WA CPL Requirements

[slimmer13]

I decided Not to reply.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[darkminstrel]

Bear in this case being a verb which means:
To carry...
To be equipped with...
At least according to Mr. Webster.

You of all people should know that things then aren't the same as now. Considering the first Webster's dictionary was printed around 1810 you can't expect the definition of words to stay static. As an easily digested example let's take the word "awesome". These days it means something positive, truly great, and yet not too long ago it meant the same as awful; bad, horrific, frightening.

 

[2A-Jay]

Though it may seem that I have Rocks for Brains sometimes, I do appreciate all the comments so far. Maybe this part of my learning process. Which is probably why I started this in the first place. I had questions and I got very good answers, some were harder for me process than others, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel now. (and it is not a train)

 

[Mainsail]

I was particularly surprised when I applied for my WA CPL, that there was no requirement for Proof of Firearms Safety Training.

Don't feel bad, I had my CPL a few years before I found out! I had assumed, since I was active duty when I applied, that they had waived training. It was only later I discovered that there is no requirement.

Why does not WA require the same?

WA Constitution's language is strong with regard to firearms rights, and so far the judges have mostly supported it as written- not attempting to change the definitions of common words as so often happens. "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" leaves little room for a training requirement.

...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.

The danger of requiring training is that it becomes far too easy to restrict the rights of the citizens by making the training too onerous or expensive.

If you feel like training would make you safer with a concealed firearm, they you should pursue training; however your discomfort with concealed carry shouldn't be transferred to everyone else. Training is certainly a good thing; so how do we encourage it without starting down the slippery slope?

If the State or County decide that they would like its citizens to have firearms training prior to issuance of a CPL, they can easily do so by covering some or all of the current cost of the License if the citizen gets training.

Encourage, not require.

 

[2A-Jay]

Well Put Mainsail BTW where on the Puget Sound? When I retired from the Navy I retired to Oak Harbor Whidbey Island

 

[Mainsail]

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

You do not need a CPL to carry a firearm in WA. You do need a license to carry concealed, but you may at any time turn in your CPL and your right to bear arms in defense of yourself has not been impaired.

Personally, I feel like you do; that licensing requirements are an impairment. After all, we already have significantly more checks into our background (once with every gun purchase) than the general public, so the licensing is completely redundant for us. For me, the ability to walk out with my new gun the day I buy it is worth the $60 every five years.

The 594 private sale requirements should (be repealed, but in the meantime) also exempt CPL holder. If I buy a gun from you, and you check my CPL and see it's valid, I should not need to pay a dealer to perform another NICS.

 

[Mainsail]

Well Put Mainsail BTW where on the Puget Sound? When I retired from the Navy I retired to Oak Harbor Whidbey Island

I'm currently out in Kitsap working on Bangor.

 

[Steve823]

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.

I totally agree. Back in the day when they had gun training in the schools and even shooting ranges in their basements. Fostered learning and competition. It should be required. That way people who choose to have guns will know how to handle them safely and those who choose not to have guns won't be petrified of them because of lack of knowledge.

 

[etrain16]

I totally agree. Back in the day when they had gun training in the schools and even shooting ranges in their basements. Fostered learning and competition. It should be required. That way people who choose to have guns will know how to handle them safely and those who choose not to have guns won't be petrified of them because of lack of knowledge.

I'll bet a positive side benefit would be fewer 'accidental' shootings by those under 18. I am constantly amazed at how little folks know about the most basic gun safety. Should be mandated in all public schools. I would start in elementary then give periodic refreshers in Jr. High and High School.

 

[WALawyer]

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.

What you just described does not result in a loss of her firearm rights. The five year period you mention only applies if she had actually been convicted of the felony.

 

[Reed]

It's only my humble opinion, but all "safety and training requirements" should be resisted.

Why, you ask?

Because your training from yesterday is obsolete today.

The required training for today cost $1,000,000,000 and will be obsolete tomorrow.

Then there is also the requirement for "safe storage and security", for the kids sake.

Your domicile isn't secure. Your safe isn't secure. Your alarm system isn't secure.

The only "safe and secure" location is the local police station.

You must make an appointment 90 days in advance to sign for your property, if your firearms safety training isn't obsolete and you have a confirmed "need" to use your firearm.

Your NEED isn't good enough, your training is obsolete and the location you want to travel to isn't secure.

 

[Steve823]

It's only my humble opinion, but all "safety and training requirements" should be resisted.

Why, you ask?

Because your training from yesterday is obsolete today.

The required training for today cost $1,000,000,000 and will be obsolete tomorrow.

Then there is also the requirement for "safe storage and security", for the kids sake.

Your domicile isn't secure. Your safe isn't secure. Your alarm system isn't secure.

The only "safe and secure" location is the local police station.

