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

[seanjq]

Good thing criminals take a class to get their guns as well….

If you're training and taking classes and the criminals are not, who'd you put your money on in that gunfight?

 

[CrownedKing]

If you're training and taking classes and the criminals are not, who'd you put your money on in that gunfight?

The one that can unload 50 rounds in 3 seconds, the one that walks around with a draco or any rapid fire weapon. Criminals aren’t following the same rules we do, we are at a massive disadvantage and even then we have to pay up the ass in fees

 

[NewbieDoo]

No, not Gavin but I wish I had his money (and hair).

But I am the outlier in believing that firearms owners should be well trained and have some proficiency before taking a gun home for the first time. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on people to do the necessary things to achieve a decent level of proficiency themselves. So now they will be forced to do so. I don't want to hear people crying about the costs for the classes; If they can afford to buy a gun & ammo, they can afford to learn how to use it.

I know 2A is a right and not a priveledge. I don't care about all the arguments and anecdotes about the 1A, voting, and driver's licenses.

The Left doesn't really care about saving lives with this legislation - its about control and making it more difficult to own a gun. But it may well be the one law that actually does save lives. Go figure.

So yeah, I love it.

You're not an outlier in believing firearms owners should be trained. Most of us believe in responsible firearm ownership. The divergence is (1) whether that belief should be made into a law and (2) whether it is constitutional for such a law to exist. Keeping in mind the origins of the country, it is fundamentally contradictory to our founding for the government to set obstacles and control terms and conditions of firearm ownership.

It's also worth noting, the second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It assumes the right exists and prohibits the government from infringing upon it.

 

[seanjq]

The one that can unload 50 rounds in 3 seconds, the one that walks around with a draco or any rapid fire weapon. Criminals aren’t following the same rules we do, we are at a massive disadvantage and even then we have to pay up the ass in fees

I wholeheartedly support training, especially for new gun owners. I do not support the cash-grab fees. Training is still going to be an advantage over spray and pray.

 

[seanjq]

You're not an outlier in believing firearms owners should be trained. Most of us believe in responsible firearm ownership. The divergence is (1) whether that belief should be made into a law and (2) whether it is constitutional for such a law to exist. Keeping in mind the origins of the country, it is fundamentally contradictory to our founding for the government to set obstacles and control terms and conditions of firearm ownership.

It's also worth noting, the second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It assumes the right exists and prohibits the government from infringing upon it.

But there isn't a state that doesn't infringe. Not one. It is what it is.

 

[NewbieDoo]

But there isn't a state that doesn't infringe. Not one. It is what it is.

I agree 100%. The federal government too.

My earlier posts in this thread recognize that reality and how it makes the constitutional argument inconsistent.

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.

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.

None of these laws are consistent with the plain text...the AWB, criminal background checks, mental health holds, restraining orders...they're all infringements that are not permitted by the text of the second amendment. SCOTUS has just accepted certain infringements because most people agree we shouldn't be arming violent criminals with stinger missiles. But, once they allowed exceptions in the interest of public safety, we got rosters, licensing schemes, training requirements, etc. All of which are justified in that same interest of public safety. So where do we draw the line? The courts have to do mental gymnastics to say "you can require a fee, but it can't be too expensive"..."you can require a license, but the wait can't be too long"..."you can limit the possible options, but they can't be too limited"...without any actual constitutional support for the position because it's all this amorphous public interest justification. Even the Bruen analysis, while more faithful to the text than most, still assumes the text doesn't mean what it says.

While I'm not arguing that a completely unlimited and unrestricted right is a good policy decision, I am noting that anything short of that is inconsistent with the second amendment.

 

[Boomhauer]

If you're training and taking classes and the criminals are not, who'd you put your money on in that gunfight?

I have nothing against training and taking classes, it’s the mandates, more money out of pocket, and just another road block in order to obtain a firearm, that is our second amendment right.

 

[seanjq]

I agree 100%. The federal government too.

My earlier posts in this thread recognize that reality and how it makes the constitutional argument inconsistent.




