NEWSROOM California fires new 4-hour live-fire safety course for gun buyers, effective 2029

[Gawernator]

Based on what I see at the ranges 4 hours is not nearly enough. By the time you get to the public range and are standing next to other people you need to be proficient.

So do we require proficiency for all rights? Owning a firearm isn't the same as what a public range (private business) allows. Should we just take away rights from all dumb people, repeal the 19th etc - where is the line?

 

[phred]

What I don't get is you have to take the class to buy the first gun, but you don't have a gun to take the class. And wit out experience you can't demonstrate any proficiency. The best you can do is demonstrate rudimentary safety.

 

[Davis378]

Based on what I see at the ranges 4 hours is not nearly enough. By the time you get to the public range and are standing next to other people you need to be proficient.

A vague feeling, ie "I wish people handled guns more safely ", is not a justifiable basis to violate people's civil rights. I feel like people who feed their children unhealthy food are unfit parents and should be forcibly reeducated. Solving the public's diet problem would save far more lives than any "gun safety" farce ever could. But to actually implement that would be so violating to individual liberty, and the rights of parents to parent their own children, that the cure (which probably wouldn't even work) would be worse than the disease. The government does not have the authority nor the capacity to regulate all liabilities out of our lives.

 

[Gawernator]

What I don't get is you have to take the class to buy the first gun, but you don't have a gun to take the class. And wit out experience you can't demonstrate any proficiency. The best you can do is demonstrate rudimentary safety.

Exactly, so you have no way of practicing or getting proficient. It's by design to keep you from becoming a firearms owner. CA prefers you weak and dependent on govt for protection.

 

[decius_mus]

This law is obviously degenerate and will probably be deemed unconstitutional considering the burden it places on citizens. However, one interesting unintended effect that it may have is increased CCW holders. If existing owners need to sit through a class every 5 years just to buy guns we might as well sit through a longer one and carry our guns wherever we want. Especially since the carry insurance companies extend coverage to SB2's nono places.

 

[SilverEndless]

This is the beginning of a licensing scheme. I dont see any other outcome.

I dont have a problem with telling new owners to get training. I dont have a problem telling existing owners to continue their training journey.

I do have a problem telling people you can’t participate until you pay for a class and get a “license” when it’s a constitutional right. It’s like requiring a test to vote.

 

[RustVendor]

that guy disappeared lol

no he's messaged me both here and calguns within the last month

 

[RustVendor]

This law is obviously degenerate and will probably be deemed unconstitutional considering the burden it places on citizens. However, one interesting unintended effect that it may have is increased CCW holders. If existing owners need to sit through a class every 5 years just to buy guns we might as well sit through a longer one and carry our guns wherever we want. Especially since the carry insurance companies extend coverage to SB2's nono places.

read Kavanaugh's Bruen opinion, they already rubber stamped licensing schemes for firearms. There was one existing in NY at the time of Bruen already, it just can't be "may issue"

 

[RustVendor]

This is the beginning of a licensing scheme. I dont see any other outcome.

I dont have a problem with telling new owners to get training. I dont have a problem telling existing owners to continue their training journey.

I do have a problem telling people you can’t participate until you pay for a class and get a “license” when it’s a constitutional right. It’s like requiring a test to vote.

its not the beginning it's the middle, there already was a testing requirement.

 

[decius_mus]

read Kavanaugh's Bruen opinion, they already rubber stamped licensing schemes for firearms. There was one existing in NY at the time of Bruen already, it just can't be "may issue"

Yeah but I thought they specifically mentioned that some licensing schemes could be abusive. What that means is certainly open to interpretation. But the way this licensing scheme is structured may not actually pass the smell test. I'm speculating here but I'm assuming that getting insurance for a course like this will likely be expensive since instructors will likely have to provide the guns and ammo to new shooters. Ranges generally do not rent guns to people who either don't have their own or come with a friend because of reasons we're all aware of. So once the costs are passed on, getting an FSC will likely be an expensive proposition in both time and money.

