Washington SB5174 - CPL holders must take an approved training course

[SUPER X]

If you believe that then work to get the gun owners to stop voting for these new laws. Decisive wording by SCOTUS? Really believe that? Do you see how many gun owners are openly wishing Hilary had won? Really think she would give us the SCOTUS people we need? Writing letters is nice pastime. The people in power only fear one thing, losing. Votes are what will get their attention. If gun owners start voting them out of office then they will hear us. Not before.

Amen . I'm shocked at how many gun owners put themselfs and the rest of us in this position and get butt hurt if its pointed out. Book smart and arrogance does not mature into common sense.

 

[Boss]

Amen . I'm shocked at how many gun owners put themselfs and the rest of us in this position and get butt hurt if its pointed out.

Because it doesn't effect them, directly, yet. They think there's no way that these politicians they're supporting would ever turn on them and come after their reasonable, legitimate 'sporting' firearms. That just wouldn't be common sense. Frogs...meet scorpions. Keep giving them a ride...

And they're too selfish to think beyond themselves, to future generations. 'They're not coming after my Remmy 700 now, so we're good.' The next generation? Not my problem.

As the new laws continue to fail to stop criminals from being, well...criminals, they'll just use that as an excuse to enact more laws...which the criminals will ignore...again...just continuing to restrict the law abiding citizens. It's a vicious cycle.​

Which appears to be part of the long game here...to make us the about the last generation of active firearms owners. They may not 'come for your guns.' They'll just make it so risky, problematic, and expensive many folks will just give up or move.

Boss

 

[Alexx1401]

These people are Idiots . They are putting laws on people that are not creating the problems.

A few of these law makers may actually be this stupid. Most if not all know full well what they are doing. They don't want us to be able to have guns. They know they can't just ban them, which is what they want. So solution that is working very well is to just do it little by little with gun owners supporting it.

 

[Boss]

A few of these law makers may actually be this stupid. Most if not all know full well what they are doing. They don't want us to be able to have guns. They know they can't just ban them, which is what they want. So solution that is working very well is to just do it little by little with gun owners supporting it.

You mean Fudds supporting it. No one wants to ban guns, just make it so problematic, expensive, and risky that no one will want to. Do you want be arrested/charged/prosecuted because you forget to put the lock on your separate magazine pouch on the way home from a match? Yeah, that'll get a lot of real criminals off the streets! But it's about safety...

If you watch the hearing from yesterday on CPLs (you can still watch it), you hear the supporters distracting the conversation talking about criminal/firearms-type incidents. Not related to CPL training requirements for law abiding citizens...but it brings tragedies into the conversation, thereby generates emotional responses, relevant or not.

There is a hope that they've gone way too far in OR (20 rds./month) and for those paying attention, jeopardizing preemption, that some of those 'politically correct sportsman gun owners' might wake up a bit and see the opposition's big picture. If the media doesn't succeed in keeping it buried until after the fact/passage.

And don't underestimate the opposition...this isn't about common sense or firearms knowledge/proficiency...they're trying to enact laws, which in no small part depends on public opinion, whether based on relevant facts or not. They know what they're doing.

BOSS

 

[SUPER X]

A few of these law makers may actually be this stupid. Most if not all know full well what they are doing. They don't want us to be able to have guns. They know they can't just ban them, which is what they want. So solution that is working very well is to just do it little by little with gun owners supporting it.

that's why they Using the kids and the church to initiate these laws . It keeps it away from them

 

[Alexx1401]

You mean Fudds supporting it.

BOSS

Yes that's what I mean. Between gun owners who openly support the law makers who hose us, and the ones who support "compromise" which always means we lose, added to the ones who will not vote at all or throw the vote away. All end up with more gun laws which of course do zero to criminals. This is as it was always designed. No gun laws are ever really aimed at criminals since they are well, already criminals. Sadly gun owners by a large majority just keep going along with the anti gun folk so we keep losing. I still hope this turns around but I am getting to the point where I don't expect it to. Makes me angry every 2 years when I see it at election time but it is what it is.

 

[ATCclears]

A friend received this in an email from Senator Guy Palumbo:


"More than half of the states in the Union require that gun owners have some training in order to receive a concealed pistol permit. Washington is not one of them.

I'm a supporter of the second amendment, a gun owner, and the holder of a concealed pistol license. But I think it's unconscionable that we have to undergo more training to go rock climbing or paintballing than to carry a deadly weapon. My bill, SB 5174, would rectify that by requiring that a person would need to be trained in safely handling a weapon before receiving a license to carry one in public.

As I pointed out in my testimony before the Senate Law & Justice Committee, even Texas is ahead of us on this one. It's time we caught up."

 

[Dwesson]

A friend received this in an email from Senator Guy Palumbo:


"More than half of the states in the Union require that gun owners have some training in order to receive a concealed pistol permit. Washington is not one of them.

