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

[Gawernator]

A much better way would be like they incentivize other things, take all that 11% tax we pay and offer free training and open public ranges for access. 4 hours is quite literally nothing, learning to shoot well is a years long process and promoting training will make people safer with their guns. Instead ammo is more expensive, purchasing is more expensive, I'm sure ranges are more expensive and ranges are very hard to open or keep open. Bascially anyone that wants a gun can get one so let's make training a normal thing.

lol that’s a pipe dream. Newsom and the rail execs need their first class flights

 

[RustVendor]

lol that’s a pipe dream. Newsom and the rail execs need their first class flights

Just needs the right branding

 

[SilverEndless]

Driving is a privilege, guns are a right.

What does I ANAL mean? I'm an @ss?

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer

 

[Gawernator]

Just needs the right branding



View attachment 261928

lol

 

[Hudson85]

A much better way would be like they incentivize other things, take all that 11% tax we pay and offer free training and open public ranges for access. 4 hours is quite literally nothing, learning to shoot well is a years long process and promoting training will make people safer with their guns. Instead ammo is more expensive, purchasing is more expensive, I'm sure ranges are more expensive and ranges are very hard to open or keep open. Bascially anyone that wants a gun can get one so let's make training a normal thing.

It’s a nice idea, but much more to implement. I disagree about 4 hours being nothing. I took a basic course with my son which was three hours and it was enough to return to the range with a baseline level of safety and confidence. The conversation surrounding any law never seems to go anywhere productive. You have “shall not be infringed” and you have “it’s the guns”, both conversation ending statements.

 

[RustVendor]

It’s a nice idea, but much more to implement. I disagree about 4 hours being nothing. I took a basic course with my son which was three hours and it was enough to return to the range with a baseline level of safety and confidence. The conversation surrounding any law never seems to go anywhere productive. You have “shall not be infringed” and you have “it’s the guns”, both conversation ending statements.

That's fair but your someone that did that without having to be told to so that's not who the class is for. You are already actively seeking out information. The true morons who need to be forced can't be helped in 4 hours and in the meantime everyone gets a 200 dollar tax to get a license. It also appears that this class will be required any time you renew your fsc. Maybe instructors can be creative and offer advanced classes that would count. Meanwhile they collected 60 million in excise tax in 2025 which has gone to ineffective programs. There's a good video on this from a guy on YouTube who offers a pretty unbiased take that's worth watching. But 60 million would go a long way to facilitating legitimate programs instead of throwaway 4 hour classes.

 

[markwise]

Ngl after personal experience and seeing indoor gun range clips, some people need that 4 hr class…..

 

[Joker67]

I hate the idea of it. How are you supposed to take a gun class if you can’t yet own a gun?

That being said, after my first gun purchase , I took a 6 hr class the day after I picked it up.

Please give to the CRPA!!!!

 

[NewbieDoo]

The conversation surrounding any law never seems to go anywhere productive. You have “shall not be infringed” and you have “it’s the guns”, both conversation ending statements.

First time on an internet forum?

Jokes aside, I agree. It's for several reasons, and unfortunately, interwebs chatrooms are not typically ideal for complexity and nuance.

 

[seanjq]

The whole point here is for everyone to be safer. These are deadly weapons that can easily be discharged. Proper training breeds respect for the platform, not to mention fewer accidents and far less incidents all the non 2A activists can jump on. The CCW qualification is a joke, and I can bet the FSC standards aren't going to be any better. Some people in my CCW class looked like they'd picked up a handful of pea gravel and thrown them at the target, and they still passed! I cringe imagining them in a shooter situation in a restaurant full of people.
Increase training, increase the standards.... but make it cheaper and more accessible.

 

[Hudson85]

First time on an internet forum?

Jokes aside, I agree. It's for several reasons, and unfortunately, interwebs chatrooms are not typically ideal for complexity and nuance.

Ha, yeah it’s my first day! I’m new to the 2nd amendment discussion, having only recently got interested (now obsessed) with shooting. I’ve genuinely tried to understand the originalist standpoint but it just breaks my brain a bit. On the other side you have a total self-own by politicians on the left trying to be seen to be doing something all the while alienating those who might otherwise consider them the lesser of two evils. I would love to hear more from the measured pro gun voices who acknowledge there’s something to navigate.

 

[Gawernator]

The whole point here is for everyone to be safer. These are deadly weapons that can easily be discharged. Proper training breeds respect for the platform, not to mention fewer accidents and far less incidents all the non 2A activists can jump on. The CCW qualification is a joke, and I can bet the FSC standards aren't going to be any better. Some people in my CCW class looked like they'd picked up a handful of pea gravel and thrown them at the target, and they still passed! I cringe imagining them in a shooter situation in a restaurant full of people.
Increase training, increase the standards.... but make it cheaper and more accessible.

Yet no training needed for 4,000 lbs of death barrelling down the road at 100 mph - yeah okay. You didn't answer the earlier question because you knew the answer is driving is far more dangerous. Yet you want to campaign against human rights while you're fine with illegal drivers, no insurance killing your family on their 4th DUI - and if caught it's a fine and slap on the wrist. But oh no better not buy a Marlin model 60 without a mandatory class under penalty of prison

 

[Gawernator]

Ha, yeah it’s my first day! I’m new to the 2nd amendment discussion, having only recently got interested (now obsessed) with shooting. I’ve genuinely tried to understand the originalist standpoint but it just breaks my brain a bit. On the other side you have a total self-own by politicians on the left trying to be seen to be doing something all the while alienating those who might otherwise consider them the lesser of two evils. I would love to hear more from the measured pro gun voices who acknowledge there’s something to navigate.

