WA CPL Requirements

[2A-Jay]

I was particularly surprised when I applied for my WA CPL, that there was no requirement for Proof of Firearms Safety Training. All the Application consisted of was Declaration of Citizenship, Residence, and a similar questionnaire to a form 4473. In Oregon I had to provide either a certificate showing that I successfully completed a Firearms Safety/Concealed Weapons Course or provide a copy of my DD-214 indicating Weapons Training.

Why does not WA require the same? I may take some heat for this, but personally I would feel much better knowing that a person carrying a concealed weapon has at least had some firearms safety training, and not just qualified because he/she was able to answer the questions on the application properly. WHat say you?

Mods, if this is not the appropriate forum area for this please move it to where it may belong. Thanks

Read More

 

[IronMonster]

Washinton is a Shall issue state, If you can own a firearm you shall be issued a card to carry a handgun concealed, as is your right as a lawful citizen of these United States.

 

[No_Regerts]

Washinton is a Shall issue state, If you can own a firearm you shall be issued a card to carry a handgun concealed, as is your right as a lawful citizen of these United States.

This...but I still resent even needing to get the license in the first place.

 

[2A-Jay]

I understand that. I think that an understanding of firearms safety and laws should be part of the application process. Maybe I am looking at this from a point of experiences I have had in the not too distant Past. I received my Firearms Safety training compliments of Uncle Sam. I have seen people who have never handled a firearm in their life walk from the gun store, to the County Sheriffs Office to fill out their CPL Application, and 30 days later get the CPL in the mail, still having never fired their new gun. Kind of scary to me.

 

[IronMonster]

The issue is where do you draw the line when requiring training to exercise a right?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

If I have to get a license to carry concealed ... That might just be bordering on "Infringement" or even outright infringement.
After all the 2nd Amendment does read , in part : "The right to keep and bear arms...
Bear in this case being a verb which means:
To carry...
To be equipped with...
At least according to Mr. Webster.

Having to ask a government official permission to exercise my right also seems a bit on the infringement side...
Andy

 

[slimmer13]

I would feel much better knowing that a person carrying a concealed weapon has at least had some firearms safety training, and not just qualified because he/she was able to answer the questions on the application

And I think that in far too many cases, our rights are infringed because of what someone else "feels".

We are adults and shouldnt need the government to mandate things that may or may not be necessary.

I can tell you that my entire childhood of being taught firearm safety and shooting skills is far more valuable than a few hours in a class.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Another thought...
I do understand the safety concerns of the OP... I have seen many a gun owner , who I wouldn't trust with a water pistol.
But...
I do not a need license or a test to show proficiency in :
Religion to go or not go to a church...
English to have free speech...
Knowledge of how laws are passed , folks elected , just how our government works , in order to vote...
So...
Why should I need a license or pass a test to carry a firearm concealed?

I am just asking here...and not wanting to cause a fuss or wreck the OP's thread
Andy

 

[2A-Jay]

There has been a lot of discussion on the subjects of Constitutional Carry and National Reciprocity in the last year. While I agree with it for the most part, there is still the question of Safety Training in my mind. I am not trying to be contrary for arguments sake. I have met people that are inherently unsafe around Even a BB Gun.

 

[2A-Jay]

And I think that in far too many cases, our rights are infringed because of what someone else "feels".

We are adults and shouldnt need the government to mandate things that may or may not be necessary.

I can tell you that my entire childhood of being taught firearm safety and shooting skills is far more valuable than a few hours in a class.

If we were in earlier times, when the use of firearms was part of how more people were raised, Family hunting trips, Family supervised Target shooting, and such, it was easier for people to learn fire arms safety and shooting skills. In my Family, the only gun that was ever permitted in the house was my Fanner 50 Cap Gun and my Brothers BB gun that he shot me in the ear with. The first Weapon I ever shot in my life was in Boot Camp. I got a great course on weapons safety, and it has stayed with me since.

Do I like the Government controlling my firearms purchases or right to protect my family? No I don't. Maybe I am just trying to convince myself that I am looking at this from an odd direction. I fully support the second amendment but think that instead of people getting smarter where it comes to firearms that this is only partially true.

 

[Alexx1401]

I understand that. I think that an understanding of firearms safety and laws should be part of the application process. Maybe I am looking at this from a point of experiences I have had in the not too distant Past. I received my Firearms Safety training compliments of Uncle Sam. I have seen people who have never handled a firearm in their life walk from the gun store, to the County Sheriffs Office to fill out their CPL Application, and 30 days later get the CPL in the mail, still having never fired their new gun. Kind of scary to me.

It would be no different than telling people they can't buy a gun without the training. I would not want to let the state get started with that. I have always been real big on just holding people responsible for what they do. Buy something that you have no idea how to operate safely and hurt someone? It should be on you. If people were held responsible more would make sure first. Kind of like the mess with Drones. I knew when I saw them getting cheaper and better it would not take long. Sure enough a few morons got the law makers to want to start passing laws. I would rather they hold the few morons who do something stupid accountable. Would not take long for others to learn to be more careful. Another good example is cars. Everyone driving legally had to pass a test to prove they could. Ever drive in rush hour in one of the large cities? Do those idiots look like passing a test made them safe?

 

[KKG]

I believe that when our Constitution was being written most of the adult males already had a Firearm or had had one that King George had taken away. I doubt that they considered it necessary to tell people to be safe with their own Firearms. Now I don't want somebody else telling me how to handle my Firearms. That being said, I've taught Hunter Ed Classes for many years both in WA and NM where I was an Instructor at the NRA Whittington Center. So I think I'm qualified to teach Firearms Safety but I don't believe the State has the Right to tell me I have to teach someone else how to be safe with their Concealed Carry Firearm. Hunter Safety is one thing and Concealed Carry is something very different.

