PDA

View Full Version : AB 2498 to require backgroud checks to get TRAINING


jwissick
04-02-2008, 4:57 PM
Imagine a waiting period before you can take a safety class...... Well, here it comes!



California AB 2498


This bill would require certain private organizations offering firearms training to obtain proof, prior to providing the training, that a person seeking to obtain the training is eligible to possess a firearm, as specified. This bill would exempt certain properly identified persons from having to show proof that they are eligible to possess a firearm, as specified.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2498_bill_20080325_amended_asm_v98.html

RRangel
04-02-2008, 4:59 PM
Another bill that needs to be fought hard. You can expect nothing less from victim disarmers.

G17GUY
04-02-2008, 5:18 PM
:mad:

LAK Supply
04-02-2008, 5:25 PM
CA has lost it. Goodbye BS......

KenpoProfessor
04-02-2008, 5:26 PM
BILL NUMBER: AB 2498 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 25, 2008

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Saldana

FEBRUARY 21, 2008

An act to amend Section 11460 add Article
9 (commencing with Section 12820) to Chapter 6 of Title 2 of Part 4
of the Penal Code, relating to paramilitary
activities. private firearms training organizations.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 2498, as amended, Saldana. Prevention of crimes:
paramilitary activities. Firearms training:
eligibility to possess firearms.
Existing law regulates who may lawfully possess a firearm.

This bill would require certain private organizations offering
firearms training to obtain proof, prior to providing the training,
that a person seeking to obtain the training is eligible to possess a
firearm, as specified. This bill would exempt certain properly
identified persons from having to show proof that they are eligible
to possess a firearm, as specified.
Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year or a fine of not more than
$1,000, or both, for 2 or more persons to assemble as a paramilitary
organization, as defined, for the purpose of practicing with weapons.

Existing law also provides the same punishment for any person who
teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or
making of any firearms, explosive, or destructive device, as defined,
or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing
or having reason to know or intending that these objects or
techniques will be unlawfully employed for use in or in the
furtherance of a civil disorder, and for any person who assembles
with other persons for the purpose of training or practicing with or
being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or destructive
device, or technique causing injury or death to persons with the
intent to cause or further a civil disorder.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes in these
provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Article 9 (commencing with Section
12820) is added to Chapter 6 of Title 2 of Part 4 of the
Penal Code , to read:

Article 9. Private Firearms Training Organizations


12820. (a) Any organization that teaches firearms training,
firearms tactical training, or security tactical training shall
require proof that any individual obtaining the training is eligible
to possess a firearm. Proof that a person is eligible to possess a
firearm shall include either of the following:
(1) A copy of a firearms eligibility check issued by the
Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12077.5, provided that the
document was obtained within three months prior to obtaining the
training.
(2) A valid certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of
Justice pursuant to Section 12071.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Firearms training conducted pursuant to Section 7585 to
7585.20, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code.
(2) Firearms training required to obtain a handgun safety
certificate as defined in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12800)
of Title 2 of Part 4.
(3) Firearms training conducted pursuant to Section 832.
(4) Firearms training conducted by the United States Military or
the California National Guard.
(c) The following persons, properly identified, are exempted from
providing proof of firearms eligibility prior to obtaining the
training:
(1) Any active or honorably retired peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.
(2) Any active or honorably retired federal officer or law
enforcement agent.
(3) Any reserve peace officer, as defined in Section 832.6.
(4) Any person who has successfully completed the course of
training specified in Section 832.
(5) Any individual who has a valid concealed weapons permit issued
pursuant to Section 12050.
(6) An active, or honorably retired member of the United States
Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, the active
reserve components of the United States, where individuals in those
organizations are properly identified. For purposes of this
paragraph, proper identification includes the Armed Forces
Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that
the individual is an active or honorably retired member.
(7) Any person who is authorized to carry loaded firearms pursuant
to subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 12031.
(8) Persons who are the holders of a special weapons permit issued
by the department pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, or 12305.