None of these laws are consistent with the plain text...the AWB, criminal background checks, mental health holds, restraining orders...they're all infringements that are not permitted by the text of the second amendment. SCOTUS has just accepted certain infringements because most people agree we shouldn't be arming violent criminals with stinger missiles. But, once they allowed exceptions in the interest of public safety, we got rosters, licensing schemes, training requirements, etc. All of which are justified in that same interest of public safety. So where do we draw the line? The courts have to do mental gymnastics to say "you can require a fee, but it can't be too expensive"..."you can require a license, but the wait can't be too long"..."you can limit the possible options, but they can't be too limited"...without any actual constitutional support for the position because it's all this amorphous public interest justification. Even the Bruen analysis, while more faithful to the text than most, still assumes the text doesn't mean what it says.

While I'm not arguing that a completely unlimited and unrestricted right is a good policy decision, I am noting that anything short of that is inconsistent with the second amendment.

Unless you agree with arming everyone under their 'God-given right to bear arms' which will include rapists, people with mental issues, murderers, thieves, terrorists etc, you're going to be infringed upon. Simple as that. Might as well get used to it and instead of complaining, realize how lucky you are because the constitutional right to bear arms exists nowhere else in the world (apart from Mexico and Guatemala).

 

[10RoundLimit]

And then you have to deal with nonsense like this. Conceptually interesting. Impossible to pull off. Only in CA.

UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention Launch Mass Shooter Gun Buying Database

UC Davis launches a database to analyze gun purchases linked to mass shooters using AI technology.

bearingarms.com

 

[socalgunowner909]

Unless you agree with arming everyone under their 'God-given right to bear arms' which will include rapists, people with mental issues, murderers, thieves, terrorists etc, you're going to be infringed upon. Simple as that. Might as well get used to it and instead of complaining, realize how lucky you are because the constitutional right to bear arms exists nowhere else in the world (apart from Mexico and Guatemala).

I think you're oversimplifying the argument. Supporting the Second Amendment doesn't mean believing that every single person, regardless of their criminal history or circumstances, should have unrestricted access to firearms. There is a difference between reasonable restrictions that address genuine public safety concerns and laws that continuously burden law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong.

The Constitution doesn't say our rights exist only when the government finds them convenient. And just because other countries don't recognize the same protections doesn't mean Americans should be willing to surrender theirs.

I'm not arguing that violent criminals or dangerous individuals should have access to firearms. I'm arguing that the actions of criminals shouldn't automatically justify taking rights away from millions of responsible gun owners.

And as far as being told to stop complaining and accept infringements, questioning government overreach and defending constitutional rights is exactly what Americans should be doing. That's not complaining. That's exercising the freedoms this country was founded on.

 

[NewbieDoo]

Unless you agree with arming everyone under their 'God-given right to bear arms' which will include rapists, people with mental issues, murderers, thieves, terrorists etc, you're going to be infringed upon. Simple as that. Might as well get used to it and instead of complaining, realize how lucky you are because the constitutional right to bear arms exists nowhere else in the world (apart from Mexico and Guatemala).

Again, I'm not advocating for policy. I'm pointing out the inconsistency with the second amendment, which prohibits governmental infringement. The second amendment is absolute. It doesn't leave room for "reasonable infringements" like the fourth amendment does.

If you believe "rapists, people with mental issues, murderers, thieves, terrorists etc" should be restricted from being armed, that's a policy position inconsistent with the text of the second amendment. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. In fact, I think most would agree it's a good idea. What I'm saying is the argument contains an infringement on the right. So if that's the policy argument, it's an argument against applying the second amendment according to its text....and that's where the question comes in of where to draw the line.

 

[Hit Factor]

Unless you agree with arming everyone under their 'God-given right to bear arms' which will include rapists, people with mental issues, murderers, thieves, terrorists etc, you're going to be infringed upon. Simple as that. Might as well get used to it and instead of complaining, realize how lucky you are because the constitutional right to bear arms exists nowhere else in the world (apart from Mexico and Guatemala).

You’re sounding more and more like you’ve come straight out of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

“I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas . . .”