 

[IronMonster]

Here in Idaho you do not need a card to carry a concealed gun, however you can get an enhanced carry card that allows you to carry in more places and comes with the perk of not having to do NICS checks when buying firearms. That card requires training and more vetting. I have an Idaho enhanced, Oregon and Washington cards and out of the bunch the Idaho one means the most the most places.

 

[etrain16]

If we were in earlier times, when the use of firearms was part of how more people were raised, Family hunting trips, Family supervised Target shooting, and such, it was easier for people to learn fire arms safety and shooting skills. In my Family, the only gun that was ever permitted in the house was my Fanner 50 Cap Gun and my Brothers BB gun that he shot me in the ear with. The first Weapon I ever shot in my life was in Boot Camp. I got a great course on weapons safety, and it has stayed with me since.

Do I like the Government controlling my firearms purchases or right to protect my family? No I don't. Maybe I am just trying to convince myself that I am looking at this from an odd direction. I fully support the second amendment but think that instead of people getting smarter where it comes to firearms that this is only partially true.

How about instead of singling out gun owners for required education, we go back to a time when gun safety was a regular part of the public school curriculum. Cover gun safety rules, laws, etc. wouldn't take a great amount of time, but would educate both those that own guns and those that don't.

I strongly advocate those who carry to get some training, I also strongly advocate against making it a requirement. No other right in the Bill of Rights requires a license to exercise, much less a mandate to receive some level of training before exercising that right.

I get where you're coming from, but must respectfully disagree.

 

[KKG]

2A-jay; Are You ready to take(oh, and pay for) 50 Firearms Safety classes so you can carry in ALL States? How about the same number for a National Drivers License? We get to drive(poorly in many cases) in every State in the Union and driving, inspire of what many people think, isn't even a Right. I like it the way it is now.

 

[2A-Jay]

Now, another thought comes to mind. The Courts taking away peoples 2A rights (for Violent Felons and certain people convicted of Gross Misdemeanors) This harkens back to post #4. In January of this year while living in yelm (Thurston County) a woman who was friends with a woman who had a beef with my wife, came to our door, the one time and last time I did not have my EDC on my hip when I answered the door, asked to speak to my wife, she then threatened my wife at which time I sent my wife back into the house and ordered the woman off my property, she refused to leave, I then told her to leave or I would call the sheriff and have her arrested for criminal trespass. She proceeded to display that she had a pistol in her waiste band, then pulled the pistol and racked a round while facing me, a quick 911 call by my wife had half of Thurston County Sheriff Department at my house in 6 minutes. She was arrested on Felony Assault W/Deadly Weapon charges. Long story short, she copped a plea to Gross Misdemeanor weapons charges avoided any longer Jail time, but the Judge took way her 2A rights. Granted she can appeal the loss of her gun rights after 5 years with assurance of getting them back. In situations like this, is this punishment proper? Even though it has been confirmed proper by the Supreme Court, is this government intrusion right? Personally I say yes (But of course I do as the Victim of this crime). I will go as far as saying she is very lucky indeed I didn't have my EDC Pistol on my hip that night.

 

[2A-Jay]

How about instead of singling out gun owners for required education, we go back to a time when gun safety was a regular part of the public school curriculum. Cover gun safety rules, laws, etc. wouldn't take a great amount of time, but would educate both those that own guns and those that don't.

I strongly advocate those who carry to get some training, I also strongly advocate against making it a requirement. No other right in the Bill of Rights requires a license to exercise, much less a mandate to receive some level of training before exercising that right.

I get where you're coming from, but must respectfully disagree.

This is something I would agree to coompletely

 

[2A-Jay]

2A-jay; Are You ready to take(oh, and pay for) 50 Firearms Safety classes so you can carry in ALL States? How about the same number for a National Drivers License? We get to drive(poorly in many cases) in every State in the Union and driving, inspire of what many people think, isn't even a Right. I like it the way it is now.

That is where I think the National Reciprocity would work well.

 

[slimmer13]

Now, another thought comes to mind. The Courts taking away peoples 2A rights (for Violent Felons and certain people convicted of Gross Misdemeanors) This harkens back to post #4. In January of this year while living in yelm (Thurston County) a woman who was friends with a woman who had a beef with my wife, came to our door, the one time and last time I did not have my EDC on my hip when I answered the door, asked to speak to my wife, she then threatened my wife at which time I sent my wife back into the house and ordered the woman off my property, she refused to leave, I then told her to leave or I would call the sheriff and have her arrested for criminal trespass. She proceeded to display that she had a pistol in her waiste band, then pulled the pistol and racked a round while facing me, a quick 911 call by my wife had half of Thurston County Sheriff Department at my house in 6 minutes. She was arrested on Felony Assault W/Deadly Weapon charges. Long story short, she copped a plea to Gross Misdemeanor weapons charges avoided any longer Jail time, but the Judge took way her 2A rights. Granted she can appeal the loss of her gun rights after 5 years with assurance of getting them back. In situations like this, is this punishment proper? Even though it has been confirmed proper by the Supreme Court, is this government intrusion right? Personally I say yes (But of course I do as the Victim of this crime). I will go as far as saying she is very lucky indeed I didn't have my EDC Pistol on my hip that night.

Way off the rails but since it's your thread, ok. I don't think the category of second class/prohibited person should exist. I think that once a person pays their debt to society, they're all square. If they are too violent and dangerous to be free and trusted with firearms rights, they are too dangerous to be free at all because like we keep saying, it's not the object that is dangerous, it's the person. They could just as easily use a bat, knife, gasoline and a lighter, vehicle, etc.

 

[KKG]

I decided Not to reply.