(9) A person who is listed with the Department of Justice pursuant
to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11106 as being the
registered owner of a handgun and who uses that handgun provided that
the person was registered with the Department of Justice within six
months prior to obtaining the training.
SECTION 1. Section 11460 of the Penal Code is
amended to read:
11460. (a) Any two or more persons who assemble as a paramilitary
organization for the purpose of practicing with weapons shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year
or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by
both that fine and imprisonment.
As used in this subdivision, "paramilitary organization" means an
organization which is not an agency of the United States government
or of the State of California, or which is not a private school
meeting the requirements set forth in Section 48222 of the Education
Code, but which engages in instruction or training in guerrilla
warfare or sabotage, or which, as an organization, engages in rioting
or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with,
school activities.
(b) (1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or
destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death
to any persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that
these objects or techniques will be unlawfully employed for use in,
or in the furtherance of a civil disorder, or any person who
assembles with one or more other persons for the purpose of training
with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm,
explosive, or destructive device, or technique capable of causing
injury or death to any persons, with the intent to cause or further a
civil disorder, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Nothing in this subdivision shall make unlawful any act of any
peace officer or a member of the military forces of this state or of
the United States, performed in the lawful course of his or her
official duties.
(2) As used in this section:
(A) "Civil disorder" means any disturbance involving acts of
violence which cause an immediate danger of or results in damage or
injury to the property or person of any other individual.
(B) "Destructive device" has the same meaning as in Section 12301.

(C) "Explosive" has the same meaning as in Section 12000 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(D) "Firearm" means any device designed to be used as a weapon, or
which may readily be converted to a weapon, from which is expelled a
projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of
combustion, or the frame or receiver of this weapon.
(E) "Peace officer" means any peace officer or other officer
having the powers of arrest of a peace officer, specified in Chapter
4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.

Man, they are killin' you guys.

Seems the stuff that was lined out in the original isn't in the C & P.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Josh3239
04-02-2008, 5:26 PM
Do these politicians really have nothing better to do with their time? How about testing for politicians, things like citizenship tests or maybe a constitution test.

M. Sage
04-02-2008, 5:35 PM
Do these politicians really have nothing better to do with their time? How about testing for politicians, things like citizenship tests or maybe a constitution test.

IQ test should take care of it... Just set the "fail" threshold at 99.

aileron
04-02-2008, 5:37 PM
So,


AB 2498, as amended, Saldana. Prevention of crimes:
paramilitary activities. Firearms training:
eligibility to possess firearms.

When exactly has this been a problem? Is this prior restraint? You have to be eligible for training???? What right is it, if you have to be eligible?

Sp3k
04-02-2008, 5:42 PM
Thats a great idea, lets make it harder for people to get proper training. The last thing we need is more responsible gun owners learning how to use their firearms correctly. =/

chris
04-02-2008, 5:43 PM
Do these politicians really have nothing better to do with their time? How about testing for politicians, things like citizenship tests or maybe a constitution test.

no they don't. this is their time stripping away the rights of American citizens. i believe the hangman needs pratice!

bwiese
04-02-2008, 6:08 PM
This just means a trainer will require something like a COE.

It will not apply to the trainee.

If we have to take a bad bill, better this than the ammo bill.

AngelDecoys
04-02-2008, 6:17 PM
I believe its a background check for those who teach (not take) courses. The idea is to keep those who have been banned from obtaining a firearm access to one in a training setting. Like such a person is going to be teaching at a range anyway. :rolleyes:

As one who is certified to teach, and one who regularly does so this is a nightmare. The pool of volunteers willing to go through that kind of harassment will reduce the numbers of instructors for most ranges around the state. If that includes hunter safety instructors this will have a huge effect on hunting long term in CA. Let alone those who wish to take such courses (but find they are unavailable) because there aren't instructors.

Got to fight hard on this one.

Shotgun Man
04-02-2008, 6:31 PM
I believe its a background check for those who teach (not take) courses. The idea is to keep those who have been banned from obtaining a firearm access to one in a training setting. Like such a person is going to be teaching at a range anyway. :rolleyes:


Where do you and bweise get that interpretation?