I'm a supporter of the second amendment, a gun owner, and the holder of a concealed pistol license. But I think it's unconscionable that we have to undergo more training to go rock climbing or paintballing than to carry a deadly weapon. My bill, SB 5174, would rectify that by requiring that a person would need to be trained in safely handling a weapon before receiving a license to carry one in public.

As I pointed out in my testimony before the Senate Law & Justice Committee, even Texas is ahead of us on this one. It's time we caught up."

What law requires training before two people go play paintball in the woods or someone buys the equipment and go and tries to climb Mt. Index? Is he just making this up out of whole cloth or are there some new crazy RCWs I'm not aware of?

 

[EPS]

Tell him accully WA is falling behind other states.
South Dakota just made it so you can carry WITHOUT a permit.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Give us Texas sized Rights to self defense and we will talk.

 

[bikemutt]

Is carrying concealed with a WA CPL effectively the same as carrying concealed in a constitutional-carry state like SD I ask myself?

On the surface they are the same other than the $50 fee for the license in WA (or whatever the cost is today). Lets leave felon status and all that off the table for now since they can't attend the party anyway.

Now lets imagine a bad shoot, the buzzards are circling, looking to place blame.

In SD the state is immune because they have nothing to do with it. A citizen exercised a constitutional right and screwed up, good luck trying to get blood from the state turnip.

In WA, things may be a bit different. The state issued the bad shooter a license, the state may now have skin in the game.

Lawyer: "Your citizen caused serious harm to my citizen and now claims he didn't realize the gun was loaded, did you require any sort of training before you issued the license which may have helped your citizen recognize the gun was loaded?"

WA: "No"

Lawyer: "So you just gave him a license to carry a concealed handgun without any training or proficiency requirement?"

WA: "Yes".

Lawyer: "Your citizen happens to be a barber, did you issue him a barber license?"

WA: "Yes".

Lawyer: "Did he have to demonstrate he'd taken, and passed, an approved course demonstrating proficiency to cut hair before issuing his barber license?"

WA: "Yes".

------------------------

Personally I'd like to see WA get rid of the CPL scheme and move to constitutional carry, I just don't see that happening the way things are going.

 

[WowReactsOnly]

I have searched the legal documemt up and down and i find no mention of it requiring training for EACH SPECIFIC pistol you have. I think that thankfully may not be true but can someone confirm?

 

[WowReactsOnly]

As much as i do not want to make a concession it looks like if this passes it will make my WA license like the FL license both in its training requirement and its to be seen reciprocity

 

[bikemutt]

License=Rules, so sad, but that's how it works.

 

[Tony617]

As much as i do not want to make a concession it looks like if this passes it will make my WA license like the FL license both in its training requirement and its to be seen reciprocity

You could carry with a Washington State CPL in Florida at one time. But when Florida gave people in the military who were not age 21 yet it all changed. Since Washington State you need to be 21 years or older to get a CPL.

 

[WowReactsOnly]

You could carry with a Washington State CPL in Florida at one time. But when Florida gave people in the military who were not age 21 yet it all changed. Since Washington State you need to be 21 years or older to get a CPL.

Interesting i moved here from FL so my tgree licenses give me almost nationwide carry. I have FL, WA, OR

 

[Selous Scout]

I have searched the legal documemt up and down and i find no mention of it requiring training for EACH SPECIFIC pistol you have. I think that thankfully may not be true but can someone confirm?

It's in the substitute bill SSB5174. I'm guessing that supersedes the original?

(3)(a)(ix) Live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range that include a demonstration by the applicant of safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, each firearm that the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry.

Summary of Bill (First Substitute): In order to obtain or renew a concealed pistol license, a person must provide proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearms safety training program within the last five years. At a minimum, the training must include eight hours of instruction on:

• Ÿ basic firearm safety rules;
  
  
• Ÿ firearms and children, including safe storage;
  
  
• Ÿ firearms and suicide prevention;
  
  
• Ÿ safe storage of firearms to prevent unauthorized access and use;
  
  
• Ÿ safe handling of firearms;
  
  
• Ÿ state and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearm transfers;
  
  
• Ÿ state laws pertaining to the use of deadly force for self-defense;
  
  
• Ÿ techniques for managing violent confrontations, including conflict resolution; and
  
  
• Ÿ live-fire shooting exercises that include a demonstration of shooting proficiency with
  
  each firearm the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry.

 

[Selous Scout]

And if there's a training requirement for each firearm then I won't be renewing my WA CPL. Makes a lot more sense to get a Utah permit.

 

[Tony617]

And if there's a training requirement for each firearm then I won't be renewing my WA CPL. Makes a lot more sense to get a Utah permit.

Can you get a Utah permit without having your Washington State CPL?

 

[Selous Scout]

Can you get a Utah permit without having your Washington State CPL?

Nothing I've read says you do. A photo ID, some fingerprint cards, and pay your money. The Utah class is half as long as what they are proposing here plus no live-fire.