not least is the small amount of knowledge within the given time that you get from a CCW class about when you can and cannot use deadly force to protect yourself as well as some of the AZ law too, based on some of these comments, i take it you are experts already.

Cowboy Blob said...

Nothing much to contribute, but the Word Verf was WARGUN.

What a world this would be if we could prevent people who are too stupid to vote from entering a polling place. We're stuck with what we have, so let's make sure the ignorant have some place to learn the truth... you know, like the Internet... and Gun Blogs.

Anonymous said...


Lick my balls.

It's a certainty you are an expert at it.



P.S. The confirmation word was sakinsym. How cute that it referenced sak for you.

Alex W said...

I wrote and asked for an explanation. Here is what "Sherrie Seibert" sent me:

Dear Responder,

Please accept our apology for not responding sooner to your response to our
email. We are out of state on a training seminar and have been in session
daily for long hours. Today was our first opportunity.

We're sorry if we offended you. Protecting our rights is also a concern of
ours. We just have a different opinion as to why our rights are at stake to
begin with and how to protect them.

We train in many areas, from Civilian, Military, Law Enforcement, Security
and NRA (Instructor Level), as well as develop curriculum for all types of
firearms training, not just the CCW. Therefore our income is not dependent
solely on the CCW Training we provide, nor is our business dependent on the
actions of the government either way.

We are supporters of the Second Amendment and are not against people
exercising that right. We also believe that every Right has a corresponding
Duty. We believe training may very well be a key factor in retaining or
losing the very right our Second Amendment provides. We applaud those who
have willingly sought out training on their own to become educated on gun

Alex W said...

That being said, as firearms instructors we see many students come into our
courses for training who have no clue or idea what the laws (both State
Statutes and case law) are in regards to owning or using a firearm in self
defense or any other purpose, let alone how to safely and properly handle or
store their firearms. We feel that it is the informed and knowledge gun
owners who will play an important role in allowing us to protect our Second
Amendment Rights, not those who choose to remain ignorant of the
responsibilities that come with that right. It¹s sad to say, but there are
many in our society who will not seek appropriate training on their own.
It¹s those who choose not to get training, act negligently and make stupid
careless mistakes, who are the greatest threat to protecting our Second
Amendment Rights. Mandated training is not the enemy, yet, it could play a
very important role in saving our rights in the long run. Therefore in order
to protect our rights we will support mandated training whenever it is
available. Just because we have rights doesn't mean it always makes sense to
exercise those rights without more thought in the process. Additionally,
though AZ is an Open Carry State, we do not support "Open Carry" That is
like putting a target on your forehead or back and inviting trouble!

Additionally, our forefathers didn¹t have to worry about the negative
effects that every form of media has on our newer generations and the
reality it has provided. Many of the current beliefs associated with guns
come from this medium and it has severely impacted the reality people have
today. If you have not done so please read Col. Grossmans book On Killing
or On Combat. We work closely with numerous police and prosecutors and have
been told that close to 90% of gun cases are related directly to people's
ignorance of the law or gun safety responsibilities. This type of behavior
is what jeopardizes our Second Amendments Rights. Mandated Training is a
solid solution to people who don¹t understand the importance of their
responsibilities with regards to gun ownership and a potential way to
protect our rights. With every Right comes a Corresponding DUTY and most do
not accept that DUTY willingly. There are many other additional factors that
need to be considered, aside from the right itself

Alex W said...

We hear on a consistent basis from our students that they had no idea the
responsibilities and liabilities they faced while exercising their Second
Amendment Rights until after taking this course, including post law
enforcement, military retirees and life long gun owners. Over 90% tell us
after completing the training that if they knew before, what they learned in
class, they would have had the knowledge to be much more responsible gun
owners. They also tell us they couldn¹t imagine carrying a gun without the
new knowledge they gained in our class. The majority also support not only
our efforts to train and enlighten those who have been in the dark for so
long, but continued mandated training.