"12820. (a) Any organization that teaches firearms training,
firearms tactical training, or security tactical training shall
require proof that any individual obtaining the training is eligible
to possess a firearm. "

The trainer shall require proof that the trainee is eligible to possess a firearm.

What will they think of next?

USN CHIEF
04-02-2008, 6:36 PM
Who exactly comes up with this crap? How will the community benefit from this crap?

bulgron
04-02-2008, 6:48 PM
Who exactly comes up with this crap? How will the community benefit from this crap?

I keep getting the image of some sub-sentient politician clapping with glee and giggling at all the pro-constitution Californians he/she is jerking around with this stuff.

They really are serious jerks. Is this just a bunch of San Francisco liberals being all pissy because they're getting term-limited out?

packnrat
04-02-2008, 6:49 PM
what and who is " properly identified persons"

sounds like a anti freedom speak.

another we can, but you can not.:eek:


:TFH:


.

KenpoProfessor
04-02-2008, 6:51 PM
This just means a trainer will require something like a COE.

It will not apply to the trainee.

If we have to take a bad bill, better this than the ammo bill.


Sniff, Sniff, what's that I smell? Oh, it's compromise.:eek:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

AngelDecoys
04-02-2008, 7:00 PM
Where do you and bweise get that interpretation?........... The trainer shall require proof that the trainee is eligible to possess a firearm.


Just figured that if the trainee needed a backgound check, then the instructor would also be required to as well. Nice to know felons who are instructing get a pass. Actually, I guess the felons teaching the non-felons is a good safeguard. :rolleyes:

What's the penalty for not obtaining a background check (from students) anyway? I don't see me having the time to check such a thing. :rolleyes:

hawk1
04-02-2008, 7:01 PM
Where do you and bweise get that interpretation?

"12820. (a) Any organization that teaches firearms training,
firearms tactical training, or security tactical training shall
require proof that any individual obtaining the training is eligible
to possess a firearm. "

The trainer shall require proof that the trainee is eligible to possess a firearm.

What will they think of next?

I don't see where it says it's for those offering it.

12820. (a) Any organization that teaches firearms training,
firearms tactical training, or security tactical training shall
require proof that any individual obtaining the training is eligible
to possess a firearm. Proof that a person is eligible to possess a
firearm shall include either of the following:
(1) A copy of a firearms eligibility check issued by the
Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12077.5, provided that the
document was obtained within three months prior to obtaining not giving the
training.

The thought of taking the lessor of two evils needs to stop as well. :mad:

Bad Voodoo
04-02-2008, 7:10 PM
Sniff, Sniff, what's that I smell? Oh, it's compromise.:eek:

Yep, exactly how we got here in the first place.

bulgron
04-02-2008, 7:10 PM
Sniff, Sniff, what's that I smell? Oh, it's compromise.:eek:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Just out of curiosity, isn't running away to Arizona because of California's bad gun laws one giant compromise?

kap
04-02-2008, 7:13 PM
Sounds like our representatives in California are trying to kill anything related to the firearms by regulating them to death.

Californio
04-02-2008, 7:17 PM
I read each trainee will have to be qualified eligible.

So if your gun club offers a free firearms initiation day to college students using NRA Certified Instructors, will all the students have to be vetted.

They do learn, some for the first time, how to operate several types of handguns, and that is training.

I don't see where "certain private organizations" is defined.

HELP

"This bill would require certain private organizations offering
firearms training to obtain proof, prior to providing the training,
that a person seeking to obtain the training is eligible to possess a
firearm, as specified. This bill would exempt certain properly
identified persons from having to show proof that they are eligible
to possess a firearm, as specified. "

Shotgun Man
04-02-2008, 7:26 PM
I don't see where "certain private organizations" is defined.