The irony is that he wrote that dystopian novel as a cautionary tale. Fast forward to 2026, and we have this — by a purported gun owner on a gun forum, no less.

Thanks for the stark reminder that freedom requires constant vigilance. It looks like the rest of us have a lot of work to do.

 

[chiroken007]

This Seanjq gonna be a starter for sure. But that ok as long as things stay respectful among us

 

[denpython]

So do people holding a valid thing a majiggy card still need to comply w the 4 he course or only after the card expires?

 

[Jimi Jah]

For some unknown reason we got through over 200 years in this country without requiring "training" to exercise a constitutional right.

If you need or want training, that is available at any gun range. It should not be a requirement.

 

[Gawernator]

No, not Gavin but I wish I had his money (and hair).

But I am the outlier in believing that firearms owners should be well trained and have some proficiency before taking a gun home for the first time. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on people to do the necessary things to achieve a decent level of proficiency themselves. So now they will be forced to do so. I don't want to hear people crying about the costs for the classes; If they can afford to buy a gun & ammo, they can afford to learn how to use it.

I know 2A is a right and not a priveledge. I don't care about all the arguments and anecdotes about the 1A, voting, and driver's licenses.

The Left doesn't really care about saving lives with this legislation - its about control and making it more difficult to own a gun. But it may well be the one law that actually does save lives. Go figure.

So yeah, I love it.

Explain in precise detail how lives will be saved, how many and in what function?

And how does that barrier to entry help us exactly? I mean I guess if the goal is to keep the poors and black and brown people from owning guns it makes sense, which a lot of gun control is rooted in those racist ideologies left wing people love.

By your logic we can’t rely on people to vote either so let’s just bring in benevolent dictatorship since people are too dumb to exercise their rights.

So much for being a cool guy…

 

[Gawernator]

I can’t wait to take my training and dump hundreds into their classes, so I can buy my CA roster approved pistol with 10rd capacity, just so I can get gunned down by a criminal with a 50rd g19 w/ an frt

Lmao right. @Coolguy taking his goyslop class like a good boy thinking the class will save lives just to get gunned down in the parking lot by criminals with a buffer tube only AR-15, 60 round PMAGS and FRT lmao

 

[seanjq]

You’re sounding more and more like you’ve come straight out of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

“I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas . . .”

The irony is that he wrote that dystopian novel as a cautionary tale. Fast forward to 2026, and we have this — by a purported gun owner on a gun forum, no less.

Thanks for the stark reminder that freedom requires constant vigilance. It looks like the rest of us have a lot of work to do.

If we’re throwing Brave New World quotes around, don’t forget another core theme: 'Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.'

Reciting 'shall not be infringed' as an absolute slogan without addressing the practical realities of violent criminals, rapists, or terrorists getting armed isn't vigilance—it's just forum hypnopaedia.

Pointing out that every constitutional right has legal limits—like background checks for violent felons or restrictions on who can buy explosive ordnance—isn't 'docile submission.' It's an acknowledgment of how the judicial system and society actually function.

Recognizing that even the Supreme Court allows for 'historical regulations' on violent individuals isn't a lack of vigilance—it's how the law actually works.

Realism about legal mechanics isn't conditioning. You can fight fiercely for the Second Amendment without pretending an absolute free-for-all for violent felons was what the Founders intended or what any court in history has upheld.

I'm all in favor of the 'good guys' getting guns and not the bad. Twist that whichever way you want.

 

[seanjq]

So do people holding a valid thing a majiggy card still need to comply w the 4 he course or only after…

It’s valid until its expiration date. New law only applies to you when you renew it.

 

[Gawernator]

Maybe this 6 year old should take the training too. https://www.wbaltv.com/article/police-video-virginia-6-year-old-shot-teacher-zwerner/74079765

I swear people think the government can make everything safe if the put enough red tape in front of it. Its called being responsible and educating yourself. This mom of the kid needs to be locked up for a long time and that kids needs some serious education and discipline.

Also when you say the left you should just say we because it sounds like you are in that group.

See! Mandatory training would have stopped this from happening!

/s