1639 and Training?

[titsonritz]

What impact is the nasty thing going to have on firearms training? What about trainees coming from out of state?

Read More

 

[uberguy]

The 'mandatory' training does not exist. Don't forget, this is not a skills based training requirement, it's specified by the gun control crowd covering why you should not own one.

 

[Cerberus Group]

Here's what the proposed statute states;

The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and
talking to children about gun safety;
(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(v) Safe handling of firearms; and
(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited
firearms transfers.
The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, county, or
municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a
nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms
training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified
by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers
firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a
certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training
included the minimum requirements;


If this goes thru, I will provide the training at no cost to one and all.

 

[bbbass]

Seems like NRA certified instructors could easily adapt.

 

[LibertyNews]

Here's what the proposed statute states;

firearms training. The proof of training shall be in the form of a
certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training
included the minimum requirements;


If this goes thru, I will provide the training at no cost to one and all.

That's really generous of you! That last bit there about 'penalty of perjury' may scare off some potential trainers.

 

[titsonritz]

The 'mandatory' training does not exist. Don't forget, this is not a skills based training requirement, it's specified by the gun control crowd covering why you should not own one.

Not quite the angle I was looking at.

Not from WA so please forgive I don't keep up other states BS. So in short this more about ability purchase a firearm and nothing to do with traveling with a firearm, such as to and from class?

 

[Cerberus Group]

Seems like NRA certified instructors could easily adapt.

Yes they should qualify to do the training, as the proposed statute allows for a "Nationally Recognized Organization", which the NRA is.

I am disgusted as I'm sure all of you are abut this, but will pull together with like minded brothers and sisters and get through this.

 

[DuneHopper]

This so un-constituional its not even funny.

Replace that with the 1st Amendment setting those conditions, guess that's next.

 

[DuneHopper]

Yes they should qualify to do the training, as the proposed statute allows for a "Nationally Recognized Organization", which the NRA is.

I am disgusted as I'm sure all of you are abut this, but will pull together with like minded brothers and sisters and get through this.

Hopefully the NRA will step up and help, not capitalize on it.. In Oregon there were a few FFL's that were for SB941's removal of private sales, because it brought people into their stores.

 

[ron]

I have to get training to shoot/own the .22 Savage 6A my Grandfather
gave me about 50 years ago.Common sense "Gun Safety"

 

[DuneHopper]

I presume the NRA is taking this to court right??

 

[PaulB47]

This law just begs to be ignored. Does anybody really worry about getting caught training people in a noncompliant fashion? Just do it. It's the trainee's lookout if he wants to additionally get some "official" instruction.

 

[LibertyNews]

I presume the NRA is taking this to court right??

Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639

 

[Cerberus Group]

Not quite the angle I was looking at.

Not from WA so please forgive I don't keep up other states BS. So in short this more about ability purchase a firearm and nothing to do with traveling with a firearm, such as to and from class?

Correct, it pertains to Washington residents. But you bring up a good point...those traveling into and through the state, I suppose could be charged if they are not secure.

 

[Crohnos01]

So here's a question that bounced around in my head. If you are a firearms instructor, and go to buy an "assault rifle" (used to be known as a semi-auto rifle), I see nothing in the law that exempts you from having to take the same class that you theoretically could be teaching?

 

[DuneHopper]

So here's a question that bounced around in my head. If you are a firearms instructor, and go to buy an "assault rifle" (used to be known as a semi-auto rifle), I see nothing in the law that exempts you from having to take the same class that you theoretically could be teaching?

Great Point..

 

[Time flies]

I'm sorry but if the class doesn't include firing the gun then all the talking in the world does no good to a newbie. And training does nothing for those who just don't care. How many times have we ran into people sweeping us with loaded guns. Or shooting in careless directions irrespective of backdrops. Hell I've had bird shot rain down on me from people shooting in my direction further up the mountain from me. LAWS are only effective when enforced at time of use not just a piece of paper saying you can buy something because bubba picked his nose in a class and passed.

 

[ma96782]

I have to get training to shoot/own the .22 Savage 6A my Grandfather
gave me about 50 years ago.Common sense "Gun Safety"
View attachment 516255

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. That being said....IF, the actual stature says.....

The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
la, la, la, la.....

So since you already own it. BUT.....there might be another portion that I may have missed.

+++++

Note: Because I-1639 was not fully explained to the voters. Actually, I doubt that many voters actually read the entire actual statute. Myself included. Rrrright, the printing of the voter pamphlet was limited.*

AND thus, initiative voting is plain stupid, IMHO.

*I don't NEED to read an entire proposal to know that I don't like it. Thus, I voted "NO". BUT....if you voted "YES".....shouldn't you know what it fully contains?

I suspect that since the LEFT used the words: "Assault Rifle". Some voters were already swayed to pass it, no matter what it actually said. Details, details....

Law Makers are supposed to pass only laws that will pass Constitutional muster. The voters, on the other hand, have in some cases a very limited understanding of the Constitution based on what they learned from their time in school. Rrrright.....



Then, some voters have been taught that the 2nd A says.......

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

IMHO. Passing laws by initiative is just a bad idea. Not to mention, that there are also some Anti-Constitutional legislators. Perhaps there should be a "test/screening process" prior to their name being placed on the ballot?

LOL. Define the word: "infringed".

Aloha, Mark

 

[osprey]

Although I think repeal is likely, it is a good time to purchase some of these "evil" weapons like the 10/22 if you have a desire for one. Owned before it goes into effect exempts you from the training requirement but not the storage rules. The storage rules are a whole nother issue. Pretty hard to enforce. If it makes it through the challenges it will certainly kill the market for the sale of semi auto rifles in wa. I know I will not buy one if the law stands.

 

[44Brent]

People who offer these training classes will be underducutting the efforts of the SAF to get the law tossed in court.