HELP

"This bill would require certain private organizations offering
firearms training to obtain proof, prior to providing the training,
that a person seeking to obtain the training is eligible to possess a
firearm, as specified. This bill would exempt certain properly
identified persons from having to show proof that they are eligible
to possess a firearm, as specified. "

Yeah, under existing law, you can show up the shooting range, sportclay, trap or skeet, or any other firearm range, and hook up with the pro and get some shooting tips. This law would forbid that absent a background check.

The instructors are independent operators usually. They don't have the resources to conduct background checks.

What a waste of time and resources.

bigdave1121
04-02-2008, 7:26 PM
Another attempt by all the termed-out politicians to get back at us for voting no on Prop 93. I'm sure that RINO Arnold won't hesitate to sign this into law either.

Decoligny
04-02-2008, 7:31 PM
(c) The following persons, properly identified, are exempted from providing proof of firearms eligibility prior to obtaining the training:

(6) An active, or honorably retired member of the United States Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, the active reserve components of the United States, where individuals in those organizations are properly identified. For purposes of this paragraph, proper identification includes the Armed Forces Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that the individual is an active or honorably retired member.


As a retired military member, I think this is stupid. If I were to be convicted of a Felony, I would not lose my status as an honorably retired member. I would still possess the same I.D. Card that I possess now.

So this bill would allow a convicted Felon who happens to be retired military to get the training that another non-criminal would have to get special documentation to prove he was eligible.

Definitely STOOPID bill.

Californio
04-02-2008, 7:32 PM
The NRA should be all over this, is not their platform, Education and Training", to encourage new members to the sport.

I don't get the "Certain Private Organizations", are non-profits going to be exempt?

Experimentalist
04-02-2008, 7:49 PM
I'll say up front that the implementation is far from perfect. However...

I've taken a number of classes at a school in Nevada. I have to pay a fee every 12 months for a background check. Honestly, I don't mind. I don't want the bad guys to get hands-on training. More importantly, whatever filters can be used to ensure that I'm not sharing a hot range with a dirt bag are very much appreciated.

I've spoken with the instructors at the school, and several of them will recount occasions when they quite literally escorted students off of the range because they had gang tattoos, or otherwise were identified as gang members.

I'm willing to entertain counter-arguements, but at first glance this looks like a good idea. The fee I pay isn't large (around 60 bucks I think, good for the year). It helps the shooting community show that we are responsible.

nhanson
04-02-2008, 7:59 PM
How about the neat end run on the constitution and "militia"...remember militia is not state or federal formation but, "the People"..if more than two people gather as militia training it would be illegal!..take your son or daughter out to train them and now your arrested for an illegal training session/gathering!...Seems this little bugger may fly in the face of our constitutional right to gather, keep and bear firearms, invasion of privacy and I'm sure there is a lot more is damage possible to our constitutional rights. I know, the socialists don't care about the constitution and will try anything to bring it down.

Anyway, this seems to be a real DANGER and I don't think is should be blown off as just an attempt to regulate training. It clearly is focused at the trainee and not the trainer!

Shotgun Man
04-02-2008, 8:01 PM
I'll say up front that the implementation is far from perfect. However...

I've taken a number of classes at a school in Nevada. I have to pay a fee every 12 months for a background check. Honestly, I don't mind. I don't want the bad guys to get hands-on training. More importantly, whatever filters can be used to ensure that I'm not sharing a hot range with a dirt bag are very much appreciated.

I've spoken with the instructors at the school, and several of them will recount occasions when they quite literally escorted students off of the range because they had gang tattoos, or otherwise were identified as gang members.

I'm willing to entertain counter-arguements, but at first glance this looks like a good idea. The fee I pay isn't large (around 60 bucks I think, good for the year). It helps the shooting community show that we are responsible.

How are they identified as gang members? By tattoos? That sounds suspect already.

I think making the so-called gang member sign an oath that he's permitted to possess firearms should alleviate any societal concern.

Additionally, you can refuse service to anyone if you think he is a gang member. That is your private right.