Did you just ask for nuance on the internet....?

 

[DRW_2A]

This would just add another obstacle that impedes your right to own a firearm, contrary to the license to drive argument, according to the government/state driving is considered a "privilege" vs owning a firearm is a constitutional right.

 

[RustVendor]

The whole point here is for everyone to be safer. These are deadly weapons that can easily be discharged. Proper training breeds respect for the platform, not to mention fewer accidents and far less incidents all the non 2A activists can jump on. The CCW qualification is a joke, and I can bet the FSC standards aren't going to be any better. Some people in my CCW class looked like they'd picked up a handful of pea gravel and thrown them at the target, and they still passed! I cringe imagining them in a shooter situation in a restaurant full of people.
Increase training, increase the standards.... but make it cheaper and more accessible.

I generally agree that people need to learn and train and be responsible, but when you look at the gun violence statistics that matter, there's about 500 "accidental gun deaths" per year vs 20k plus homicides (nationwide). Of those accidents, almost none of them are from using the gun as intended and children are the most affected because they find a loaded gun, play with it etc. So what would this class do to prevent any of that? You already have to own a safe or a lock, they notify you that it's now criminal to keep it unlocked at home etc. People definitely should learn to shoot if they are going to own a gun but what is the problem that is being solved with this training class? it's certainly not something that will meaningfully change gun death statistics. Less than 10 percent of the guns recovered from crimes in Alameda county were registered to the person who committed the crime. Its for these reasons that it seems much more like an intentional barrier to gun ownership to make it more annoying an more expensive. But none of that actually results in less crime because the legal gun owners aren't the ones committing crimes.

Unintentional Injury - BulletPoints Project

Clinicians should talk to parents and caregivers about the risk of unintentional firearm injury and how to reduce it.

www.bulletpointsproject.org

Alameda County: Study Says Many Guns Used in Crimes Aren't Registered

Only half of the guns used to commit crimes in Alameda County last year were registered in California and less than 10 percent were registered to the person who committed the crime, according to a study released thisweek by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley.

www.nbcbayarea.com

 

[Gawernator]

I generally agree that people need to learn and train and be responsible, but when you look at the gun violence statistics that matter, there's about 500 "accidental gun deaths" per year vs 20k plus homicides (nationwide). Of those accidents, almost none of them are from using the gun as intended and children are the most affected because they find a loaded gun, play with it etc. So what would this class do to prevent any of that? You already have to own a safe or a lock, they notify you that it's now criminal to keep it unlocked at home etc. People definitely should learn to shoot if they are going to own a gun but what is the problem that is being solved with this training class? it's certainly not something that will meaningfully change gun death statistics. Less than 10 percent of the guns recovered from crimes in Alameda county were registered to the person who committed the crime. Its for these reasons that it seems much more like an intentional barrier to gun ownership to make it more annoying an more expensive. But none of that actually results in less crime because the legal gun owners aren't the ones committing crimes.

Unintentional Injury - BulletPoints Project

Clinicians should talk to parents and caregivers about the risk of unintentional firearm injury and how to reduce it.

www.bulletpointsproject.org

Alameda County: Study Says Many Guns Used in Crimes Aren't Registered

Only half of the guns used to commit crimes in Alameda County last year were registered in California and less than 10 percent were registered to the person who committed the crime, according to a study released thisweek by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley.

www.nbcbayarea.com

BASED

 

[seanjq]

Yet no training needed for 4,000 lbs of death barrelling down the road at 100 mph - yeah okay. You didn't answer the earlier question because you knew the answer is driving is far more dangerous. Yet you want to campaign against human rights while you're fine with illegal drivers, no insurance killing your family on their 4th DUI - and if caught it's a fine and slap on the wrist. But oh no better not buy a Marlin model 60 without a mandatory class under penalty of prison

This is a dumb argument. You need drivers ed and to pass a driver's test to get your license.

 

[Gawernator]

This is a dumb argument. You need drivers ed and to pass a driver's test to get your license.

You keep falsely claiming you need driver's ed, that is a lie in California. You don't. You have to pass a test to get a FSC already. How are you claiming an argument is dumb when you don't even know how to verify the false statements you put out? You're asking for more restrictions on a right, which would do nothing to change fatality stats as seen above, but are ok with zero training required on a privilege which is 10000x more dangerous in our daily lives. When is the last time someone in CA was accidentally shot and killed at a public range on accident due to lack of training? About 11 people died today in CA on public roads.

 

[DRW_2A]

You keep falsely claiming you need driver's ed, that is a lie in California. You don't. You have to pass a test to get a FSC already. How are you claiming an argument is dumb when you don't even know how to verify the false statements you put out? You're asking for more restrictions on a right, which would do nothing to change fatality stats as seen above, but are ok with zero training required on a privilege which is 10000x more dangerous in our daily lives. When is the last time someone in CA was accidentally shot and killed at a public range on accident due to lack of training? About 11 people died today in CA on public roads.

I think the core of that subject is privilege vs right, it was never written in the consitituion that driving a motor vehicle or any form of vesseled travel is a right. That doctrine was created after by state government bodies. But owning a gun and one having to be licensed or qualified to do so is a big freaking deal because thats no longer a direct right but a right that has to be approved and screened.

 

[DRW_2A]

Exactly. Anti-American traitors.

Amen.