PDA

View Full Version : Is the HSC requirement actually legal? Has it been challenged? Is is insulting?


itr1275
02-07-2011, 12:44 PM
Ok a little bit of a rant but I think there might be some holes in the HSC requirement. Is this something that could get thrown out?

First off this was authored by the attorney general. He (Bill Lockyer) is not a fire arms expert and has no training that I know of. He first start by stating "rules" in chapter 1. This is not in any law, that I know of regarding firearms. I belive this came straight from the the NRA. Asking use to agree to follow "rules" is essentially creating a law that has not gone through any sort of legal process.

Also is this plagiarism? Assuming the rules were created by the NRA are they copy righted?

Furthermore he even expands these rules with "additional safety points"?

Chapter 2.
Now they are telling us how to address our children? I don't know that this is illegal, but it's insulting. If some moron can make a stink about having "In God We Trust" on our currency, I think this is should be right up there.

"Talking to Children about Guns
Children are naturally curious about things they don’t know about or think are “forbidden.” When a child asks questions or begins to act out “gun play,” you may want to address his or her curiosity by answering the questions as honestly and openly as possible. This will remove the mystery and reduce the natural curiosity. Also, it is important to remember to talk to children in a manner they can relate to and understand. This is very important, especially when teaching children about the difference between “real” and “make-believe.” Let children know that, even though they may look the same, real guns are very different than toy guns. A real gun will hurt or kill someone who is shot."

They add "Rules for Kids" in this chapter. This section has no legal bearing to it, with the exception of the minor can not poses a firearm. Common sense aside, if a gun is sitting on a table, why does the child need to leave the area? If you abide by these rules you can't take your kid to the range. He quotes the "California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians" for talking to kids about guns? Again WTF ER docs are now firearms experts?

BTW is calling kids "kids" rather than children ok? I don't have any goats.

Chapter 3
This talks about how a firearm operates. So Bill "firearms guru" Lockyer is at it again. There is nothing in the laws about double action, single action, semi-auto and how they operate. There is a series of questions on operation of weapons we may never have. If I don't have any revolvers, so why do they require me to understand the operation?

He states:
"A magazine is a separate metal boxlike container into which cartridges are loaded. It is usually located within the grip. A button or catch releases the magazine."

This is not always true. There are fixed magazine pistols and some even have non-metal or composite magazines. So are those still semi-auto pistols?

"Never pull the trigger on any firearm with the safety in the “safe” position because thereafter the firearm could fire at any time without the trigger ever being touched. If a firearm is dropped, it may land hard enough to activate the firing mechanism without the trigger being touched."

Really? So if I pull the trigger with the safety on, and the safety works, it's unsafe?

Step 3 of unloading a semi-auto pistol
"Pull the slide to the rear and lock it back, if possible." If possible, why wouldn't I be able to pull the slid back? Perhaps it's jammed cartridge which is a real safety issue. Bill "Gunsmith" Lockyer should address this too. Perhaps he should talk about replacing the main spring on an 1911 too?

The "PHYSICS OF GUNFIRE". Bill Lockyer talks about physics? He attended the University of California, Berkeley, graduating with a BA in Political Science in 1965. Not even a science degree, probably barely got passed fractions, and he want to tell me about physics?

He says, "Purchase your ammunition from an authorized ammunition dealer only." What is an authorized dealer?


Chapter 5
He cautions us, referring to modifications, "...They also could void the manufacturer’s warranty." So is voiding my warranty illegal now?

"METHODS OF CHILDPROOFING"
He tells us to
• Always store your firearm unloaded.
• Use a firearms safety device AND store the firearm in a locked container.
• Store the ammunition separately in a locked container.
...
• Do not store your firearm where it is visible.
• Do not store your firearm in a bedside table, under your mattress or pillow, or on a closet shelf.
• Do not store your firearm among your valuables (such as jewelry or cameras) unless it is locked in a secure container.
• Make sure the location you store your firearm and ammunition is not easily accessible to children.
• Consider storing firearms not possessed for self-defense in a safe and secure manner away from the home.

This is later contradicted on page 40, in the "law section". This clearly states locked container "OR" locking device.
"Neither of the criminal storage offenses (first degree, second degree) shall apply whenever the firearm is kept in a locked container or locked with a locking device that has rendered the firearm inoperable [PC section 12035 (c), (2), (4)]."

This is not what the law says. I don't have to lock crap, but it has to be inaccessible to children. He then quizzes us on his opinion versus the law.

He then requires us to answer questions based on his pseudo-laws and pseudo-science in order to purchase a hand gun? We must recite his answers back, even though they are not the law nor in some cases accurate.

Capt_Communist
02-07-2011, 12:47 PM
good rant...

Who cares though...


IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.

I guess good job actually reading the book, because i'd say most people don't

taperxz
02-07-2011, 1:08 PM
good rant...

Who cares though...


IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.

I guess good job actually reading the book, because i'd say most people don't

Wow you do live up to your name!! The law says you can't be a felon or mentally ill. Are you saying undereducated people shouldn't have the right to protect themselves? I for one could spend that $25 on something better than allowing the state to test me for my knowledge about handguns. Since when is literacy a part of owning a handgun? Isn't that a form of discrimination?

Res
02-07-2011, 1:14 PM
IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun..

not true... I have lots of them ;)

Capt_Communist
02-07-2011, 1:25 PM
not true... I have lots of them ;)

epic

Glock22Fan
02-07-2011, 1:25 PM
BTW is calling kids "kids" rather than children ok? I don't have any goats.




I was always told this was nothing to do with goats, rather it is a corruption of the German Kind (child), Kinder (Children), as in Kindergarten. Old German, remember, is a root language of English and, also, a lot of first and second generation Americans spoke German as their first or second language.

Also (http://podictionary.com/kid-podictionary-297/)


The podictionary word for today is “kid”: I don’t know if your grandmother told you what my grandmother told me, she said that a kid was a young goat, she didn’t like people being called kids. She must have been pretty conservative in that way because according to the Oxford English Dictionary the reference to a child as a kid made the transition from low slang to a common and familiar use about 150 years ago.
The OED also confirms that for hundreds of years kid referred to a goat of tender years, and that it may have come from Old Norse which seems to have been more like “kith”, or it may have been from Old High German kizzen; although neither one is certain. Anyway, the first time the slang use meaning what we would normally think of as a kid made it into print was in Shakespeare’s day.
These days there aren’t too many goats roaming the streets so most of the kids we see are children. The author of the work which brought that low slang into print was one Philip Massanger. Or maybe not. That’s who The OED cites, but then in their bibliography points to another guy, Thomas Middleton. Wikipedia attributes the work to Middleton but it doesn’t really matter.
The point is that not only did these guys live and write in the time of Shakespeare, they are likely to have worked with him. The world was a smaller place in those days it seems. Massanger is credited by some with having collaborated with old Will on the scene with the witches bubble bubble toil and troubleing in Macbeth – the play that cannot be named.


and (http://www.20kweb.com/etymology_dictionary_K/origin_of_the_word_kid.htm)


β. From the Low G. root KÎ, to germinate, produce, seen in Goth. keian or uskeian, to produce as a shoot.—✔GA, another form of GAN, to generate. Thus kid means 'that which is produced,' or 'a young one;' a sense still preserved in modern colloquial English. See Chit (http://www.20kweb.com/etymology_dictionary_C/origin_of_the_word_chit.htm), Child (http://www.20kweb.com/etymology_dictionary_C/origin_of_the_word_child.htm), Kin (http://www.20kweb.com/etymology_dictionary_K/origin_of_the_word_kin.htm). Der. kid, verb; kid-ling, with double suffix -l-ing; kid-fox, a young fox, Much Ado, ii. 3. 44; also kid-nap (http://www.20kweb.com/etymology_dictionary_K/origin_of_the_word_kidnap.htm), q.v.

Too Slow
02-07-2011, 1:30 PM
Frankly, I like the HSC. It is quick, easy and give the anti's something to chew on. The alternative could be much worse. My mom lives in New York and has been trying to get a license to purchase a handgun for almost a year. Yes, just to purchase one. She called last August for a time to go fill out the paperwork and the first appointment was in January. So, it could be soooo much worse.

I agree with the above person. If you can't pass this without even reading the book, you shouldn't own a gun.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 1:33 PM
Frankly, I like the HSC. It is quick, easy and give the anti's something to chew on. The alternative could be much worse. My mom lives in New York and has been trying to get a license to purchase a handgun for almost a year. Yes, just to purchase one. She called last August for a time to go fill out the paperwork and the first appointment was in January. So, it could be soooo much worse.

I agree with the above person. If you can't pass this without even reading the book, you shouldn't own a gun.

What does reading a book and owning a handgun have to do with the "price of rice in china?'

You don't need and HSC card for a rifle but a pistol is "special"????

stix213
02-07-2011, 1:33 PM
Sounds more like you are complaining about the free study guide instead of the HSC test. You are under no obligation to ever read the study guide for any reason, including when taking the HSC.

Also, if you can't pass the HSC test you aren't responsible enough to handle a hand gun IMO. I don't have a problem with this requirement. In fact if you can't get 100% without studying, I'm a little scared to go shooting with you.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 1:39 PM
Sounds more like you are complaining about the free study guide instead of the HSC test. You are under no obligation to ever read the study guide for any reason, including when taking the HSC.

Also, if you can't pass the HSC test you aren't responsible enough to handle a hand gun IMO. I don't have a problem with this requirement. In fact if you can't get 100% without studying, I'm a little scared to go shooting with you.