Pred@tor
04-02-2008, 8:11 PM
Why is it there must be elite classes among gun owners in CA? Cops and military are among the elite and trusted. While we mere peons are are all "dumb and incompetent" in their eyes. Some of us can out shoot the other two groups I mentioned. California for ya... Stupid politicians what will they conjure up next?

I like what they say about paramilitary training...

"Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year or a fine of not more than
$1,000, or both, for 2 or more persons to assemble as a paramilitary
organization, as defined, for the purpose of practicing with weapons."

Don't we all assemble and shoot our guns to go practice shooting? Running into problems while shooting like jams and what not. I guess I will have to look up the penal code for paramilitary training.... I guess if you want to wear camo whether civilian or ex military you're in trouble? I gotta research this part more I guess.

AngelDecoys
04-02-2008, 8:13 PM
I've taken a number of classes at a school in Nevada.

I agree, I don't like the idea of bad guys getting 'advanced' training. How many felons actually get training? I doubt many if at all. In large part the proposed law effects primarily local ranges, and volunteers who teach 'basic safety,' 'CCW' courses, 'basic gun handling' and a few higher level types of classes. Most do not teach tactics, or M16. And the majority of which are FREE.

That's a bit different than a professional school like Front Sight (If you're refering to Naish). The level of training is arguably better than what law enforcement receives, and most who attend already have some basic knowledge. Courses are expensive, and liability/reputation is an issue with FS. I imagine many professional schools do something similar.

hawk1
04-02-2008, 8:23 PM
Just out of curiosity, isn't running away to Arizona because of California's bad gun laws one giant compromise?

I don't think so. It's a step in the right direction. What do you call bending over and taking it in the rear on one so you don't have to do it on another? Foreplay? :rolleyes:

Experimentalist
04-02-2008, 8:24 PM
How are they identified as gang members? By tattoos? That sounds suspect already.



Just last weekend I identified a member of a white supremacist group by the tattoos she wore. I could be wrong, but that style is pretty distinctive.

Go to Google Images, and search on "Gang tattoos". You'll see what I mean.

gunrun45
04-02-2008, 8:25 PM
Wow... Just wow...

fairfaxjim
04-02-2008, 8:25 PM
I agree, I don't like the idea of bad guys getting 'advanced' training. How many felons actually get training? I doubt many if at all. In large part the proposed law effects primarily local ranges, and volunteers who teach 'basic safety,' 'CCW' courses, 'basic gun handling' and a few higher level types of classes. Most do not teach tactics, or M16. And the majority of which are FREE.

That's a bit different than a professional school like Front Sight (If you're refering to Naish). The level of training is arguably better than what law enforcement receives, and most who attend already have some basic knowledge. Courses are expensive, and liability/reputation is an issue with FS. I imagine many professional schools do something similar.

Too late, the military has a big problem with gang bangers in uniform now. They get training and then go back to the hood and pass it on to their homies.

AngelDecoys
04-02-2008, 8:30 PM
gunrun45 = Post 666.

Right between a post on gang bangers, and one on white supremacists. VERY NICE

fairfaxjim
04-02-2008, 8:33 PM
gunrun45 = Post 666.

Right between a post on gang bangers, and one on white supremacists. VERY NICE

Tin foil feeling a little tight? :TFH:

Wulf
04-02-2008, 8:35 PM
I think its a great bill. It just needs one little amendment.

Something along the lines of "The Chief Law Enforcement officer in the jurisdiction of the person intending to take training shall issue documentation consistent with 12820(c)(5) to any person not prohibited from owning a firearm. "

Shotgun Man
04-02-2008, 8:37 PM
Just last weekend I identified a member of a white supremacist group by the tattoos she wore. I could be wrong, but that style is pretty distinctive.

Go to Google Images, and search on "Gang tattoos". You'll see what I mean.


It could be-- just imagine-- that she is a former white supremacist. Currently, she's into rehabilitating abused kittens and firearms.

