NEWSROOM California fires new 4-hour live-fire safety course for gun buyers, effective 2029
- Thread starter CAguns-News
- Start date
CAGUNS NEWSROOM Agent
Hit Factor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 971
You have a natural, God-given right to defend yourself and your family. You have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. And now you have a state government requiring you to undergo mandatory training to actually exercise those natural and constitutionally-protected civil rights. Itās dystopian to say the least. And yes, otherwise free people somehow being okay with their government restricting their ability to exercise God-given and constitutionally-protected rights is scary as hell. This thread got very dark indeed.got dark
- Messages
- 5,620
Real life can be cruel - part of being a gun owner is facing these realities and taking your life and country into your own hands.
First, Welcome! Regardless of where we fall on the spectrum, we're all supportive of new folks joining the community.
I'll try to distill it objectively as best I can:
On one hand, you have team "these things are deadly weapons." This is the morality argument. This side appeals to reason, saying things like you should have to be trained before you're allowed to use one of these things, just like any other piece of machinery reasonably likely to cause death or serious injury. It says you should be able to protect yourself and your family, but you don't need a cannon for that purpose...or if in the past year, statistics say a certain platform has been used in more mass shootings than in legal defensive uses, it should be prohibited. The problem here is the position doesn't take into account the legalities or realities of constitutional access. When the constitution provides for an uninfringed right, and so-called assault weapons are available in Nevada, Arizona, or randomly in your neighbor's private stash, such restrictions go against the constitution and you not having one means you cannot proportionately protect yourself or your family. The legal availability nearby means the illegal availability here is notable.
On the other hand, you have team "shall not be infringed." This is the constitutional argument. This side says any law that restricts, limits, or places hurdles in the way of keeping and bearing arms is unconstitutional. The problem here is it's inconsistent. If you talk to the strongest 2A proponent, I can't imagine, for example, they would be in favor of a newly released felon who has been found mentally unfit getting an AR with 50 round drums after doing a 10 year stint for attacking that proponent and proclaiming at trial he would go after the proponents family as soon as he got out. There is an implicit understanding that some infringements are acceptable in the name of safety. You can't give a firearm to someone who proclaims they want to use it to commit a crime, or who doesn't have the capacity to understand right and wrong. There has to be a morality/greater good component.
What you're left with is a situation where one side feels grounded in the supreme law of the land and the other feels grounded in a sense of greater good. Both can be true. A law can be directed at the greater good, but also be unconstitutional. That's a friction that will forever exist. Enter SCOTUS...they appear to also have the implicit understanding that "shall not be infringed" can't possibly mean exactly what it says. An 8 year-old shouldn't take an uzi to school, but where's the line? While claiming to be faithful to the text, they come up with tests that are open to interpretation and inconsistent rulings that depend largely on the composition of the court.
FWIW, I don't actually think there's that much daylight between the sides. I think 75% of the population agrees on 75% of what infringements should be acceptable. Most people want to be able to protect themselves and their families, and don't want violent criminals to have access to weapons that threaten their safety and security. The other 25% are on either extreme. But, both sides feel like they can't concede any ground to the other for fear of losing something and gaining nothing.
And with that, I return you to your regularly scheduled echo chamber.
1) According to data from the CDCās WONDER database and National Center for Health Statistics, about 450 to 550 people die per year in the United States from unintentional (accidental or negligent) firearm discharges.
2) California requires minors (ages 15Ā½ to 17Ā½) to complete a DMV-approved Driver Education course (at least 30 hours of classroom or online instruction) and at least 6 hours of professional behind-the-wheel driver training to qualify for a driver's license.
The FSC test right now is a joke. No hands-on training. I'm going to go tell my flight instructor I don't actually need any actual flight time. A written test will suffice, see what he says.
- Messages
- 5,620
1) ok and? That's nothing for the entire country. This law would change nothing in that stat.