You are truly misguided!! Take this into account. There are tens of thousands of people who suffer dyslexia. Now what do you say? There are thousands with reading disabilities in this country and these people dont lack the common sense issues related to firearms safety. Are you going to tell people they cant have a pistol to protect themselves because of a disability?

N6ATF
02-07-2011, 1:41 PM
I'd much rather have dealers voluntarily choose to have customers demonstrate they can follow Cooper's Four Rules with a red/blue gun, instead of have a stupid written test and infringement tax on the only right which "shall not be infringed."

RollingCode3
02-07-2011, 1:42 PM
Is this thread serious? If you can't pass the HSC test, you shouldnt own or even come near a gun. The test is a joke. There are other lame laws in the book to rant about, this is not one of them.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 1:45 PM
Is this thread serious? If you can't pass the HSC test, you shouldnt own or even come near a gun. The test is a joke. There are other lame laws in the book to rant about, this is not one of them.

This isnt a question of hard or easy! Is it right! If you had a disability, you would not think it was fair.

Californio
02-07-2011, 1:51 PM
It's a TAX. The Test is stupid. Anyone with a Hunter Safety Card should be able to get 100%. So why is not a Hunter Safety Card an exemption?

My TAX is due again in March:mad:

I hope I haven't lost my ability to pass the test, since last time.:(

Capt_Communist
02-07-2011, 1:51 PM
You are truly misguided!! Take this into account. There are tens of thousands of people who suffer dyslexia. Now what do you say? There are thousands with reading disabilities in this country and these people dont lack the common sense issues related to firearms safety. Are you going to tell people they cant have a pistol to protect themselves because of a disability?


They have a video for you to watch hoss... and if there is still an issue the Instructor is required to read the question to the individual

pretty sure that would cover most basis

mosinnagantm9130
02-07-2011, 1:51 PM
I think we'll get to the HSC "eventually". IMO, there are far more irksome laws to worry about for now.

FF/EMT Nick
02-07-2011, 1:52 PM
When we bought my finance her 9mm XD subcompact (her first gun), she read the book for 5min and scored 100%.

stix213
02-07-2011, 1:56 PM
You are truly misguided!! Take this into account. There are tens of thousands of people who suffer dyslexia. Now what do you say? There are thousands with reading disabilities in this country and these people dont lack the common sense issues related to firearms safety. Are you going to tell people they cant have a pistol to protect themselves because of a disability?

straw man argument

Pretending as if it's impossible to have someone read the questions to you if your disability so requires is kinda a lame response.

edit:
You're not going to get SCOTUS to say you have a right to a handgun with absolutely no requirements of you other than breathing. It is actually to our advantage we have such a simple and easy requirement of us, as it's keeping the anti's from pushing for something stronger (which they would have done by now, and it would probably be upheld). You're apparently too naive to understand the bigger picture here.

Librarian
02-07-2011, 1:58 PM
In fact if you can't get 100% without studying, I'm a little scared to go shooting with you.

I think I'd let 1 or 2 wrong get by; IIRC there's at least 1 question requiring a 'politically correct' answer which you would have to be looking for in order to pick that answer out of the choices.

Capt_Communist
02-07-2011, 1:58 PM
straw man argument

Pretending as if it's impossible to have someone read the questions to you if your disability so requires is kinda a lame response.

Judging by his posts I think he's just trying to stir up the hornets nest

that or he may have a disability and is passionate about it

(not being disrespectful, just giving my 2cents)

safewaysecurity
02-07-2011, 1:59 PM
good rant...

Who cares though...


IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.

I guess good job actually reading the book, because i'd say most people don't

Guess we should bring back things such as the poll tax and reading requirements to vote right? Also the HSC discriminates against those who do not speak either English or Spanish. Living in California we have many people who are very old and speak very little to no English. Are their lives not worth protecting? Do they not have the right to self defense because they don't speak the right language? The test doesn't make anyone safer. I don't know how anyone can argue that it prevents criminals from buying guns. Also the fact that you have to keep renewing it to purchase is a problem as well.

pdugan6
02-07-2011, 1:59 PM
IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.



HAHAHAHAH! so true.... I wonder who is going to say,"Hey screw you! I didnt pass!"

stix213
02-07-2011, 2:03 PM
I think I'd let 1 or 2 wrong get by; IIRC there's at least 1 question requiring a 'politically correct' answer which you would have to be looking for in order to pick that answer out of the choices.

I'll give you that :p

ocspeedracer
02-07-2011, 2:07 PM
... we are our own worst enemies.
We all agree the test is basic and many children could pass w/o studying the guide.
but apparently some of us want the government, who's so good at running things like the USPS, Welfare, managing debt, Social Security, etc., to tell us who can and can't have a gun.

I think we can all agree that we should know how to safely operate our own guns, but I for one don't want the government mandating it, taxing it or having anything else to do with my personal business.

What ever happened to personal accountability? Did teachers in school let you guys get away with not doing your homework, or turning it in on time?

Give an inch and the Government will figure out how to tax you for two and tell you when and how you can use them.

Gun Control=NOTHING GOOD
People who murder people by negligence or malice should both be punished.

zhyla
02-07-2011, 2:13 PM
The state requiring safety training and the authoring of that training will pass constitutionality challenges as long as it isn't unduly burdensome. Just because you don't like something gun-related doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional.

Of course, that's pure conjecture since NOBODY is going to spend money or clout trying to push to get the HSC struck down.

dantodd
02-07-2011, 2:15 PM
Kinda surprised at the number of people happy to pay a fee to be able to buy, rent or borrow a handgun even as they admit the test does little to assure safe handling of a gun.

DVSmith
02-07-2011, 2:16 PM
It was simply another barrier to gun ownership enacted by our legislature. You can rail against these types of inane impediments all you want, but the left wing loves anything that might trip up another gun purchase. You would think you would all be used to it by now. Vote better, get better lawmakers, get better laws.

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 2:21 PM
good rant...

Who cares though...


IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.

I guess good job actually reading the book, because i'd say most people don't

Did they increase the difficulty of the test? I don't remember it being THAT hard in the past...

Wherryj
02-07-2011, 2:22 PM
It was simply another barrier to gun ownership enacted by our legislature. You can rail against these types of inane impediments all you want, but the left wing loves anything that might trip up another gun purchase. You would think you would all be used to it by now. Vote better, get better lawmakers, get better laws.

I agree 100%.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 2:24 PM
Judging by his posts I think he's just trying to stir up the hornets nest

that or he may have a disability and is passionate about it

(not being disrespectful, just giving my 2cents)

NOOOO not at all!! If the test is so simple and a 5 year old could pass it, then why give it at all and charge you $25 bucks for it?? If you are in agreement with this idea, who is the real ding dong?? When i first took that test there was no video available, I am due for another card now. If they have a video, then thats fine. What about those that can't hear??

Some of you have no problem with the HSC but what you have to realize is that the government is creating a class of people eligible to buy a handgun. There are those with and those without. THAT is not constitutional. My discrimination points were shared to show that someone somewhere decided what the criteria is for you to be eligible to purchase a handgun and/or even borrow a handgun from someone else. You think this is right?

safewaysecurity
02-07-2011, 2:36 PM
The state requiring safety training and the authoring of that training will pass constitutionality challenges as long as it isn't unduly burdensome. Just because you don't like something gun-related doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional.

Of course, that's pure conjecture since NOBODY is going to spend money or clout trying to push to get the HSC struck down.

I disagree I think it can be struck down because it doesn't serve any government interest that would even pass rational basis imo. Plus the burden could be for those who cannot read write or speak languages other than English or Spanish which are the only two languages provided.

Dr Rockso
02-07-2011, 2:38 PM
... we are our own worst enemies.
We all agree the test is basic and many children could pass w/o studying the guide.
but apparently some of us want the government, who's so good at running things like the USPS, Welfare, managing debt, Social Security, etc., to tell us who can and can't have a gun.

I think we can all agree that we should know how to safely operate our own guns, but I for one don't want the government mandating it, taxing it or having anything else to do with my personal business.

What ever happened to personal accountability? Did teachers in school let you guys get away with not doing your homework, or turning it in on time?

Give an inch and the Government will figure out how to tax you for two and tell you when and how you can use them.

Gun Control=NOTHING GOOD
People who murder people by negligence or malice should both be punished.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, for the most part, the negative responses aren't an issue of ideology, they're an issue of practicality. If I'm donating money to pro-gun entities I want them to spend in in ways that maximize my ROI. If they can spend that dollar suing somebody on the topic of CCW issuance or the HSC, well, I can afford $25 and an inane 5-minute test every 5 years.

If we ever get to the point that the HSC is on the NRA/CGF/CRPA's radar screen as a law that's worth suing over I'd better have some SBRs, std-cap mags, and an obtainable CCW permit...otherwise they'd be wasting my money.

Crom
02-07-2011, 2:52 PM
I have no problems with the HSC. I used to think the HSC was a bad thing. But I have reconsidered. It may actually prevent someone who is retarded or severely mentally disabled from buying a gun.

7.62 Soviet
02-07-2011, 2:53 PM
IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.


Hey now there are some difficult questions... I was hung up on how drunk I could be and still safely handle a firearm... then I remembered just like taking any safety test just pick the answer that seems to be the safest/one they want to hear. After that passed 100% and got that really nifty piece of paper with my name and a seal on it,totally worth the money... In all seriousness the HSC test is at worst a minor inconvenience and at best a feel good way for you to "prove" to anyone who asks that as far as the government is concerned you are "safe" with your firearms. I'm inclines to agree with the others posting to just leave this one be before it gets a whole lot worse lets focus on other gun laws first considering this is a California gun board and we have much more pressing matters to attend to than a "test".

taperxz
02-07-2011, 2:56 PM
I have no problems with the HSC. I used to think the HSC was a bad thing. But I have reconsidered. It may actually prevent someone who is retarded or severely mentally disabled from buying a gun.