You must make an appointment 90 days in advance to sign for your property, if your firearms safety training isn't obsolete and you have a confirmed "need" to use your firearm.

Your NEED isn't good enough, your training is obsolete and the location you want to travel to isn't secure.

Basic gun safety training never becomes obsolete. I have no clue where you're coming from?

 

[KKG]

Basic gun safety training never becomes obsolete. I have no clue where you're coming from?

I think if you read the rest of the thread you will see that the OP is wondering why WA isn't dictating some type of Safety Class. Reed feels that he doesn't want the State to get their nose under that particular tent flap. I agree that I like things the way they are but I also agree that Safety comes first with Firearms. I've gone through, as an observer, several "So Called" Safety Classes that have been put on by "So Called" instructors and wasn't impressed. I say "So Called" because these instructors are not certified by the NRA or by anyone else. A couple stated that they had taught classes in the service. I don't want to be forced to attend such a class.

 

[Steve823]

I think if you read the rest of the thread you will see that the OP is wondering why WA isn't dictating some type of Safety Class. Reed feels that he doesn't want the State to get their nose under that particular tent flap. I agree that I like things the way they are but I also agree that Safety comes first with Firearms. I've gone through, as an observer, several "So Called" Safety Classes that have been put on by "So Called" instructors and wasn't impressed. I say "So Called" because these instructors are not certified by the NRA or by anyone else. A couple stated that they had taught classes in the service. I don't want to be forced to attend such a class.

I tend to agree with you. My thinking is getting the "basic" training early in life, during the school years will be beneficial because it will occur before one develops a lot of bad habits. And it won't be so concerned with the issues you described. Scary isn't it?

 

[KKG]

I spent 17+ years Teaching Hunter Ed Classes here and elsewhere but when the State Fish and Game Department kept getting further and further from the Safety portion of the Classes I concluded that I had done my part. Every couple years I have found a Class at random to see if things have improved. Sadly, I don't think they have. More and more time is spent on what a fine job the State is doing about Conservation. Also the State is really pushing the Team Teaching idea and from what I've seen they are really pushing the idea of Teaching the Test as well. As far as I can see the State is simply looking for more Hunting License buyers(aka: Revenue) and they don't seem to care if these new hunters are Safe Hunters and that's just wrong.

I've spent time as an Instructor at the NRA Whittington Center and they require all Instructors at the Adventure Camp to become Hunter Ed Instructors. New Mexico pushes Safety, Safety plus more Safety and I think they do a great job. I'm really Proud to be one of those Instructors Teaching Safety First. The Center is the best kept Secret in the NRA! Being such a little bitty place makes it Very Easy to miss.

 

[2A-Jay]

What you just described does not result in a loss of her firearm rights. The five year period you mention only applies if she had actually been convicted of the felony.

This was the punishment that was handed down by the Judge in the Superior Court in Olympia. And the woman accepted it and she is also on unsupervised probation for a year. She accepted this instead of a 2 year prison sentence. Whether this was a term of the Plea Bargain or not I can't tell you, I was not in court, we would have been but the States Attorney's Office Assistant did not give him our new address or phone number even though she had been given it via phone contact and in Writing on 2 separate occasions. We were provided sentencing details via a phone call and email directly from the State's Attorney himself.

 

[KKG]

2A-Jay; That's what is commonly known as SSDD. It shouldn't happen but it does all to often. Defendants walk all the time because the prosecutor doesn't get the word out to the right people.

 

[Diamondback]

I might compromise at Idaho Style "basic" and "enhanced," with the latter just requiring an NRA safety class like CO, FL and most other states. We do this on DL's already since we told DC to go choke on a dick on REAL ID...

 

[1BigGuy]

It's only my humble opinion, but all "safety and training requirements" should be resisted.

Why, you ask?

Because your training from yesterday is obsolete today.

The required training for today cost $1,000,000,000 and will be obsolete tomorrow.

Then there is also the requirement for "safe storage and security", for the kids sake.

Your domicile isn't secure. Your safe isn't secure. Your alarm system isn't secure.

The only "safe and secure" location is the local police station.

You must make an appointment 90 days in advance to sign for your property, if your firearms safety training isn't obsolete and you have a confirmed "need" to use your firearm.

Your NEED isn't good enough, your training is obsolete and the location you want to travel to isn't secure.

I believe that is EXACTLY how it works in Denmark (according to a former resident, now living in the U.S.)

As an aside, when I received my Washington CCW license, the local Sheriff himself came out of his office to shake my hand and said, "I think everyone should get one".

 

[acdodd]

Now that the democrats are in control of both houses your wish for mandatory training may happen.
First they are going after those frightening assault weapons, then they will look at what else they can restrict.
Better enjoy what we currently have for I fear it's going to get bad real soon.