2) minors can't buy guns. Adults require no driver training as you previously falsely claimed.
3) constitutional right, not a privilege. General Aviation is also much more deadly and dangerous than firearms LOL like 400 deaths per year and there's a lot more guns than pilots
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". - Benjamin Franklin
I'm guessing you don't even know who that is.
So about the same number of people who die falling off ladders every year in the US (and about 1/4 as many injuries). Surely then you support 4 hours of training classes before buying a ladder? Heck, mandatory safety harnesses aren't a bad idea either. And more than twice as many as that die falling down stairs. Why would the government allow such dangerous apparatus to be used by untrained civilians? People should have to strap into pic related for their own good. It's about safety, right?
- Messages
- 5,602
- Classified ads
- 4
You guys donāt need to hammer your opinion. Ultimately, itās your first amendment right to have your own opinion to begin with. No one is a traitor because they think differently. Everyone has the right to think the way they do. Letās not get too sidetracked trying to force your opinion down someoneās throat as much as you wouldnāt like it forced down your own.
Ultimately, there is truth to whatās being said, that thereās a lot of people who are a danger to themselves and the people around them who are first time owners. Is this the answer? No.
My mind is thinking there should be an NGO thatās formed to help train people that want to do this. The biggest issue is the liability because new people are the most scary because you donāt know where theyāre at. Just keep in mind, itās okay to have a different opinion. End of the day, what are you gonna do at the end.
I donāt wanna lock this thread, so please guys take a breather
Ultimately, there is truth to whatās being said, that thereās a lot of people who are a danger to themselves and the people around them who are first time owners. Is this the answer? No.
My mind is thinking there should be an NGO thatās formed to help train people that want to do this. The biggest issue is the liability because new people are the most scary because you donāt know where theyāre at. Just keep in mind, itās okay to have a different opinion. End of the day, what are you gonna do at the end.
I donāt wanna lock this thread, so please guys take a breather
- Messages
- 5,620
Blanket restrictions on rights are not the same as someone forfeiting their rights through their own behavior (murder, etc)
- Messages
- 5,620
What about the people that slip and fall and die? Shouldn't they need a 4 hour mandatory class on how to walk or which shoes to buy? Let's not be hypocrites now
- Messages
- 5,602
- Classified ads
- 4
The other aspect of this is you guys are getting worked up over something thatās not gonna happen for another 3 years. So for now we still have some time to work on building and even then in three years you can still take the test in about 10 to 15 minutes and be good for another five years.
The reality is we consistently offer training, but people donāt really get into the training aspect of it. Itās starting to grow, but itās not as popular as just buying and having guns. What we try to do here and what weāll be looking at doing is having some videos for safety on the CA2A.com site
This is another section that Iāve been building out that will introduce additional video how to, how to handle your firearm safely, and go through some of the basics in a structured way for free. Advanced lessons can be found on our other site, but for the basics, weāll go for this.
The reality is we consistently offer training, but people donāt really get into the training aspect of it. Itās starting to grow, but itās not as popular as just buying and having guns. What we try to do here and what weāll be looking at doing is having some videos for safety on the CA2A.com site
This is another section that Iāve been building out that will introduce additional video how to, how to handle your firearm safely, and go through some of the basics in a structured way for free. Advanced lessons can be found on our other site, but for the basics, weāll go for this.
- Messages
- 5,620
I doubt anyone here is arguing against firearms training. They're arguing against unconstitutional laws imposing financial burdens and barriers via forced classes to exercising your God given rights - ideals the nation was founded upon. Especially when the benefit to said class has essentially no tangible benefit on society. Anyone that would actually pay attention and learn from the class already Youtubed the four firearms safety rules and researched what they want to buy online. The others will learn nothing and nothing would change. As @RustVendor stated earlier, the pool of possible fatalities that could possibly be reduced are already minuscule, if any.