How does it stop them from buying a gun?

Crom
02-07-2011, 3:09 PM
How does it stop them from buying a gun?

The sale would be prohibited.

If an individual is mentally handicapped or completely inept and can't pass the HSC exam then the gun shop can't DROS the gun.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 3:14 PM
The sale would be prohibited.

If an individual is mentally handicapped or completely inept and can't pass the HSC exam then the gun shop can't DROS the gun.

No, that person would still be able to legally purchase a rifle.

stix213
02-07-2011, 3:14 PM
I disagree I think it can be struck down because it doesn't serve any government interest that would even pass rational basis imo. Plus the burden could be for those who cannot read write or speak languages other than English or Spanish which are the only two languages provided.

Government interest is to make sure people who buy handguns have at least minimal safety knowledge. A 30 question safety test would certainly pass rational basis.

I challenge you to find any individual who is looking to legally purchase a handgun, either is a citizen or an immigrant who already has their hunting license, but is being stopped from doing so solely because it is impossible for them to take the HSC. That's really pretty ridiculous IMO. How exactly are they filling out the DROS form may I ask?

taperxz
02-07-2011, 3:19 PM
Government interest is to make sure people who buy handguns have at least minimal safety knowledge. A 30 question safety test would certainly pass rational basis.

I challenge you to find any individual who is looking to legally purchase a handgun, either is a citizen or an immigrant who already has their hunting license, but is being stopped from doing so solely because it is impossible for them to take the HSC.

The government did not do this for our safety! This was a form of registration to be a HANDGUN OWNER. If it works so well then why is the same set of rules not applied to rifles and shotguns?

stix213
02-07-2011, 3:21 PM
The government did not do this for our safety! This was a form of registration to be a HANDGUN OWNER. If it works so well then why is the same set of rules not applied to rifles and shotguns?

I think when they required handgun registration, that was the law that registered you as a handgun owner.

They didn't do it for rifles and shotguns due to politics.

BAGunner
02-07-2011, 3:25 PM
The 5-year expiration of HSC is at least absurd, if not insulting. How can DOJ assume I don't know how to operate a handgun after 5 years of use?

rugershooter
02-07-2011, 3:26 PM
The fail in this tread is strong. The test doesn't ensure people are safe with guns or teach safety , nor does it stop criminals from obtaining guns. If they're denied the purchase they can still buy long guns. So what is the overall impact of stopping "unfit" people from owning guns? They'll just steal or illegally buy them if they can't/won't get them legally. As of now it's only a minor inconvenience and we have bigger issues to deal with such as shall issue ccw, but to claim that the HSC is actually a good thing is just plain wrong.

stix213
02-07-2011, 3:27 PM
The government did not do this for our safety! This was a form of registration to be a HANDGUN OWNER. If it works so well then why is the same set of rules not applied to rifles and shotguns?

And who the hell says its working well? Again the thing is SCOTUS will not throw out a 30 question safety test as being an undue burden on your RKBA. Accepting that, its better to get a very minimal requirement than something with far longer reach. The HSC is very minimal. Pretty much exactly the kind of test we would want. The anti's would put a tougher requirement in place with the opportunity (such as a longer test, taking a safety course, and requiring range time), but since they think there is a safety requirement already they aren't pushing for a tougher one.

Look at the requirements left in place in Washington DC and Chicago if you think its possible to get the HSC ruled unconstitutional. I think there are several people on this board that would rather fight and lose big just for the sake of fighting, than actually make real accomplishments keeping as few requirements on us as possible.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 3:33 PM
OK in all fairness to my own argument, Is your name put into a registry after getting an HSC card? Does this test/results/issuance go into a DOJ or BOF file?

devilinblack
02-07-2011, 3:34 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people on this forum are just fine with rights being infringed.

Would you be okay with a Free Speech Safety Card so you don't go around yelling fire in a crowded theater?

What a bunch of kids (yes, the goat kind).

rabagley
02-07-2011, 3:35 PM
Yeah it's annoying. Yeah it achieves basically no purpose. Yeah it's an infringement.

To be honest, though, I'm much more interested in eliminating the "safe" handgun roster, high-cap restrictions, 1 handgun/30 days, and the AW ban, in no particular order.

The HSC is such a tiny speedbump compared to those other issues... as long as we eventually get to it, I'd rather that legal funds got spent elsewhere.

stix213
02-07-2011, 3:37 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people on this forum are just fine with rights being infringed.

Would you be okay with a Free Speech Safety Card so you don't go around yelling fire in a crowded theater?

What a bunch of kids (yes, the goat kind).

Do you seriously think that SCOTUS would rule the HSC unconstitutional? really?

zhyla
02-07-2011, 3:37 PM
I disagree I think it can be struck down because it doesn't serve any government interest that would even pass rational basis imo. Plus the burden could be for those who cannot read write or speak languages other than English or Spanish which are the only two languages provided.

I believe you have a point about a writing requirement.

But it can certainly be argued that the government has an interest in causing gun purchasers to pass some minimum training before walking out the door. However misguided they implement this, the interest is still there. I'm not sure why you think "prevent negligent use of firearms" won't pass rational basis.

DVSmith
02-07-2011, 3:38 PM
OK in all fairness to my own argument, Is your name put into a registry after getting an HSC card? Does this test/results/issuance go into a DOJ or BOF file?

No, the instructor is required to keep a list, but he/she only reports how many cards he/she issued each year.

GutPunch
02-07-2011, 3:38 PM
Wow. I'm am not overly suprised that a leftist state would have pushed the nanny state syndrome it everyone - including gun owners. I want you to examine the following text and then honestly tell me that you see anywhere were HSC can be applied.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hmmm. I must of missed it. Lets look at the specific part again...

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well I still can't see it...

I know it makes everyone "feel" good that we would institute a fee to exercise God given rights because it keeps crazy people and people who broke the law from owning guns right? Like that guy in Arizona... oh wait. Well I know for sure it keeps them from cartel and gang members, doesn't it?! Whoops.

MYOB. Sorry to step on your feelers but you have no right to ask the government to setup a "test" - much less a test which is so utterly easy to pass. I'd much rather live in a free society with all the "risks" that "things" might happen than the nanny state and the founders wanted it that way too.

vintagearms
02-07-2011, 3:43 PM
I don't remember reading about HSC's in the Constitution? :whistling:

amd64
02-07-2011, 3:58 PM
The 5-year expiration of HSC is at least absurd, if not insulting. How can DOJ assume I don't know how to operate a handgun after 5 years of use?

Maybe they hired a research firm paid with our tax dollars to estimate the time the average gun owner would forget gun safety and legalities. :)

Bill Carson
02-07-2011, 4:05 PM
It is basically an illegal tax masquerading as something else.

NotEnufGarage
02-07-2011, 4:06 PM
I'd like to see a VKC (Voter Knowledge Card) be required for anybody who wants to vote. It would cost you $25, be good for 5 years, and you'd have to pass a 30 question test about the Constitution and Bill of Rights and score 80% to pass before you can cast a ballot. The test would only be administered in english, of course.

Boy, would that change the outcome of a lot of elections in this country.

We might also want to implement a STC (Speech Truthfullness Card) before anyone can post in any online forum, say anything on TV or Radio and comment on any article in an online newspaper. You'd have to take a 10 point test on the subject your discussing and get an 80% correct result before you can comment on that issue.


How do these differ from the HSC?

bwiese
02-07-2011, 4:15 PM
The HSC requirement was passed by the legislature.

As it stands, it is likely that such minimal standards will meet the Heller=>McDonald 'reasonable regulation' test. It's not worth much of our time fighting this in CA - I and many others folks I think would rather seen resources expended to kill the Roster, kill AW laws, fix CCW, etc.

It's also not politically useful to us to fight this relative triviality - its existence may even politically stop worse laws from enactment, given CA's state budget & staffing issues - "No, that's already regulated" - and give political cover to wavering legislators to not support it, nor a governor not to sign future worse bills in the general subject area.

Now, if the HSC expired and that were to trigger loss of gun rights - then THAT would NOT pass constitutional muster. As it stands, HSC only is required on new acquisition of *handguns* and not continued possession or use of guns (handguns or other guns).

Also, if the HSC questions were to requir knowlege of such abstruse details that only a small fraction of the population could pass the test, and/or required a live shooting demo w/'sniper grade' accuracy, that too would also fail to pass muster. [Such tests would cross the threshold into the equivalent of discriminatory-in-intent 'poll tax' or 'poll literacy testing' used in the South during Segregation.]

While a civil right can't be taxed, the threshold for gun stuff involving 'reasonable regulation' may well tolerate basic minimal fees that reflect the cost of handling paperwork, with pricing being similar to that for other governmental operations requiring about the same level of detail/work. $20ish or less for such matters will probably pass muster - $100 and up will smell real bad, as would any related per-gun fees or CCW fees.

Billy Jack
02-07-2011, 4:15 PM
When Brave see post like this, he knows why Brady Foundation has the site on Favorites. Keep the bar high? Brave sorry, that is another funny thread.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

www.califroniaconcealedcarry.com

Crom
02-07-2011, 4:15 PM
No, that person would still be able to legally purchase a rifle.

Perhaps. But it doesn't change the way I feel about the HSC.

bwiese
02-07-2011, 4:21 PM
Yeah it's annoying. Yeah it achieves basically no purpose. Yeah it's an infringement.