Pred@tor
04-02-2008, 8:42 PM
More proving to our masters that we now how to use and operate a gun? This bill is horrible. The only people who buy guns are folks that know how to use them safely rare does no gun person just run out and buy a gun. I have heard of liberals buying guns and leaving it in the closet without knowing much or even practicing it. Just more hassle for us to own a gun. Its bad enough we must get background checks, fill out a 4474 form, and waiting to get the gun we want. I thought it was a right.... Felons? They will always get their hands on guns! If an individual shouldn't have one or be trusted with one. DEAD OR LOCKED UP! Simple as that why must we the people who tend to obey law abiding suffer?

AngelDecoys
04-02-2008, 8:44 PM
Tin foil feeling a little tight? :TFH:

I'm not really into tin foil but sometimes when my wife is out of town......
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/bouwerieboy/catInTinfoil.jpg

A sign for you.
http://thunderlounge.com/files/2007/09/tfha.gif

KenpoProfessor
04-02-2008, 9:02 PM
More proving to our masters that we now how to use and operate a gun? This bill is horrible. The only people who buy guns are folks that know how to use them safely rare does no gun person just run out and buy a gun. I have heard of liberals buying guns and leaving it in the closet without knowing much or even practicing it. Just more hassle for us to own a gun. Its bad enough we must get background checks, fill out a 4474 form, and waiting to get the gun we want. I thought it was a right.... Felons? They will always get their hands on guns! If an individual shouldn't have one or be trusted with one. DEAD OR LOCKED UP! Simple as that why must we the people who tend to obey law abiding suffer?


Just look on Youtube for all the idiots that have and buy guns and have no idea of the 4 rules. Should be obvious but sadly, that's not the case.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Draven
04-02-2008, 9:24 PM
So basically, it means me getting an NRA pistol and rifle instructor certification is useless unless the range I'm hiring myself out to can run a background check on my students....

mike100
04-02-2008, 9:32 PM
After thinking about what this bill's purpose is, I think it has to do with eroding gun range related commerce and the spreading of the gun culture. Make it harder to offer gun and range training/ reduce revenues related to it.

AfricanHunter
04-02-2008, 9:39 PM
Anyone know when this will be up for a vote?

Here is the page to send comments to the Assembly Public Safety Committee regarding this bill;

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

Wonder where that goes to?

yellowfin
04-02-2008, 11:10 PM
Exactly when will we draw a line in the sand at this stuff? When is "No" going to get to "No means no! We said no, and don't ask again!" ?

CWM4A1
04-02-2008, 11:45 PM
Well, this is a fine piece of crap. Forget about the tacticool pistol and rifle training that we enjoy, this POS effectively killed scout shooting merit badge program. There's no way your boys and girls are eligible to pocess a firearm at their age. Oh would you please think of the children...

AngelDecoys
04-03-2008, 6:29 AM
.....I think it has to do with eroding gun range related commerce and the spreading of the gun culture. Make it harder to offer gun and range training/ reduce revenues related to it.

Exactly their intent.
Storefront for FFL = less FFL's.
No lead for hunting = less hunters.
License on ammo = less shooters.
Test for handguns = less handguns.

Just wait until you need to take a course every 5 years for buying a handgun or ammo. They only need to change the law so that a class is required to take the handgun test (and attach it into an ammo license). How 'bout dem' apples!

Californio
04-03-2008, 8:03 AM
Like all laws nowadays it is overly broad and open ended. I have no problem with advanced Tac and Sec training being regulated BUT Basic firearms training should not be. Basic operation of firearms, training enhances Public Safety. I would like to shoot Trap better, if I pay for some lessons, that is training.


I think this is the new Anti mindset. You can Keep firearms but you cannot Bear them or Train with them or buy Ammo for them unless WE say so.

Which defeats the whole concept of Keep.



"12820. (a) Any organization that teaches firearms training,
firearms tactical training, or security tactical training shall
require proof that any individual obtaining the training is eligible
to possess a firearm. Proof that a person is eligible to possess a
firearm shall include either of the following:"

gmcal
04-03-2008, 12:16 PM
I don't think so. It's a step in the right direction. What do you call bending over and taking it in the rear on one so you don't have to do it on another? Foreplay? :rolleyes:

I agree. In general, gun owners that follow the laws have a high employment rate and make above average incomes. If the state continues to pass draconian gun laws and drive off more gun owners, they will feel the pinch when those tax dollars are no longer coming in.

gmcal
04-03-2008, 12:27 PM
Too late, the military has a big problem with gang bangers in uniform now. They get training and then go back to the hood and pass it on to their homies.