 

[RustVendor]

Yeah but I thought they specifically mentioned that some licensing schemes could be abusive. What that means is certainly open to interpretation. But the way this licensing scheme is structured may not actually pass the smell test. I'm speculating here but I'm assuming that getting insurance for a course like this will likely be expensive since instructors will likely have to provide the guns and ammo to new shooters. Ranges generally do not rent guns to people who either don't have their own or come with a friend because of reasons we're all aware of. So once the costs are passed on, getting an FSC will likely be an expensive proposition in both time and money.

Yeah well NYs was and is worse, it was in place when Bruen was decided and was specifically named in the opinion so I doubt it.

 

[SilverEndless]

Yeah well NYs was and is worse, it was in place when Bruen was decided and was specifically named in the opinion so I doubt it.

Just for clarification. Was it the CCW portion of the licensing that was cited or was it the NY pistol owner licensing that was cited? They have two.

Edit: They have one license with three tiers. One tier to own, another to possess on your premises (home or business) and a third to carry concealed (according to Gemini )

 

[KingRansom]

Would anybody know if this also applies to private party transfers? Would the state consider that buying a new gun?

 

[recpark99]

Would anybody know if this also applies to private party transfers? Would the state consider that buying a new gun?

Most likely, you currently need an FSC or CCW when transferring a handgun.

 

[RustVendor]

Just for clarification. Was it the CCW portion of the licensing that was cited or was it the NY pistol owner licensing that was cited? They have two.

Edit: They have one license with three tiers. One tier to own, another to possess on your premises (home or business) and a third to carry concealed (according to Gemini )

The way I read it is that they are the same thing, the SC decides how the government can regulate things and going back to Heller: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,”

Before this Courtp etitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down andrespondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuminghe is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean ifhe is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58.Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with … licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and apricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.

So even in Heller they leave the licensing alone because it apparently doesn't infringe upon the plaintiff's 2nd amendment rights because they would be allowed to get a handgun. Heller was about possession and now CCW.


There have been subsequent cases such as the "good moral character" challenge under NY state law that the SC has declined. The way that Kavanaugh's opinion reads to me is that it was broadly how firearm possession can be regulated. I would suggest reading it and Heller when you have time.

 

[Pythonfan]

The state is paying to build state-of-the-art gun ranges, personnel, ammo/guns, etc right?

They'll fund a bunch of 2a friendly NGOs to make this all seamless for us.

Right?

 

[SilverEndless]

My IANAL interpretation:

The way I read it is that they are the same thing, the SC decides how the government can regulate things and going back to Heller: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,”

Tldr; this part speaks to scope and the limiting of the ruling/decision upon the issue at hand. We all know this is a two edged sword. It’s been used to come up with the vampire rules and the like but also leaves room to litigate which is very relevant in my next point.

Before this Courtp etitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down andrespondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuminghe is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean ifhe is not a felon and is not insane.

Create the following inverse statements. Can the following statement be held as true?

“The handgun ban [is not] struck down and respondent [does not] registers a handgun, he could obtain a license…”. If false, using the scope as established above, do you have a 2A violation separate from Heller?

“The handgun ban [is not] struck down and respondent [does not] registera a handgun, he could [not] obtain a license…” If True, using the scope as established above, do you have a 2A violation separate from Heller?

Brief for Petitioners 58.Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with … licensing”

The specific petitioner may not, sure, but how about other parties not listed?

We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.

Reading between the lines and applying my two inverse scenarios, I think this statement has new color. IF either inverse applies, the court has left room here for litigation. In my scenario, the petitioners would not receive a license and relief is not met.

So even in Heller they leave the licensing alone because it apparently doesn't infringe upon the plaintiff's 2nd amendment rights because they would be allowed to get a handgun. Heller was about possession and now CCW

I’m attributing this statement to you, @RustVendor and not the court, so my response is this assumes the inverse doesn’t exist… but it does and it can, should and probably will be litigated with these types of laws.