To be honest, though, I'm much more interested in eliminating the "safe" handgun roster, high-cap restrictions, 1 handgun/30 days, and the AW ban, in no particular order.

The HSC is such a tiny speedbump compared to those other issues... as long as we eventually get to it, I'd rather that legal funds got spent elsewhere.

Thank you.

I don't see the HSC issue being worth the fight given many other priorities. I don't see it as a politically nor legally 'winning' battle.

We can likely fix the "10 day wait" on an individual's N-th handgun purchase far more easily - and it perhaps would be helped along by the existence of a valid HSC card :)

bbbppc
02-07-2011, 4:28 PM
Im not necessarily against the test being required, (I think we have a lot bigger fish to fry in Ca right now). I am however against them charging for it. They could ask the same questions on the dros form and give you a pamphlet free.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 4:28 PM
The HSC requirement was passed by the legislature.

As it stands, it is likely that such minimal standards will meet the Heller=>McDonald 'reasonable regulation' test. It's not worth much of our time fighting this in CA - I and many others folks I think would rather seen resources expended to kill the Roster, kill AW laws, fix CCW, etc.

It's also not politically useful to us to fight this relative triviality - its existence may even politically stop worse laws from enactment, given CA's state budget & staffing issues - "No, that's already regulated" - and give political cover to wavering legislators to not support it, nor a governor not to sign future worse bills in the general subject area.

Now, if the HSC expired and that were to trigger loss of gun rights - then THAT would NOT pass constitutional muster. As it stands, HSC only is required on new acquisition of *handguns* and not continued possession or use of guns (handguns or other guns).

Also, if the HSC questions were to requir knowlege of such abstruse details that only a small fraction of the population could pass the test, and/or required a live shooting demo w/'sniper grade' accuracy, that too would also fail to pass muster. [Such tests would cross the threshold into the equivalent of discriminatory-in-intent 'poll tax' or 'poll literacy testing' used in the South during Segregation.]

While a civil right can't be taxed, the threshold for gun stuff involving 'reasonable regulation' may well tolerate basic minimal fees that reflect the cost of handling paperwork, with pricing being similar to that for other governmental operations requiring about the same level of detail/work. $20ish or less for such matters will probably pass muster - $100 and up will smell real bad, as would any related per-gun fees or CCW fees.

I agree with this in regards to political strategy!! From what i have seen and heard is that it has been said that in order to borrow a hand gun, touch a handgun thats not yours or rent a handgun you must have an HSC.

If i already own handguns legally purchased using my HSC then arent my rights lets say skewed. Did the government expect me to only own my pistols for 5 years?

The test is nothing its how they re tax you, and theoretically i should have to renew my HSC in order to continue owning my pistols. To me that would pass more SCOTUS muster than a 5 year permit to buy, rent ,borrow.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 4:31 PM
OH!! I should mention i am speaking now with an expired card.

bwiese
02-07-2011, 4:34 PM
I agree with this in regards to political strategy!! From what i have seen and heard is that it has been said that in order to borrow a hand gun, touch a handgun thats not yours or rent a handgun you must have an HSC.

If i already own handguns legally purchased using my HSC then arent my rights lets say skewed. Did the government expect me to only own my pistols for 5 years?

The test is nothing its how they re tax you, and theoretically i should have to renew my HSC in order to continue owning my pistols. To me that would pass more SCOTUS muster than a 5 year permit to buy, rent ,borrow.

The $25 fee over 5 years (i.e, $5/yr) won't pass the 'smell test' for revocation or as grossly intrusive.

Nobody sane in the gun rights community is gonna waste time fighting it.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 4:40 PM
The $25 fee over 5 years (i.e, $5/yr) won't pass the 'smell test' for revocation or as grossly intrusive.

Nobody sane in the gun rights community is gonna waste time fighting it.


I dont expect anyone to fight it, it is a small fish, I personally would like to see it as a one time safety test much like Hunter safety. If we have to have it. JMO

johnny_22
02-07-2011, 4:42 PM
Too much trouble to get rid of.

I do wonder how all these girlfriends pass this test to buy their ex-con boyfriends their guns. The test is hard enough to keep a non-experienced person from passing it.

mdimeo
02-07-2011, 4:58 PM
I have no problems with the HSC. I used to think the HSC was a bad thing. But I have reconsidered. It may actually prevent someone who is retarded or severely mentally disabled from buying a gun.

The price irritates me. It's not enough to change my behavior, but $25 or so can be a big expense for some people, maybe enough to chill a first purchase decision, which is a tragedy.

I don't mind taking the test, and agree that anyone who can't pass it is probably not a good candidate for handgun ownership. A better compromise would be a test you could either take for free every time you purchase, or pay a fee to take the same test and get a card to avoid retesting.

Anyone here work at an FFL and can tell us how often people fail?

devilinblack
02-07-2011, 5:28 PM
Do you seriously think that SCOTUS would rule the HSC unconstitutional? really?

Not in my wildest dreams. However that does not mean I have to like it and parrot the "Oh that's a good idea, Boss" line.

NotEnufGarage
02-07-2011, 5:40 PM
Im not necessarily against the test being required, (I think we have a lot bigger fish to fry in Ca right now). I am however against them charging for it. They could ask the same questions on the dros form and give you a pamphlet free.

Tests for voting have been ruled unconstitutional. There's never been a test for free speech. Why should we have to pass a test to exercise our 2nd Amendment Rights?

Dutch3
02-07-2011, 5:50 PM
"Talking to Children about Guns
Children are naturally curious about things they don’t know about or think are “forbidden.” When a child asks questions or begins to act out “gun play,” you may want to address his or her curiosity by answering the questions as honestly and openly as possible. This will remove the mystery and reduce the natural curiosity.

I would certainly answer the questions of my children as honestly and openly as possible, but I would never want to reduce their natural curiosity.

Natural curiosity is what enables kids to grow up and become non-idiots.

chris12
02-07-2011, 5:51 PM
IMO the HSC is unconstitutional, but also not worth the resources to fight. Hopefully we can get to the place where we have most/all of our rights back and we could go after it. I'd much rather see people donating that $25 to NRA/SAF/CGF then paying for the HSA.

N6ATF
02-07-2011, 5:51 PM
The $25 fee over 5 years (i.e, $5/yr) won't pass the 'smell test' for revocation or as grossly intrusive.

Doesn't mean it's based on what it actually costs. It is at least 25x as expensive as it actually is, in order to tax the poor out of their rights. Money that could have been spent buying a holster, proper ammo, or range time goes to the HSC infringement tax. It should be reduced to nothing just like the DROS infringement tax. :mad:

GOEX FFF
02-07-2011, 5:57 PM
When we bought my finance her 9mm XD subcompact (her first gun), she read the book for 5min and scored 100%.

While in a local store, I grabbed the HSC booklet so my wife could get her first one. On the way home, she wanted to take the self test with out reading the book and only missed the campsite question, changing her original answer from the right one due to a tad confusion in the wording to her. But in my eyes she scored 100% too.

In fact if you can't get 100% without studying, I'm a little scared to go shooting with you.

Seriously??? :fud:

My Wife can properly handle a firearm and out shoot a lot of guys I've seen.....and that's all while wearing her 5" heels at the range.
Because she missed a campsite question, that would make you "scared"? :rolleyes:
A little knee-jerking there, dontcha think?

CSDGuy
02-07-2011, 6:05 PM
The HSC might not pass strict scrutiny evaluation, but the cost to litigate this might just be too expensive for such a small benefit. On the other hand, it could be almost considered to be akin to a poll tax where one can vote in one kind of public election and have to pay a tax to vote in another kind of public election. The analogy is long guns vs handguns as a person can possess a long gun without having to have the HSC while one must have the HSC (or exemption to it) in order to possess a handgun.

harbinger007
02-07-2011, 6:06 PM
Am I correct in remembering that a CCW holder no longer needs a HSC?

If so, hopefully CCWs will become easy enough for everyone to obtain in the not to distant future that the HSC fee will be a mute point. I haven't filed my HSC yet but have been meaning to get around to it since I got my CCW a couple of months ago.

GOEX FFF
02-07-2011, 6:10 PM
Am I correct in remembering that a CCW holder no longer needs a HSC?

If so, hopefully CCWs will become easy enough for everyone to obtain in the not to distant future that the HSC fee will be a mute point. I haven't filed my HSC yet but have been meaning to get around to it since I got my CCW a couple of months ago.

Someone will chime in about the CCW. But if you have an 03 FFL + COE you're exempt from the HSC requirement.

OBEY PROPAGANDA
02-07-2011, 6:17 PM
if you have taken the test you will know that it is a formality... it is illegal... and it does not provide any safety.

the gun you will purchase after passing the test is a necessity, it is legal, protected, and will offer you a much greater level of defense than your hands.. but not your brain and your feet.

CSDGuy
02-07-2011, 6:25 PM
Someone will chime in about the CCW. But if you have an 03 FFL + COE you're exempt from the HSC requirement.
If the CCW is valid, it's an exemption. If you have an 03 FFL and COE, you're exempt if you're acquiring a C&R handgun...
If you have PC 832 Firearms training, that's also an exemption, as (apparently) is having been issued a BSIS Handgun Permit.

N6ATF
02-07-2011, 6:27 PM
If the CCW is valid, it's an exemption. If you have an 03 FFL and COE, you're exempt if you're acquiring a C&R handgun...
If you have PC 832 Firearms training, that's also an exemption, as (apparently) is having been issued a BSIS Handgun Permit.

