basic firearms training for those who are new to using firearms or who have
never had formal training and provide more advanced training for those who are
exercising or considering exercising their right to defend themselves with
armed force but do not have the requisite knowledge and skill set to do so.
Recently there has been a rash of Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) incidents.
In something approaching %100 of those incidents there is one common factor and it is not race. In almost all of those incidents the person being confronted by the officer failed to follow instructions.
The way to avoid disastrous outcomes from encounters between LEO and citizens is for the citizen to OBEY THE OFFICER'S INSTRUCTIONS/COMMANDS.
When a Law Enforcement Officer deals with a citizen with any kind of situation that justifies any interaction at all, the officer is responsible for the safety of everyone on the scene including himself and the person being stopped.
The officer will gain control of the situation. All of us need to understand that fact of life. That is his duty and it makes sense. The officer cannot be expected to tolerate any action by a person who ignores his instructions. If an officer exceeds his authority and is abusive in any way, the time to address such a grievance is not in the here and now. Those kinds of issues can and should be addressed in less stressful circumstances by following whatever complaint protocols are in effect.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by getting into a heated argument with a cop who is trying to do his job while he is trying to do his job. The same thing is true even if the officer is acting against established policy and the law. There is a significant downside to doing that.
The incident in Charlotte, NC is a case in point. If Mr. Scott got out of his vehicle with his pistol in his hand and ignored the lawful order to drop the gun his actions would have seemed to any cop to present a clear risk to the life of the officer. We have seen the video and it does not provide definitive proof that Scott had a gun in his hand. The chief of police is very clear that Scott was armed and a gun was found at the scene with his finger prints and DNA on it.
No experienced cop would tolerate that kind of behavior. Any person who is at all knowledgeable about the concept of reactionary gap understands that delaying his own action until a gun is pointed at the officer makes no sense at all. Wait that long and the subject gets off the first shot or shots. There is an excellent YouTube example of what can happen if an officer allows a subject to ignore his instructions with a Georgia officer who was shot by a guy because the officer did not act until it was too late.
I wish it were the case that all state laws required firearms legally carried in public be carried in a holster that covers the trigger guard while the pistol is holstered. As it is, North Carolina does not require that. For any number of reasons carrying a pistol in hand in public is an absolutely stupid idea.
What follows is my opinion but I believe there are many reasons why it makes sense. Displaying a firearm in hand when dealing with an LEO is downright stupid especially if the officer has issued commands to drop the weapon. Doing something stupid like that and getting results like what happened to Mr. Scott should not shock anyone. What should shock people is that Scott ignored reasonable instructions. If he did so because he was mentally incapacitated then it was a tragedy.
The point is that from the evidence I see now, Scott would be with us today had he done as instructed.
The NRA is changing the way its basic pistol course is taught. It is done in two phases. Phase I will be done on-line and Phase II will be done face to face by NRA Certified Pistol Instructors.
Click here for instructions for registering for Phase I and Phase II.
Interesting question that one. The answer depends on several factors.
The first one would be why are you interested in shooting handguns?
Next would be what firearms training courses if any you already have attended and with what firearms?
Next would be how happy you are with your current gun handling and shooting abilities?
Finally you might ask yourself what you know about legal restrictions that affect your use of the firearm.
Please click here for a discussion what sort of training might be appropriate for you.
No single course you can take will produce real competence with a handgun. Firearm courses teach knowledge, skills and attitude but competence takes time, sometimes a lot of time and it takes high quality practice. A good example in another field would be golf. You can take all of the golf lessons you want but if you do not go out and play on a regular basis you will not be a good golfer. The same holds true for shooting a handgun.
The logical progression depends on your current state of competence and your goals. Please click here for a more detailed discussion.
also have an account on Angie's List. You must have an account there to see our ratings. Once you are logged on search for Stone Mountain
Firearms Training Service.
The second amendment is supposed to protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. It does that to some extent, however since the Bill of Rights became law states, counties and cities have restricted that right to one extent or another.
Federal law specifies some restrictions as to what kind of handguns can be kept, how they must be purchased and who can legally purchase one. There are also some federal laws that affect transport of firearms.
Most of the law that address how we keep and use firearms in Georgia are, in fact state law.
Georgia is one of the more gun friendly states but there are restrictions in effect and if you are not aware of them you could end up being charged with an offense about which you were completely unaware and which could negate your right to keep and bear arms.
If you have included firearms in your personal protection strategy you really need to understand what your rights are with respect to the use of force, specifically the use of deadly force. If you do not understand these laws and you end up using or threatening to use a firearm in what you believe to be a clear instance of self-defense you could easily end up being convicted of a felony simply because you were operating under the assumption that common sense should prevail.
Common sense and the law occasionally but not always intersect. It is not something that should be left to chance. Click here to see how we address these issues with a five hour, sixty five dollar class.
do you think is going to happen immediately after you have prevailed in a
Most likely you will want legal counsel. Can you handle the expense of
that on your own?
There are several organizations which offer services to assist with a justified
self-defense incident. It might be worth your time to click here
and check out what these folks offer.
Incidentally nobody is going to insure you for an unjustified shooting.
I believe it matters for many reasons. Far be it for me to suggest how you vote. I would like to point out a couple of undeniable facts about where the candidates of the two major parties are when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
Donald Trump is an unknown entity when it come to what kind of political leader he might be or what kind of policies he might actually try to implement when it comes to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Hillary Clinton does have a well known position very much against people like you and me being armed. She would, had she the chance pursue gun control like the Brits and Australians have done. I saw and heard her say that she likes what they have done and would like to see the USA go the same way. In other words she would disarm all of us except for law enforcement people and those who have protected her since at least 1992.. She will not say that in public but that is her goal.
Then there is this. Most "news" organizations will watch a Trump president like a hawk and will report on everything they see as a transgression. They will not do the same for Hillary Clinton and in the case of the right to keep and bear arms they agree with her.
What I would respectfully ask you to do is that when you weigh all of the factors that influence which way you will vote, consider the impact of your choice on our right to keep and bear arms.
If we loose the right to be armed we will never retrieve that right.