 

[NewbieDoo]

IMO, the constitutional argument will always be flawed because there are already infringements in place. SCOTUS has tied itself in knots interpreting addenda into the second amendment to the point that it now implicitly reads something like: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ... unless you're a felon, or deemed mentally unfit, or under a restraining order, or you're within 500 feet of a school, or you're under 18/21....."

These are all infringements that have somehow been made constitutional under the guise of "I mean ... c'mon ... this makes sense, right?" That's why there's so much gray area on what is and is not an acceptable infringement. There is this undercurrent of "some infringement is okay, but we have to draw a line"... and everyone draws that line differently. So, we end up with cases where SCOTUS looks at the scope of licensing frameworks rather than the fact of them. The dispositive constitutional question should be as simple as "is it an infringement?"

To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor 12 year-old being able to walk into a Kmart and buy an AK, but (1) what I'm in favor of has zero impact on what is and is not constitutional, and (2) I can't think of another right in the Bill of Rights that doesn't kick in until a person is 18 or older. The courts have created this reasonability standard (a la the 4th amendment) for the 2nd amendment in the name of public safety. It's fine if that's what they think makes sense, but the question isn't what makes sense, it's what's constitutional. If congress wants to add a reasonability aspect, amend the constitution accordingly. If they can't get the votes...well, maybe it's because that's not what the people want.

 

[RustVendor]

My IANAL interpretation:


Tldr; this part speaks to scope and the limiting of the ruling/decision upon the issue at hand. We all know this is a two edged sword. It’s been used to come up with the vampire rules and the like but also leaves room to litigate which is very relevant in my next point.


Create the following inverse statements. Can the following statement be held as true?

“The handgun ban [is not] struck down and respondent [does not] register the, he could obtain a license…”. If false, using the scope as established above, do you have a 2A violation separate from Heller?

“The handgun ban [is not] struck down and respondent [does not] register the, he could [not] obtain a license…” If True, using the scope as established above, do you have a 2A violation separate from Heller?


The specific petitioner may not, sure, but how about other parties not listed?


Reading between the lines and applying my two inverse scenarios, I think this statement has new color. IF either inverse applies, the court has left room here for litigation. In my scenario, the petitioners would not receive a license and relief is not met.

I’m attributing this statement to you, @RustVendor and not the court, so my response is this assumes the inverse doesn’t exist… but it does and it can, should and probably will be litigated with

The inverse doesn't matter because the inverse doesn't have standing because they didn't even apply. They would have to apply and be denied for it to be a court issue. You still assume that the state intended your "rights" to be unlimited but "rights" are a legal construction by the state. They aren't something you actually have unless the state gives it to you. Those aren't my words, that's how the state interprets it. From every case since Heller the court has stated over and over that you can have firearms regulations including "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. " Then, while Kavanaugh is specifically talking about Bruen and CCW licensing, there's no reason this doesn't also apply to licensing for a firearms purchase:

Those shall-issue regimes may require a li-
cense applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements.

 

[SilverEndless]

The inverse doesn't matter because the inverse doesn't have standing because they didn't even apply. They would have to apply and be denied for it to be a court issue.

Two things can be correct so I refer you to my initial premise. By limiting scope in the Heller, they did not address the licensing issue, therefore neither affirming or denying its constitutionality. The issue of licensing didn’t need standing because it wasn’t included in the scope. Had they included it, we would have far more certainty and your point would be as absolute as you present it to be.

From every case since Heller the court has stated over and over that you can have firearms regulations including "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Then, while Kavanaugh is specifically talking about Bruen and CCW licensing,

I emphasize your own words here: “…Kavanaugh is SPECIFICIALLY TALKING ABOUT BRUEN AND CCW LICENSING…” That’s how limited scopes work. The rest is ENTIRELY legislative interpretation and that’s why challenges continue to make their way up the judicial line and why everyone in the 2A community pulls their hair over narrow scoped rulings.

there's no reason this doesn't also apply to licensing for a firearms purchase:
Those shall-issue regimes may require a li-
cense applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,
among other possible requirements.

*continues to kick the “narrow scope” dead horse*