But you have to print out the CADOJ list of exemptions to get some FFLs to admit that they actually are.

gunsmith
02-07-2011, 6:28 PM
You are truly misguided!! Take this into account. There are tens of thousands of people who suffer dyslexia. Now what do you say? There are thousands with reading disabilities in this country and these people dont lack the common sense issues related to firearms safety. Are you going to tell people they cant have a pistol to protect themselves because of a disability?

Yup, a young neighbor ( well, 30 miles away is neighbor round here ) has mild autism and has been raised with guns and is remarkably gifted when it comes to skeet.
I would trust him with any weapon but could he pass that stupid CA HSC? No way!
In fact I think it discriminates against disabled & I was living in CA when they were implementing it iirc the racist CA gov't refuse to provide the book in all the various languages they provide for the voting guides and ballots.

HSC - racist and discriminates, but what do you expect from fascist progressives?

What ever happened to unalienable rights? if you don't need a test to write a letter to the editor you don't need one for any "Arms"

Are there people that I don't want to be able to buy a gun? Yup, but freedom isn't safe.
If you are worried about your security I hear that North Korea is very safe, disabled people may not own guns over there.

safewaysecurity
02-07-2011, 6:28 PM
I believe you have a point about a writing requirement.

But it can certainly be argued that the government has an interest in causing gun purchasers to pass some minimum training before walking out the door. However misguided they implement this, the interest is still there. I'm not sure why you think "prevent negligent use of firearms" won't pass rational basis.

The test is not training. What is the interest supposed to accomplish. They have to demonstrate it's a legitimate interest for rational basis. The test does not "prevent negligent use of firearms" it's simply a feel good test formed by politicians trying to make a name for themselves by saying they have passed sensible gun control.

luvtolean
02-07-2011, 6:31 PM
The state requiring safety training and the authoring of that training will pass constitutionality challenges as long as it isn't unduly burdensome. Just because you don't like something gun-related doesn't make it automatically unconstitutional.

Of course, that's pure conjecture since NOBODY is going to spend money or clout trying to push to get the HSC struck down.

This. We might lose the HSC, but "regulated" does certainly seem to say they have the right for basics like the HSC.

No, I don't find it insulting either. It's a 10min/$25 annoyance that I really have no idea if it helps...but the paper cut on my finger annoys me more than this stupid thing.



And, interesting sig zhyla...all of which, are American dreams!

Not much for their lyrics, but they sure can rock...

Funtimes
02-07-2011, 6:32 PM
... we are our own worst enemies.
We all agree the test is basic and many children could pass w/o studying the guide.
but apparently some of us want the government, who's so good at running things like the USPS, Welfare, managing debt, Social Security, etc., to tell us who can and can't have a gun.

I think we can all agree that we should know how to safely operate our own guns, but I for one don't want the government mandating it, taxing it or having anything else to do with my personal business.

What ever happened to personal accountability? Did teachers in school let you guys get away with not doing your homework, or turning it in on time?

Give an inch and the Government will figure out how to tax you for two and tell you when and how you can use them.

Gun Control=NOTHING GOOD
People who murder people by negligence or malice should both be punished.


What we must accept is that "reasonable regulations" wil stand. Sometimes it may be in our best interest to give a little, and design what is reasonable. If we allow the 'anti' to develop the reasonable standard, we will certainly feel it is not reasonable.

For people who want to talk about nothing is reasonable for a right, good luck with that argument in court -- it won't hold.

The right to free speech has some of the most stringent tests possible. Consider that a person has to dvelop to an age where they could talk, comprehend, and understand what speech, text, laws, and regulations are. I would wager that is a extreme amount of time before you could "voice your opinion". I don't think that these tests or regulations will be found to violate the law; if you believe that way, please send a check on over to Hawaii, where you are required to pass a course instructed by a NRA certified instructor (or a hunter safety class) in order to purchase a handgun.

GrizzlyGuy
02-07-2011, 6:36 PM
Yes it's insulting, unconstitutional, and a hassle. Since it won't be going away any time soon, I focused on doing something about the hassle factor: I convinced my NRA-certified wife to send her form into DOJ and now she can give me the test. :p

Of course if I happen to miss a question the next time I have to take it, I'll have just made things much worse for myself on the insulting front: she'll never let me forget it. :o

uyoga
02-07-2011, 6:38 PM
The fact is . . . that the HSC could be perceived as a "license" to purchase a handgun.

No HSC = no handgun purchase from a deler.

Handgun possession = a fundamental right.

We now need a permit to exercise the fundamental right of possessing a handgun?

dantodd
02-07-2011, 6:40 PM
The hsc is not a license to purchase. You also need one to rent or borrow a gun.

Hopalong
02-07-2011, 6:40 PM
It's a TAX. The Test is stupid. Anyone with a Hunter Safety Card should be able to get 100%. So why is not a Hunter Safety Card an exemption?

My TAX is due again in March:mad:

I hope I haven't lost my ability to pass the test, since last time.:(
I agree, it is a TAX.

Hey, buckaroo, you wear a flat hat?

Funtimes
02-07-2011, 6:42 PM
The fact is . . . that the HSC could be perceived as a "license" to purchase a handgun.

No HSC = no handgun purchase from a deler.

Handgun possession = a fundamental right.

We now need a permit to exercise the fundamental right of possessing a handgun?

Yes you need a permit to excercise a fundamental right. That was even conceeded in Heller. It is essentially conceeded in McDonald 2.

Cite to the contrary please; I would love for nothing but handgun confiscation lists, err, registrations list to go away -- right along with the permits to aquire.

I just don't feel there is sufficient legal standing or enough voting power to make it happen.

I am unsure on the Tax argument, and that is a whole different field of law of when a fee is a tax, or a 'tax' is a fee, what is reasonable for the administration of a program etc. We would probably think that there are waivers for income, if not, well you would need money for an attorney. It's kind of a endless cycle of bs. Unless you go the criminal defense route get arrested, plead NG, win/lose, appeal and get a ruling on the states dime.

Californio
02-07-2011, 7:07 PM
I agree, it is a TAX.

Hey, buckaroo, you wear a flat hat?

Only during Fiesta Week

Resistol XXX Beaver, Hi Sierra, the other 51.

Fjold
02-07-2011, 7:10 PM
I have no problems with the HSC. I used to think the HSC was a bad thing. But I have reconsidered. It may actually prevent someone who is retarded or severely mentally disabled from buying a gun.

Yep, I had to get my CCW so that I was exempt from the HSC (X-41) because the test was to hard.

otteray
02-07-2011, 7:19 PM
Stupid waste of my money.
I passed this Simple Simon test before and now I have to take the same damn thing again and pay 25 more bucks.
Hey, Kamila, how 'bout a gun purchase discount coupon if we passed it with flying colors? And a deeper discount for every time passed thereafter...

drclark
02-07-2011, 8:48 PM
If the HSC is a valid "reasonable restriction" on the constitutional right to own a handgun, then a VCT (Voter Competency Test) ought to be equally valid. More damage is done to our society by under-educated voters than any violent acts committed by gun bearing criminals... just look at the scandals in Bell.

VCT ought to be a 50 question test that covers the powers and limitations of the three branches of the federal and state governments. Definitions and effects of taxes and bonds, etc..... Ought to be a requirement of voter registration and expire every 5 years.

drc

DVSmith
02-07-2011, 11:26 PM
If the HSC is a valid "reasonable restriction" on the constitutional right to own a handgun, then a VCT (Voter Competency Test) ought to be equally valid. More damage is done to our society by under-educated voters than any violent acts committed by gun bearing criminals... just look at the scandals in Bell.

VCT ought to be a 50 question test that covers the powers and limitations of the three branches of the federal and state governments. Definitions and effects of taxes and bonds, etc..... Ought to be a requirement of voter registration and expire every 5 years.

drc

You could improve the electorate (in my opinion, I will admit) just by rejecting all voter registration forms in California that are not properly filled out. As it is, county registrars go to superhuman lengths to register people that can not follow simple instructions.

Gray Peterson
02-07-2011, 11:45 PM
We do not have the legal ability at this point to challenge HSC's.

sawchain
02-08-2011, 12:13 AM
Why do former members of the military, honorably discharged, have to take this damn test?

IntoForever
02-08-2011, 12:27 AM
You could improve the electorate (in my opinion, I will admit) just by rejecting all voter registration forms in California that are not properly filled out. As it is, county registrars go to superhuman lengths to register people that can not follow simple instructions.

They want libs to vote!

I know a couple of people who had problems with that test, two failed. I make sure to not shoot with them. Some times you just want to weed out the idiots. I missed one question because I was laughing so hard at the test and just marked the wrong choice. :kest:

darksands
02-08-2011, 1:40 AM
Don't think of it as a test to own a handgun, think of it as a test to see if you have any common sense. If you understand that guns can be dangerous and you shouldn't point it at anything you don't want to kill or destroy, the test should be easy. First time taking it should be free... anytime after that you pay. Also, you don't need one to purchase a long gun so it's not infringing your right to bear arms...

vincnet11
02-08-2011, 2:22 AM
The hsc is not a license to purchase. You also need one to rent or borrow a gun.