Our training is significantly different in numerous aspects. The teaching
process we use allows our students to actually retain the information they
receive unlike other training programs. If you are really concerned about
our position on mandated training, and have not done so previously, please
attend our class and allow us to introduce you to the un-informed CCW
applicants who come to us for training. Maybe if you see things from their
perspective before and after our class you will understand why we are so
committed to this program and assuring mandated training continues.

We also realize there are those who use Alaska and Vermont as an example of
why this law should pass, since they have not had any issues. That may be
so, yet they are not comparing apples to apples. Example, those states are
very different from other states. They are extremely rural in nature, have a
different population number from other states and most brought up in those
areas are raised with guns from early on. There is a big difference in that
and those from urban or metropolitan areas. We know because we see it on a
daily basis.

Please understand that though we respect your beliefs we do not hold them as
our own, hopefully you will do the same. It will be up to each individual in
our society to voice their own opinion to their legislators and fight for
their rights in the way that seems appropriate for them. I'm sure there will
be many who stand on both sides of support for this issue.

Sherrie & Matt Seibert

Stop Bans said...

Prejudice means "pre judging," or judging something or someone you don't know, which is the essence of being Un American. Anyone who criticized the Insight Program as anti-gun has simply not experienced the astonishing, life altering "aha" you get after taking Matt and Sherrie's classes-- you walk out understanding you own potential, your responsibilities, disparity of force, and most importantly, how to use your skills within the law, as well as precisely and accurately. You can only miss the work Insight is doing to promote our Second Amendment rights if you've never taken one of their classes-- please don't succumb to prejudice.

Gun rights activists, of which we are national leaders as the operators of the website, which gets millions of hits, have to understand as we do that eliminating training for the ccw plays right into the hands of the banners. Good training is one of the few things they can't argue against, and is one of our strongest arguments in States fighting ccw rights. We've all seen in the recent DC shenanigans that nothing happens in government without horse trading, and if we were to eliminate all ccw classes tomorrow, the bargaining chip that we who are on the front lines trying to get carry laws passed would be gone, and the banners would win many more of these battles.

Even Governors supportive of ccw rights need some "gimme" to the rest of their moderate, independent constituents on the fence about concealed carry, and we find every day that ccw training is the ONLY chip that really works State by State in the trenches. Get rid of the trainers, and you can kiss our gun rights goodbye. If you are ever arrested for a righteous shooting, and experience the lawsuits, the conflicting witness reports, being wrongfully accused, and staying up night and day trying to defend your actions, then you will finally see that the only thing that stands by you in front of the jury, and between you and prison, is that you DID have training and DID act with knowledge and prudence. Those who say different have never been through it.

Anonymous said...

Re Stop Bans comments:

License/permit system are always "recorded" and now used to target gun owners during traffic stops and to decide how warrants are served (no knock and kick your door down). So perhaps a compromise would be a certificate given out but not recorded. Lack of the CCW certificate would NOT be a crime (let alone a felony) but say a civil fine like for not wearing your seatbelt. The criminalization of a lack of a "shall issue license" is BS.
The points they make will come up over and over and the "hell no" will get you nowhere. Make the issue a "training certificate" violation with a civil fine and the issues they raise goes mostly away. What does the public get: 1)reasonable privacy 2) decriminalizes the lack of a "permit" 3) non infringement of exercising your right.

一笑千年 said...

Even though the that means trjgfhpo regarding Oakley Frogskins and even the particular creation method regarding Oakley sunglasses are usually somewhat diverse. The particular cheap oakley sunglasses are usually made together with amber-tinted contact lenses, getting the goal of selection out there the particular glowing blue lights with all the array, as a result to boost the complete coloring vividness.Inside the oakley radar of natural light spectacles, you possess any alternative regarding 3 many contact lens components. The particular developers recognize that 1 type of contact lens will not match up every person, so they really have a very alternative on the market to make sure which you have the proper oakley jawbones natural light spectacles to suit your needs. Also despite the fact that every one of the associates with all the oakley jawbone are usually polarized and also include 100% ultra-violet defense, an individual nevertheless have got alternatives. The original type of contact lens it is possible to pick any time acquiring Oakley natural light spectacles will be polarized frosted goblet and also polarized reflect goblet.