- Messages
- 5,602
- Classified ads
- 4
The issue isnāt really the trainer, itās the fact that someone is requiring you to do it when they shouldnāt require you to do it and you should just want to do it.
Iāve been working in classes for about two years now, and itās a struggle to fill them out, considering how many guns get sold. One would think that the training would be helpful, considering I bring in some of the best shooters in the country at the lowest price.
Like, I get what youāre saying but should they be required to do it? Itās a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Until this actually goes through in 2029, we have some time to kind of work out and build out our program so that new shooters become less scary. Iām already working with some people to do the videos for the introductory courses.
The main thing that I would want itās for the people who are going to take this four- hour class to do some homework with the free resources that weāre providing so that they can go in somewhat prepared. Now more than likely, people arenāt gonna use the resources, but some will. Question is, can we become large enough to become that de facto training site
Classes ā Richmond Action
richmondaction.com
- Messages
- 5,602
- Classified ads
- 4
I will push back on a couple of things with this. You say itās God given. Does that mean youāre OK with giving immigrants and non-citizens access to firearms? and I would also disagree that thereās no benefit to training. I think thereās a big benefit to training that people donāt realize because they havenāt done training. YouTube is not gonna get you there. Because you have to discover it on your own and most people arenāt like that. Many, many people learn from hands-on better than from watching. Iāve dealt with hundreds of people at this point who watch videos, who just suck. Itās the guys who watch the videos hours a day and then dry fire on top of that who are actually good. The people who just watch videos still arenāt very good.
I hear you, but this is exactly my point.
There is no reasonableness standard written into the 2nd amendment. They clearly could have, because they wrote it into the 4th. They said "unreasonable search and seizure" but they did not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed" ... they just said "shall not be infringed." Your argument of forfeiture is a reasonableness argument, which goes against the plain text of the amendment.
This goes to my later point, it's actually a question of where we draw the line, not whether a line should be drawn. Unless it's an age-less, criminal status-less, mental status-less, proclaimed purpose-less right (which no one is advocating for), it's not uninfringed....and an infringed right is technically a violation of the plain text.
- Messages
- 825
You know what is interesting about taking the driving test? You can drive your own car that you purchased.
I donāt think the folk on here are arguing against firearm training. They are arguing against the state mandating this training prior to purchasing a firearm because it is more about intent. It may be guised as safety. It may save a few lives. But is that really the intent? Or is it to make gun ownership as difficult as possible within the confines of the constitution. Requiring expensive limited classes at the limited ranges by the limited trainers given permission to administer the classes with fees and licenses at all levels of the system.
There is intent and there are optics.
Itās hard to convince people to give up a freedom without convincing them itās for a greater good or makes them safer.
I donāt think the folk on here are arguing against firearm training. They are arguing against the state mandating this training prior to purchasing a firearm because it is more about intent. It may be guised as safety. It may save a few lives. But is that really the intent? Or is it to make gun ownership as difficult as possible within the confines of the constitution. Requiring expensive limited classes at the limited ranges by the limited trainers given permission to administer the classes with fees and licenses at all levels of the system.
There is intent and there are optics.
Itās hard to convince people to give up a freedom without convincing them itās for a greater good or makes them safer.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,620
I think you completely misunderstood what I said. The people that will do in person classes are already researching and taking in instruction where they can. Yes I'm fine with that, and some immigrants already do have access to firearms, LPR's can even buy and own like a citizen. I never said "there's no benefit to training", what I said was "The others will learn nothing and nothing would change" which is my experience of teaching a state mandatory class to get a license (sounds familiar) for almost the last decade. Follow on training is almost even more important and very few will ever go do it.
Like the guy said, across the entire USA it was around 500 accidental firearm deaths a year, he didn't say how many are in CA. We can assume a large number are children accessing firearms as was previously stated. So what is the reduction going to be to justify this expensive barrier to entry on top of all other expenses (and a catch-22 since you can't train without a firearm), one or two people maybe?