HSC is like a license because: You need a license to buy a car(and a gun), borrow a car(and a gun), and rent a car(and a gun). :D

HSC is not like a license because you aren't required by law to renew it in order to possess/operate a firearm that you already own.(unlike a car)

In a way, an HSC partially a license.

masameet
02-08-2011, 2:44 AM
According to the author of SB 52 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_52_cfa_20010920_140201_sen_floor.html), which made the HSC requirement contingent on passing the written, 4-option choice test, the intent of the HSC test was to educate potential gun owners as to safe handgun handling. And according to the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=120), education (aka voluntary training) has over the years decreased the incidence of firearms accidents substantially. Here are the statistics it cites:
Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to motor vehicles (37%), poisoning (22%), falls (17%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.5%), medical mistakes (1.7%), environmental factors (1.3%), and pedal cycles (0.7%). Among children: motor vehicles (41%), suffocation (21%), drowning (15%), fires (8%), pedal cycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (1.9%), environmental factors (1.5%), firearms (1.1%) and medical mistakes (1%)

Capt_Communist
02-08-2011, 7:30 AM
Why do former members of the military, honorably discharged, have to take this damn test?

because the day we ETS we are no longer safe, and instantly forget everything we ever did in the military.

Librarian
02-08-2011, 9:19 AM
Why do former members of the military, honorably discharged, have to take this damn test?

Well, aside from the silliness of anyone having to take the test, there's no particular reason to presume every prior-service person to have had current firearms training.

I'd say it's probably reasonable for Marines - the Corps' "every marine a rifleman" goal seems pretty well established. Likely the Army infantrymen would be OK.

But then you come to the Air Force. I like the Air Force: I was ANG, my dad was career Air Force. I know I never fired a pistol for the Air Force; M16 in basic, and I think re-qual 2x in the remaining 5 years I was in - it wasn't annual. My dad might have, in WW2 training, but I know he didn't ever mention even annual handgun qualification while I was around. If you fix radios or airplanes or trucks for a living, you might pull guard duty once in a while, but firearms are not a big part of your duty assignment.

Navy? I suspect they might have a bit more firearms experience than Air Force - they at least go places out of port - but I don't know about them.

longhairchris
02-08-2011, 9:19 AM
I think the HSC program should have an exemption for BFSC card holders (basic firearms safety certificate)! I paid $25 for that stupid thing, which was supposed to be valid FOR LIFE, then they pulled the rug out from under us and said it's not valid anymore, pay us again. @#$%^&*! I want a refund!

I think it's a tax. I don't mind taking a test or performing a "safe handling demonstration" but I do mind forking over money to exercise my constitutional rights.

DROS is bad enough, they already admit that they take too much money for that. How about they take that pile of money and make HSC free? We all know it doesn't cost that much for booklets, forms and cards.

Nessal
02-08-2011, 9:57 AM
good rant...

Who cares though...


IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.

I guess good job actually reading the book, because i'd say most people don't



Should they have a test for you to excercise your first amendment rights as well? Slippery slope.

dantodd
02-08-2011, 10:07 AM
HSC is like a license because: You need a license to buy a car(and a gun), borrow a car(and a gun), and rent a car(and a gun). :D


None of the things you list legally require a driver's license. The only time you need a driver's license is when you are operating a motor vehicle on public roads. Not to purchase, not to borrow, and not to rent (I suspect most/all rental agencies have such a requirement, though I can think of one that might not as they specialize in renting to the disabled.)

dantodd
02-08-2011, 10:10 AM
While some level of "gun license" might pass muster I doubt the "test" portion would. There is no other enumerated right as far as I know that require one to prove competency in order to exercise that right.

magsnubby
02-08-2011, 10:28 AM
... we are our own worst enemies.

Truer words were never spoken. It not only applies to this thread but the 2A in general. There's so much in fighting amongst the different factions of gun owners it's damn right scary.

If all gun owners would stick together and join the NRA (doesn't make any difference if you agree with all their politics or not it's the one pro-gun organization the politicians fear) we wouldn't have ignorant gun laws like the safe handgun list, HSC, etc.

Deucer
02-08-2011, 10:41 AM
I used my HSC to talk my way into a couple of bars after forgetting my driver's license at work for the weekend. That was probably worth the $25.

Fate
02-08-2011, 11:32 AM
... we are our own worst enemies.
We all agree the test is basic and many children could pass w/o studying the guide.
but apparently some of us want the government, who's so good at running things like the USPS, Welfare, managing debt, Social Security, etc., to tell us who can and can't have a gun.

I think we can all agree that we should know how to safely operate our own guns, but I for one don't want the government mandating it, taxing it or having anything else to do with my personal business.

What ever happened to personal accountability? Did teachers in school let you guys get away with not doing your homework, or turning it in on time?

Give an inch and the Government will figure out how to tax you for two and tell you when and how you can use them.

Gun Control=NOTHING GOOD
People who murder people by negligence or malice should both be punished.

:iagree: There is nothing acceptable about this unconstitutional TAX on exercising an enumerated individual right.

IntoForever
02-09-2011, 12:21 PM
Wait, what??? Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to motor vehicles (37%), poisoning (22%), falls (17%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.5%), medical mistakes (1.7%), environmental factors (1.3%), and pedal cycles (0.7%). Among children: motor vehicles (41%), suffocation (21%), drowning (15%), fires (8%), pedal cycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (1.9%), environmental factors (1.5%), firearms (1.1%) and medical mistakes (1%)

What pot head wrote this?:confused::confused::confused:

I like to think of the HSC kind of like an IQ test, you fail = we are safer. Takes some of the sting out of the slow erosion of the 2A.

CHS
02-09-2011, 1:49 PM
A question to all of you who are defending the HSC:

Why should I need to get a new one every 5 years if I want to keep purchasing guns, even if I already own a dozen handguns?

Crom
02-09-2011, 2:33 PM
I used my HSC to talk my way into a couple of bars after forgetting my driver's license at work for the weekend. That was probably worth the $25.

:rofl: ^Very funny.

A question to all of you who are defending the HSC:

Why should I need to get a new one every 5 years if I want to keep purchasing guns, even if I already own a dozen handguns?

I'll play. If shooting skills are perishable (and they are), then so are gun safety handling skills. Also, owning guns doesn't imply that someone actually uses them, they could be a collector.

ar15robert
02-09-2011, 2:44 PM
Wish they would have made it lifetime.I had to buy one in 95-96 and it was to be good for life then they changed it again later on.Made mine no good anymore.

IMO its more about how to make some extra money for the state.They figure every 5 years gun owners may buy another gun and can hit them for 25 bucks more.

The test then was really easy and i do agree if you fail you shouldnt own a gun

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 2:45 PM
The HSC tests neither shooting skills nor gun safety handling skills. It tests your ability to use a writing implement and pay the piper.

Brickman
02-09-2011, 2:53 PM
Sounds more like you are complaining about the free study guide instead of the HSC test. You are under no obligation to ever read the study guide for any reason, including when taking the HSC.

Also, if you can't pass the HSC test you aren't responsible enough to handle a hand gun IMO. I don't have a problem with this requirement. In fact if you can't get 100% without studying, I'm a little scared to go shooting with you.

+1 to this. The HSC isn't difficult and I agree that mandatory hand gun education is a good thing. OP sounds like my daughter arguing why she shouldn't have to eat her vegetables at dinner.

Although I am confident many people 'already know how to use guns' blah blah, I'm happy that Joe Schmoe who has never owned a gun before and is thinking about getting a semi-automatic pistol and coming to MY range to shoot will learn to NOT keep his finger on the trigger while waving the damn thing around. I'm sure if you were being serious, you'd agree.

CHS
02-09-2011, 2:59 PM
Also, owning guns doesn't imply that someone actually uses them, they could be a collector.

If gun ownership is a fundamental right, why should a collector who will not actually be using his guns be required to undergo a written safety test that only concerns itself with SHOOTING guns?

+1 to this. The HSC isn't difficult and I agree that mandatory hand gun education is a good thing. OP sounds like my daughter arguing why she shouldn't have to eat her vegetables at dinner.

Fundamental rights, anyone? Or are you all just too used to California's way of doing things?

loose_electron
02-09-2011, 3:01 PM
An old saying or two:

Choose your battles wisely.
Its possible to lose the fight and yet win the war.

This is not a battle worth fighting.
If you are complaining about it being a "tax" - well its a
negligible one so deal with it.

Or can't you afford the $1300 for that custom 1911, or that
totally tricked out AR-15??? A paltry $20-50 every 5 years
would be noise IMHO. Quit you whining...

CHS
02-09-2011, 3:04 PM
An old saying or two:

Choose your battles wisely.
Its possible to lose the fight and yet win the war.

This is not a battle worth fighting.
If you are complaining about it being a "tax" - well its a
negligible one so deal with it.

Or can't you afford the $1300 for that custom 1911, or that
totally tricked out AR-15??? A paltry $20-50 every 5 years
would be noise IMHO. Quit you whining...

So you're not concerned about the erosion of rights at all? The whole slippery slope argument?

Remember when there wasn't any sort of requirement at all? Then remember later when you had to get a BFSC and the law said it never expired? Then remember the HSC which said "we lied about that whole BFSC thing, now you have to get one every 5 years".?

So what next? At what point will you no longer find this kind of erosion no longer acceptable?

Crom
02-09-2011, 3:09 PM
If gun ownership is a fundamental right, why should a collector who will not actually be using his guns be required to undergo a written safety test that only concerns itself with SHOOTING guns?

Fundamental rights, anyone? Or are you all just too used to California's way of doing things?

I agree that it's a fundamental right. But you can't ignore that the state has an interest in protecting the public from the misuse and abuse of firearms. The HSC exam is a small bar to pass to get to the right. I just don't see it as a problem. I do have a problem with the cost. It should be nominal and no more than $5.00.