There was an incident in Ceres where an active duty Marine, who was either a gang member or associated with known gang members (I don't remember which) used a SKS to kill one officer and seriously wound 1 or 2 more. The criminal was killed by police in a shootout later and was determined he was high on cocaine.

gmcal
04-03-2008, 12:31 PM
Back on topic....

I find it rediculous to require backround checks for training. Many of these instructors are either current or former military/LE and their judgement on who to train should be trusted.

CSDGuy
04-03-2008, 12:45 PM
The way I read the bill is that the STUDENT is the one that has to get the background check done. In effect, this bill requires that the STUDENT do the PFEC with the DoJ and have those results available, or have a CoE, Now then, if that student successfully completes PC 832, then that student is EXEMPT from the bill... they just have to show that they've completed PC 832. Other "common" exceptions to being required to have a background check done are highlighted by me below.

(c) The following persons, properly identified, are exempted from
providing proof of firearms eligibility prior to obtaining the
training:
(1) Any active or honorably retired peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.
(2) Any active or honorably retired federal officer or law
enforcement agent.
(3) Any reserve peace officer, as defined in Section 832.6.
(4) Any person who has successfully completed the course of
training specified in Section 832.
(5) Any individual who has a valid concealed weapons permit issued
pursuant to Section 12050.
(6) An active, or honorably retired member of the United States
Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, the active
reserve components of the United States, where individuals in those
organizations are properly identified. For purposes of this
paragraph, proper identification includes the Armed Forces
Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that
the individual is an active or honorably retired member.
(7) Any person who is authorized to carry loaded firearms pursuant
to subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 12031.
(8) Persons who are the holders of a special weapons permit issued
by the department pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, or 12305.

dustoff31
04-03-2008, 1:24 PM
The way I read the bill is that the STUDENT is the one that has to get the background check done. In effect, this bill requires that the STUDENT do the PFEC with the DoJ and have those results available, or have a CoE,


I tend to agree with you. I don't question the anti-gun aspect of this bill, but I also see it is also a revenue boosting bill. COEs aren't exactly cheap.

yellowfin
04-03-2008, 1:41 PM
"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

G60
04-03-2008, 2:43 PM
Exactly when will we draw a line in the sand at this stuff? When is "No" going to get to "No means no! We said no, and don't ask again!" ?

honestly, i don't think many people would have the courage to 'draw the line'.

the line should have been drawn long ago...but what has anybody done about it?

Ceemack
04-03-2008, 3:01 PM
The People's Commissar who came up with this idea probably thought it would be a way to combat escalating gang violence by preventing many gang members from taking firearms training.

Like most members of the People's Commissariat up in Sacramoscow, this person can't think past her own nose. The unintended consequence would be to make it harder for EVERYBODY to get training, because most training providers don't currently have the capability of doing this, and can't get it in a cost-effective manner.

Naturally, implementing proven gang-control measures that don't adversely affect law-abiding citizens--like aggressively prosecuting any convicted felon found in possession of a firearm, or deporting any criminal illegal aliens as soon as their sentence is complete--is not something this Saldana knucklehead would ever contemplate.

AngelDecoys
04-03-2008, 3:06 PM
The way I read the bill is that the STUDENT is the one that has to get the background check done. In effect, this bill requires that the STUDENT do the PFEC with the DoJ and have those results available, or have a CoE, Now then, if that student successfully completes PC 832, then that student is EXEMPT from the bill... they just have to show that they've completed PC 832. Other "common" exceptions to being required to have a background check done are highlighted by me below.

