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

[shroom]

I could start getting behind it if it was free and widely available. It will not be free, and whether or not it will be widely available remains to be seen.

 

[RustVendor]

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.

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.

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

Kostas Moros of the SAF has the same view as I stated above, that the licensing portions of Bruen are applied broadly to all kinds of permits and that they need to based on objective not subjective criteria. This is an amicus brief filed for a case based on a New Jersey purchasing permit that was on denied on subjective criteria.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/AAR-Amicus-Final_9.8.26.pdf

 

[chiroken007]

Experienced members of this site could be the launchpad for coordinating a network of providers to meet the demand in 2029. Even though this law is unreasonable it could be flipped to a source of revenue for us providing the necessary demand. Which could then be a source of support for CaGuns or under the umbrella of Ca2a.com

4-hour live fire training by CaGuns.net. A community of the people for the people.

 

[Jimi Jah]

For some strange reason my dictionary doesn't say "infringed" has loopholes.

 

[SilverEndless]

Kostas Moros of the SAF has the same view as I stated above, that the licensing portions of Bruen are applied broadly to all kinds of permits and that they need to based on objective not subjective criteria. This is an amicus brief filed for a case based on a New Jersey purchasing permit that was on denied on subjective criteria.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/AAR-Amicus-Final_9.8.26.pdf

I appreciate Kostas’ perspective and I respect professional insight; it holds far more relevance to the law than my interpretations.

I see the linked amicus brief the associated case’s denial as a prodding/testing step in the litigation process. Courts, especially SCOTUS, do not carelessly accept cases and much of what makes it to SCOTUS demands the conditions of a “perfect case”. I do not see it as evidence of a broad acceptance of licensing for purchase.

Again, IANAL

 

[RustVendor]

I appreciate Kostas’ perspective and I respect professional insight; it holds far more relevance to the law than my interpretations.

I see the linked amicus brief the associated case’s denial as a prodding/testing step in the litigation process. Courts, especially SCOTUS, do not carelessly accept cases and much of what makes it to SCOTUS demands the conditions of a “perfect case”. I do not see it as evidence of a broad acceptance of licensing for purchase.

Again, IANAL

Nobody knows what will happen until the SC takes a and decides it but while Kostas has publicly decried this new bill, he's also made a lot of comments about how the Bruen decision had a lot of problems that have allowed a lot of things like this and I definitely agree. For instance the Bruen test itself was introduced in Bruen to say that there has to be a historical analogue from the time of the amendment but the historical restrictions on CCW cited are from the 1870s. It's really going to be up to whatever the court feels that day, obviously it can go either way but it does not seem likely.

 

[jamesbarber1989]

We see far worse everyday on the roads yet 0 crackdown on driving skills, and that isn't even a right.

You do realize to get a DL you need to do a training course….not a great analogy

 

[seanjq]

You do realize to get a DL you need to do a training course….not a great analogy

Exactly.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Driving is a privilege, guns are a right.

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

 

[chiroken007]

You do realize to get a DL you need to do a training course….not a great analogy

That’s also to use publicly funded roads and driving is a “privelege” where bearing arms is a “right”

 

[chiroken007]

Can you buy a car without a DL? Yes. Can you drive on public roads? No. Can you drive on private property? Yes

Same category as CCW realistically. The right to carry in public vs carry private property.

 

[seanjq]

Can you buy a car without a DL? Yes. Can you drive on public roads? No. Can you drive on private property? Yes

Same category as CCW realistically. The right to carry in public vs carry private property.

Precisely, you can own a gun as is your right. Hell, buy the whole gunstore out. I, however, also have the right to not be shot and killed by someone who takes their firearms into a public space who isn't (at the very minimum) reasonably proficient in the use of it. 4 hours is nowhere near enough training.

 

[Gawernator]

You do realize to get a DL you need to do a training course….not a great analogy

Adults do not need to take driver education or professional behind-the-wheel instruction to get a license. So no, you're completely wrong. Only children must take a course.

Driver education is painfully bad here, even with mandatory riding classes I teach many students barely grasp basic info and many riders are illegal with no license.

 

[NewbieDoo]

Can you buy a car without a DL? Yes. Can you drive on public roads? No. Can you drive on private property? Yes

Same category as CCW realistically. The right to carry in public vs carry private property.

Precisely, you can own a gun as is your right. Hell, buy the whole gunstore out. I, however, also have the right to not be shot and killed by someone who takes their firearms into a public space who isn't (at the very minimum) reasonably proficient in the use of it. 4 hours is nowhere near enough training.

Not so. The 2A distinguishes "keeping" arms from "bearing" arms....as in "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So, at minimum, there is a constitutional right to own firearms and there is a constitutional right to carry firearms. We can disagree on whether or not that's good policy, but the right exists.

 

[Gawernator]

Exactly.

Exactly what? You're wrong too lmao. Show me the law requiring an adult to take a driver training course or be quiet. You don't even need a DL to buy a car.

 

[Gawernator]

Precisely, you can own a gun as is your right. Hell, buy the whole gunstore out. I, however, also have the right to not be shot and killed by someone who takes their firearms into a public space who isn't (at the very minimum) reasonably proficient in the use of it. 4 hours is nowhere near enough training.

What's more likely, you getting killed in a car crash driving to a public shooting range, or you getting shot and killed by a random person accidentally at a public shooting range? Is someone forcing you to go to these dangerous ranges (that you made up in your imagination)?

 

[Gawernator]

Can you buy a car without a DL? Yes. Can you drive on public roads? No. Can you drive on private property? Yes

Same category as CCW realistically. The right to carry in public vs carry private property.

Exactly, it was never about safety. The streets are flooded with illegal and unlicensed drivers in California.

 

[RustVendor]

Precisely, you can own a gun as is your right. Hell, buy the whole gunstore out. I, however, also have the right to not be shot and killed by someone who takes their firearms into a public space who isn't (at the very minimum) reasonably proficient in the use of it. 4 hours is nowhere near enough training.

I absolutely agree that people need way more training but I also think that the people who would benefit most from training will not get it through a 4 hour class and this will be a huge waste of time and money for everyone except instructors getting paid from it. It's not like there's a test at the end that you can fail you just gotta show up.

 

[Hudson85]

Honestly, I think it's a good thing in principle that people should learn how to safely use a gun before owning, but it would depend on how it's implemented. Another major issue will be that it's no doubt going to be restrictive financially.

 

[RustVendor]

Honestly, I think it's a good thing in principle that people should learn how to safely use a gun before owning, but it would depend on how it's implemented. Another major issue will be that it's no doubt going to be restrictive financially.

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.