i-1639 training

[surevaliance]

Westcoast armory north... done !
$25 & 1.5hours of training

View attachment 580271

Yikes!

 

[surevaliance]

 

[G1GRANDEUR]

Westcoast armory north... done !
$25 & 1.5hours of training

good for you.

make me wanna support "sporting systems" more. it's not the $25 i cant afford.

 

[SIG34]

good for you.

make me wanna support "sporting systems" more. it's not the $25 i cant afford.

Yeah money goes to gunshop and get to talk with other cool gun guys

$25 Discounted training gun course haha

 

[SCARed]

So any idea just how this BS affects NFA pruchases, both on a trust and individual?

 

[GWS]

So any idea just how this BS affects NFA pruchases, both on a trust and individual?

It doesn't affect them at all.
NFA is fedral 1639 is a state law that doesn't mention NFA items.

 

[User 1234]

There is some overlap, for example if you buy a semi auto SBR you have to satisfy the federal Form 4 requirements and the Washington 1639 requirements.

 

[SCARed]

Soooo, you think a NFA dealer can run an instant NICS check when I, as a trustee, pick up an item from NFA jail? That was rhetorical.
So now, after waiting a year for the NFA approval, I've got to wait another god know how long for the idiots in WA to do their thing.

 

[GWS]

Soooo, you think a NFA dealer can run an instant NICS check when I, as a trustee, pick up an item from NFA jail? That was rhetorical.
So now, after waiting a year for the NFA approval, I've got to wait another god know how long for the idiots in WA to do their thing.

Dang! I was referring to making your own SBR. Buying an SBR outright is a different animal. I'm guessing you get to jump through I-1639 hoops.
Sorry.

 

[User 1234]

Post 1639 there will be a lot more Form 1s and fewer Form 4s for SBRs.

 

[Cerberus Group]

Straight from an email I received from DOL;

"Customer should be keeping their cert with them. Some dealers will be making a copy of the cert for their records. It doesn't go to LEA for the background check. It doesn't come to DOL either."

It appears DOL and anyone associated with the Wa State on this matter will never see the training certificate.

 

[GWS]

Straight from an email I received from DOL;

"Customer should be keeping their cert with them. Some dealers will be making a copy of the cert for their records. It doesn't go to LEA for the background check. It doesn't come to DOL either."

It appears DOL and anyone associated with the Wa State on this matter will never see the training certificate.

That just fits, doesn't it?

 

[User 1234]

That sounds like a helpful hint from DOL. In other states where the equivalent agency hates gun owners they would try to mandate the color of the paper and the exact title of the training certificate.

 

[Kid@Heart]

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, it seems to fit in this thread...

I am truly confused with the certification requirements for Instructors.
The text from I-1639:
"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."

Let me list them out.
The training must be "sponsored" by:
1. A federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency.
2. A College or University
3. A nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training.
4. A firearms training school with instructors certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training.

Discussion-
Organizations listed under 1 or 2 will not "Sponsor" firearms certification classes. There may be an exception in some organization like the Sunnyside PD, but for the most part it will never happen.
#3 is a non-starter for NRA certified Instructors. The NRA does not "Sponsor" state specific training courses and has repeatedly notified instructors to not use NRA materials in courses other than those specifically developed and approved by the NRA (Utah Concealed Carry Permit classes, for example.). Perhaps the NRA has elected to comply with I-1639 training requirements?
#4 would only allow a "Firearms Training School" with certified instructors to deliver the required curriculum. There are very few "Firearms Training Schools" in Washington State. Cerberus and the Seattle Firearms Academy probably fall into this category.

Nowhere in the I-1639 text does it allow individual "Certified Trainers" or sporting goods stores or FFL's or anyone else to deliver training or certificates of completion. I do not believe any training certifications delivered outside of this very narrowly defined list are valid. Unfortunately this includes the free on-line courses being offered on this forum.

Perhaps folks on this forum can straighten out my confusion?

 

[Cerberus Group]

1 & 2 - I don't see happening.

3 - This is aimed at the NRA and other like institutions that give firearms training, and the curriculum is spelled out in 9.41.090, which obviously is not anything the NRA has material for...so any NRA Instructor would be able to instruct such a course.

You are correct, stores, FFL's, free online classes etc., are not able to put on such courses. So one would have to inquire as to what makes that person qualified to instruct such a class.

 

[CyberBill]

I'm still working on getting my advertising setup here on the forum, but I did want to let you know that our class (which I won't say the name of quite yet) falls under #4. I formed our business structure (an LLC) with the stated purpose of being a "firearms training school", and got certified as an NRA Instructor for basic rifle skills and home firearm safety. I do not know if the other places who will be offering I-1639 training did something similar or not.

 

[Cerberus Group]

Welcome CyberBill, I saw your thread about this over on WaGuns.

 

[Talos32]

I honestly think it's to our benefit if no one offers an approved class. If this is the case, and discovery shows that the state made absolutely no preparations to ensure the classes were in place prior to 1 July, it greatly helps the chances of getting an injunction preventing the law from going into effect. It can also only help I'm getting it struck down.

 

[CyberBill]

I honestly think it's to our benefit if no one offers an approved class. If this is the case, and discovery shows that the state made absolutely no preparations to ensure the classes were in place prior to 1 July, it greatly helps the chances of getting an injunction preventing the law from going into effect. It can also only help I'm getting it struck down.

That was my initial hope, too. I knew that no government agency would actually step up and make a class, so I figured - ok - sit back and wait.... About a week after it passed, I started seeing people offering classes. Or, at the least, planning on having classes. If you go search now, you'll find at least a dozen.

 

[User 1234]

1639 does not require the government to teach the class, so if nobody created a class with the required subjects then no FFL dealer could transfer a semi rifle after July 1st. The antis would be perfectly happy with that.