I agree that carry is part of that fundamental right. However, I don't think that people have a right to carry using a horizontal shoulder holsters in public. If we ever get carry, maybe our nanny state will ban them. :shrug:

NotEnufGarage
02-09-2011, 3:17 PM
+1 to this. The HSC isn't difficult and I agree that mandatory hand gun education is a good thing. OP sounds like my daughter arguing why she shouldn't have to eat her vegetables at dinner.



Not having to eat vegetables is not an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.

I agree it's not difficult. I agree, it's probably a good idea for a lot of people. Since there is not cost to the state to administer it, why is there a fee associated with it? If they cared about safety, they'd just make the test mandatory and issue the card for no fee, or perhaps the $.50 it costs to print up the blank card.

NotEnufGarage
02-09-2011, 3:19 PM
An old saying or two:

Choose your battles wisely.
Its possible to lose the fight and yet win the war.

This is not a battle worth fighting.
If you are complaining about it being a "tax" - well its a
negligible one so deal with it.

Or can't you afford the $1300 for that custom 1911, or that
totally tricked out AR-15??? A paltry $20-50 every 5 years
would be noise IMHO. Quit you whining...


If you can afford that $50 taxi ride to the polling place, surely you can afford the $10 poll tax and the test on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is something anybody who wants to vote should be able to pass easily.

Uriah02
02-09-2011, 3:23 PM
The primary reason to oppose the HSC would only be under the purist form of "uninfringed" in which to get those kind of rules/legislation passed one would have to be in a free state. Then again if one was in a free state the HSC, nor any other permit to buy a handgun, there would be no requirement. That being said, this is about PRK rules. HSC is by far a minor annoyance (if even that much) compared to what the requirements would become if it was to match that of NY or Ill, states which are in the same class of restriction.

BoxesOfLiberty
02-09-2011, 3:24 PM
OH!! I should mention i am speaking now with an expired card.

My BFSC never expires ...

dustoff31
02-09-2011, 3:35 PM
The HSC is nothing more than a way to discourage the general populace from purchasing handguns, and to periodically bilk $25.00 out of those who insist on buying them.

It has nothing to do with safety.

Brickman
02-09-2011, 3:38 PM
A question to all of you who are defending the HSC:

Why should I need to get a new one every 5 years if I want to keep purchasing guns, even if I already own a dozen handguns?

Because the law wasn't tailored to you and your situation. It was written to cover a broader group of people. Chances are that most people do not own dozens of handguns. Many are buying their first handgun. Not all, but many.

To everyone arguing against the HSC, I understand your points about it being another tax, technically being an infringement of our rights.

But not every citizen should have a gun because they can. If you can't demonstrate basic knowledge of and competency with a handgun you should not own one. Constitutional arguments aside, and just between you and I as fellow citizens, do you really want people owning handguns who don't know how to handle them? That's irresponsible. You can live next door to those people if you want to.

taperxz
02-09-2011, 3:56 PM
Because the law wasn't tailored to you and your situation. It was written to cover a broader group of people. Chances are that most people do not own dozens of handguns. Many are buying their first handgun. Not all, but many.

To everyone arguing against the HSC, I understand your points about it being another tax, technically being an infringement of our rights.

But not every citizen should have a gun because they can. If you can't demonstrate basic knowledge of and competency with a handgun you should not own one. Constitutional arguments aside, and just between you and I as fellow citizens, do you really want people owning handguns who don't know how to handle them? That's irresponsible. You can live next door to those people if you want to.


They already do! A test and a $25 fee is not going to fix that.

Are you going sit on your keyboard and tell me that the test you take to get a handgun is going to make you safer or more proficient? Well, i guess you'll have a balanced feeling with $25 less dollars in your wallet:rolleyes:

CHS
02-09-2011, 4:00 PM
I agree that it's a fundamental right. But you can't ignore that the state has an interest in protecting the public from the misuse and abuse of firearms.


Numbers of accidents before and after mandatory HSC?

If the state has an interest, then they damn well better be able to back that up with hard factual data that the HSC has actually made life in CA safer. Can they? Can you?

More importantly and back to the fundamental rights aspect: If it's against the law to enact poll taxes and tests to exercise the 1st amendment, why is it ok to require the same for the 2nd?

CHS
02-09-2011, 4:00 PM
My BFSC never expires ...

Too bad you can't use it to buy a handgun today.

BoxesOfLiberty
02-09-2011, 4:06 PM
... We might lose the HSC, but "regulated" does certainly seem to say they have the right for basics like the HSC.
...

"Regulated" most certainly does not grant any such power to the State.

I think you are misunderstanding the language of the era in which the Bill of Rights was written. Just as the term "keep and bear arms" was commonly understood at the time as having nothing to do with Bears, the terms "militia" and "well-regulated" also had somewhat different commonly understood meanings.

The term "well regulated" was in common usage at the time of the drafting and its plain meaning was, "practiced", "proficient", and "capable". It clearly did not mean "subjected to arbitrary and capricious regulation".

Clearly, the entire Bill of Rights was drafted to place minimal necessary restraints on the power of the State, not to empower it to regulate or infringe upon the rights of sovereign citizens, so any other conclusion about the intent of the Second Amendment would be quite bizarre in context. The intent of the Bill of Rights as a whole is summarized clearly in the Preamble as follows:

...
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
...

Some References:

If you have time for a little more reading, I highly recommend reading the actual text of majority opinion of the US Supreme Court in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf). Scalia's exploration of the language of the Amendment is quite scholarly and quite interesting as well.

Additionally, while I'll admit it is not an unbiased source, there is a nice summary of the language used in the Second Amendment at: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html. This is a faster read.

androu
02-09-2011, 4:14 PM
It's clearly an infringment on our 2A rights. It does nothing to make anyone safer, it's a tax and a way to make gun ownership a little bit more of a hassle. Glad I'm exempt but it still irks me.

gunsmith
02-09-2011, 4:44 PM
I now live in NV, my young neighbor has plenty of guns and would never ever be able to pass the HSC due to his learning disability.

I am glad he can not be denied his God given rights due to laws written by folks who do not know anything about guns and admire and implement the same laws the National Socialist German Workers Party did.

The D's who founded the KKK probably would approve of CA legislature.

However, I would bet that making CA shall issue you do away with a lot of the unnecessary red tape the KKK oop's I mean D's make CA gunnies go through

masameet
02-09-2011, 5:34 PM
Wait, what???

Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to ... firearms (1.1%)

What pot head wrote this?:confused::confused::confused: ....

Ha-ha! Good catch.

Somebody please tell the NRA-ILA to clean up its stats!

kln5
02-09-2011, 5:42 PM
I would feel a lot better if it was more like the old days with the hunters safety course. That is much better than the HSC test they give you. You should be able to pass the HSC test no problem. At least we learned something in the hunters safety class that was useful.

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 5:42 PM
This is not a battle worth fighting.
If you are complaining about it being a "tax" - well its a
negligible one so deal with it.

Yeah, just DEAL WITH IT, poor people... DEAL WITH ALL THE INFRINGEMENT TAXES DESIGNED TO STRIP YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS! :rolleyes:

creekside
02-09-2011, 6:11 PM
There's another way if you don't want to get an HSC. Get a guard card and a firearms permit from the Bureau of Security & Investigative Services (BSIS). http://www.bsis.ca.gov/

Twenty-two hours of training and ~$300 to ~$450 poorer, you will hold an HSC exemption that some dealers don't know how to look up. You will also get to requalify twice a year and pay fees again every two years.

The HSC is the first step to imposing this kind of requirement on everyone.

Particular and Limited Authority Peace Officers
Exemption Code: X91; Authorizing PC Section: 12807(a)(11)

The following persons who have completed a P.O.S.T approved regular course in firearms
training:
1. Patrol special police officers appointed by the police commission of any city or
county
2. Animal control officers or zookeepers
3. Harbor police officers
and . . .
The following persons who have a certificate issued by the Department of Consumer
Affairs pursuant to Section 12033 PC:
4. Guards of messengers of common carriers, banks and other financial institutions.
5. Guards of contact carriers operating armored vehicles
6. Private investigators and private patrol operators licensed pursuant to Chapter 11.5
of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code
7. Alarm company operators licensed pursuant to Chapter 11.6 of Division 3 of the
Business and Professions Code
8. Uniformed security guards or night watch persons

NotEnufGarage
02-09-2011, 6:19 PM
Numbers of accidents before and after mandatory HSC?

If the state has an interest, then they damn well better be able to back that up with hard factual data that the HSC has actually made life in CA safer. Can they? Can you?

More importantly and back to the fundamental rights aspect: If it's against the law to enact poll taxes and tests to exercise the 1st amendment, why is it ok to require the same for the 2nd?

Amen, brother, Amen!

luvtolean
02-09-2011, 7:19 PM
"Regulated" most certainly does not grant any such power to the State.

I think you are misunderstanding the language of the era in which the Bill of Rights was written. .

:rolleyes: No.

I'm interpreting it differently than you.

Not to mention, if you were to apply the Pareto principle to gun laws, it's totally meaningless. The HSC has a minimal effect on my rights compared to the multitude of egregious laws on the books. It's just not worth even considering compared to mag restrictions, AW bans, CCW, Safe Handgun rosters, school/"gun-free" zones and other things conspiring to make me a felon if I miss a padlock on a case, the 1 handgun a month, the threat of ammo bans etc etc.

Resources are always limited. This is not a fight worth starting or caring about.

Please, do not attribute my disagreeing with you to ignorance on my part. Thanks.

itr1275
02-09-2011, 9:45 PM
Doesn't anybody wonder why Bill "fast gun" Lockyer is the "expert" that created the study guide?

