I decided Not to reply.
Thanks for letting us know.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I decided Not to reply.
Bear in this case being a verb which means:
To carry...
To be equipped with...
At least according to Mr. Webster.
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.I was particularly surprised when I applied for my WA CPL, that there was no requirement for Proof of Firearms Safety Training.
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.Why does not WA require the same?
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....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.
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.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
I'm currently out in Kitsap working on Bangor.Well Put Mainsail BTW where on the Puget Sound? When I retired from the Navy I retired to Oak Harbor Whidbey Island
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.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.
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.
Basic gun safety training never becomes obsolete. I have no clue where you're coming from?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 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.Basic gun safety training never becomes obsolete. I have no clue where you're coming from?
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?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.
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.
I believe that is EXACTLY how it works in Denmark (according to a former resident, now living in the U.S.)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.