I bet he has never even shot a gun. Would by a auto repair manual written by a politician?

BoxesOfLiberty
02-10-2011, 4:55 AM
Too bad you can't use it to buy a handgun today.

But I FEEL safer with the periodic tax than I did with the one-time fee. Don't you?

rugershooter
02-12-2011, 12:07 AM
Don't think of it as a test to own a handgun, think of it as a test to see if you have any common sense. If you understand that guns can be dangerous and you shouldn't point it at anything you don't want to kill or destroy, the test should be easy. First time taking it should be free... anytime after that you pay. Also, you don't need one to purchase a long gun so it's not infringing your right to bear arms...

Are you really that stupid? No HSC=no handgun. Get it? That means it's a test to own a handgun. It's a permit. Whether or not you agree with it or think it's worth the time and effort to get rid of it, recognize it for what it is. And why do you say it's not infringing on my right to bear arms just because it doesn't restrict long arms? Sorry, but that's just BS. The state is telling me that if I don't get the HSC then I can't buy a handgun. How is that not an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms? That's like saying that I have the right to free speech but have to get a permit to exercise that right on a cell phone but not a landline and therefore it's not an infringement of my right since I can still use the landline without a permit.

rugershooter
02-12-2011, 12:20 AM
Because the law wasn't tailored to you and your situation. It was written to cover a broader group of people. Chances are that most people do not own dozens of handguns. Many are buying their first handgun. Not all, but many.

To everyone arguing against the HSC, I understand your points about it being another tax, technically being an infringement of our rights.

But not every citizen should have a gun because they can. If you can't demonstrate basic knowledge of and competency with a handgun you should not own one. Constitutional arguments aside, and just between you and I as fellow citizens, do you really want people owning handguns who don't know how to handle them? That's irresponsible. You can live next door to those people if you want to.

Are you being sarcastic? I sure hope so because that's same type of BS argument I hear from the Bradys and other antis. Freedom has risks. Deal with it. Once you have to prove that you're competent and able to exercise your rights- any rights- those rights are no longer recognized as rights. It's considered a privilege...don't pay the tax, meet the arbitrary standards then your privilege gets taken away.
Maybe we should have a requirement that you can demonstrate basic knowledge of important national and local issues before being allowed to vote...

thedrickel
02-12-2011, 11:32 AM
Wait, what???

What pot head wrote this?:confused::confused::confused:

I like to think of the HSC kind of like an IQ test, you fail = we are safer. Takes some of the sting out of the slow erosion of the 2A.

Ha-ha! Good catch.

Somebody please tell the NRA-ILA to clean up its stats!

The first statistic is OVERALL and the second is "among children." POTHEADS!

wildhawker
02-12-2011, 12:32 PM
Has anyone considered what a HSC might look like were one created to withstand strict scrutiny and be empirically supportable as advancing a compelling government interest?

I think people are grossly overlooking the unintended consequences of challenging the HSC program.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 1:12 PM
IMO having an HSC test is a good thing simply because it takes away to ability for a retard to get a gun... if you can't pass the test you need to consider re-attending kindergarten.
That's funny, because on one hand, most people do feel that if you have the ability to remember to breath, you will pass the test.

OTOH, there was a thread posted about a year ago about people who passed their first time, and believe it or not, there were a LOT of Calgunners who didn't pass until their 2nd time, and quite a few that needed a 3rd+ try.

CSDGuy
02-12-2011, 1:13 PM
Or if you take a PC832 course, you'll be out less $$$ than the BSIS permits and you can use the X81 exemption.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 1:18 PM
Frankly, I like the HSC. It is quick, easy and give the anti's something to chew on. The alternative could be much worse. My mom lives in New York and has been trying to get a license to purchase a handgun for almost a year. Yes, just to purchase one. She called last August for a time to go fill out the paperwork and the first appointment was in January. So, it could be soooo much worse.
Exactly, it COULD be much, much worse, and with Harris in the AG's office, it wouldn't take much more than a stroke of the pen to change the HSC requirements so that the LGS needs to send your completed test to the DOJ for "grading", and then a 6 week wait for a drivers' license holographic photo style ID to be issued.

From there it wouldn't be much of a stretch to require that we go to our local PD to take the test (have to prevent the gun shop from "cheating" for friends!).

And from there, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to require that a valid HSC be carried by any person in possession of a handgun.... effectively making it a license, that we MUST renew every 3-5 years, rather than simply needing to have one when we buy a new gun.

Every one of these steps could be completed in less than 6 months if Harris were to decide that she wanted to do so.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 1:20 PM
Or if you take a PC832 course, you'll be out less $$$ than the BSIS permits and you can use the X81 exemption.
03FFL ($33/3 years) plus CaDOJ COE ($22/year).
Total initial cost is about $150, but the 03+COE also grants an HSC exemption.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 1:22 PM
My TAX is due again in March:mad:
Your "tax" is not due unless or until you want to purchase or borrow a handgun.

You do not have to maintain your HSC to possess and use the guns that you own.

CSDGuy
02-12-2011, 3:59 PM
03FFL ($33/3 years) plus CaDOJ COE ($22/year).
Total initial cost is about $150, but the 03+COE also grants an HSC exemption.
True... however you'd have to keep renewing to keep the exemption. Absent a change in the law, the PC 832 exemption doesn't expire. Assuming I live to 72, my average cost per year is about $6.00. Someone who gets it at 21 only averages about $5/year, assuming they live to 72, and the cost being a total of $260.

hawk81
02-12-2011, 4:49 PM
This is correct, you can not charge someone to exercise their right, it is illegal.

Numbers of accidents before and after mandatory HSC?

If the state has an interest, then they damn well better be able to back that up with hard factual data that the HSC has actually made life in CA safer. Can they? Can you?

More importantly and back to the fundamental rights aspect: If it's against the law to enact poll taxes and tests to exercise the 1st amendment, why is it ok to require the same for the 2nd?

Fastattack
02-12-2011, 5:02 PM
Safety has nothing to do with the test. It is simple harassment.
Why do you need to retake it every year? Why do they no longer accept a DD-214 as proof enough you know how to handle a gun? And for pete sake, why, if you already own a gun do you need to show it to buy another? Like I said, just more incremental harassment.

CSDGuy
02-12-2011, 5:33 PM
Safety has nothing to do with the test. It is simple harassment.
Why do you need to retake it every year? Why do they no longer accept a DD-214 as proof enough you know how to handle a gun? And for pete sake, why, if you already own a gun do you need to show it to buy another? Like I said, just more incremental harassment.
Having a DD-214 doesn't in and of itself mean you know how to shoot. You might have qualified at one time with a rifle, but pistol is another qualification. Personally, I think that a DD-214 with a pistol qualification noted on it should suffice, same as a decades-old PC 832 certificate. Then again, the BFSC should have been valid for life... Sure, the BFSC is still valid, it's just not valid for anything anymore.

Oh, and I like your A4 Avatar...

dantodd
02-12-2011, 6:07 PM
This is correct, you can not charge someone to exercise their right, it is illegal.

Really? Can you point me to any law saying this? The only one I am aware of is the 24th amendment whish applies only to poll tax.

Sent via tapatalk on my Samsung Vibrant.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 7:12 PM
True... however you'd have to keep renewing to keep the exemption. Absent a change in the law, the PC 832 exemption doesn't expire. Assuming I live to 72, my average cost per year is about $6.00. Someone who gets it at 21 only averages about $5/year, assuming they live to 72, and the cost being a total of $260.
And what does the $25 HSC average out to?

$5/year ;)

IOTW: Unless or until it becomes a requirement to have in order to own a gun, and unless or until it moves from a "pass fail" graded by the FFL to a "permit" style document...
...it's something that is not YET worth going after in court. There are other more pressing RTKBA issues that are far more worthy of the investment, and as they fall one by one, issues like this may fall by the wayside with them.
The HSC may or may not be "low hanging fruit", but when we have HiCap, CCW, AWB, 10 day wait, 1 every 30, etc.... HSC is a minor inconvenience.

Cokebottle
02-12-2011, 7:18 PM
Why do you need to retake it every year?
You don't.

It's good for 5 years.
Why do they no longer accept a DD-214 as proof enough you know how to handle a gun?
They still do IF your DD214 indicates firearms training.
And for pete sake, why, if you already own a gun do you need to show it to buy another? Like I said, just more incremental harassment.
Agreed.
I already own 35 handguns. How is a 10 day "cooling off period" going to stop me from committing a crime?

And FWIW, that particular aspect of the 10 day waiting period is very high on the CGF's "to do" list. They are fully expecting that very soon, the 10 day wait will be eliminated for anyone already showing a handgun registered to them.

Ding126
02-12-2011, 7:22 PM
There are much bigger fish to fry..Like AWB, Magazine limit & CCW..When there is nothing left to overturn then it's HSC time

CSDGuy
02-12-2011, 7:25 PM
And what does the $25 HSC average out to?

$5/year ;)

IOTW: Unless or until it becomes a requirement to have in order to own a gun, and unless or until it moves from a "pass fail" graded by the FFL to a "permit" style document...
...it's something that is not YET worth going after in court. There are other more pressing RTKBA issues that are far more worthy of the investment, and as they fall one by one, issues like this may fall by the wayside with them.
The HSC may or may not be "low hanging fruit", but when we have HiCap, CCW, AWB, 10 day wait, 1 every 30, etc.... HSC is a minor inconvenience.
I would much rather go after the other issues before going after the HSC. In a way it is a requirement to purchase a handgun, at least it's not required to own the things... if that ever happens, that's when it needs to be taken down. Hopefully, it never does...