Yup. With secondary training like for a CCW, tactics, or a Pricision Rifle course, I can almost see the logic. However, we can all guess how the first time shooter will be with this background check. Buy your first handgun, shotgun, or rifle and seek a 'basic safety' training course. I'm sure there will be that many moe people rushing to fill out the paperwork so they can be safe.

Is Hunter Safety considered training? I imagine there will be some kids and adults who will not appreciate having to do this either. Or will hunter safety and kids be exempt?

CSDGuy
04-03-2008, 3:58 PM
The Hunter Safety training would probably end up being exempted or considered as such because it's not necessarily firearms training but rather safety training. Requiring hunters to go through some sort of a background check prior to taking the hunter's safety class would pretty much guarantee that this bill dies.

AngelDecoys
04-03-2008, 4:10 PM
The Hunter Safety training would probably end up being exempted or considered as such because it's not necessarily firearms training but rather safety training. Requiring hunters to go through some sort of a background check prior to taking the hunter's safety class would pretty much guarantee that this bill dies.

Lets hope so with regards to hunter safety. Talked with my Assembymen (R) today about the odds of the bill going somewhere. He said it was too early to tell but he doesn't see any sense to it either. I asked about 'basic safety training' courses as also exempt, and he thought that would be a good amendment 'if it comes down to that.'

Ford8N
04-03-2008, 5:50 PM
"(b) (1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm,..."


I wonder how this will affect the AK build parties going on in the state.

Shotgun Man
04-03-2008, 6:05 PM
"(b) (1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm,..."


I wonder how this will affect the AK build parties going on in the state.


Hopefully, not at all. The (b)(1) bill forbids firearm instruction knowing the student intends to use the firearm illegally.

Don't get me wrong-- the entire bill is POS, like some legislator just wiped her hind end and produced the toilet paper and proclaimed here is my great idea!

"(b) (1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or
destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death
to any persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that
these objects or techniques will be unlawfully employed for use in,
or in the furtherance of a civil disorder, or any person who [..]"

ETA: Did you guys know you can't use the word "a-s-s" here on Calguns? The software changes it to "***." Guess I won't be posting about my donkey!

mecam
04-03-2008, 7:22 PM
I can just see a bill in the future requiring local ranges to do a background check on people before they can shoot their guns.

tyrist
04-03-2008, 10:05 PM
Look at the bright side. Atleast they are showing that it's not the gun it's th eperson behind the gun that is deadly.............

something like that anyway.

robitrocks
04-04-2008, 7:58 AM
Anyone know when this will be up for a vote?

Here is the page to send comments to the Assembly Public Safety Committee regarding this bill;

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

Wonder where that goes to?

Thanks. I sent them nice "comment". I don't think gun training of any type should be regulated. It should be regulated privately within the industry. It has nothing to do with not giving access to firearms training to criminals. In prison they train how to kill cops every day. They are already intimately familiar with police tactics, and it's been that way for a very long time. This bill is just another example of the California legislature getting their grubby hands into our lives.
Sounds like it time to contact our representatives.

hawk1
04-04-2008, 9:01 AM
This just means a trainer will require something like a COE.

It will not apply to the trainee.

If we have to take a bad bill, better this than the ammo bill.

Bill any reply about the wording aimed at the student?...:confused:

Pred@tor
04-04-2008, 11:04 AM
Just look on Youtube for all the idiots that have and buy guns and have no idea of the 4 rules. Should be obvious but sadly, that's not the case.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde



You're right there are a lot of idiots out there with guns its just when the government requires it and the has the power to regulate it theres potential for abuse. I don't go shooting with dangerous foolish hoodlums. I do not like guns pointed at me either... I agree though there must be more education among young and older people and firearms. Not just fear and propaganda how they are only bad bad bad. Like we see all the time the demonizing. A friend and I discussed this very issue over the phone and yes there should be more training and empathesis on gun safety.

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 12:40 PM
Just out of curiosity, isn't running away to Arizona because of California's bad gun laws one giant compromise?

Yep, I compromised, won't even argue.

If you haven't noticed, your gun days of fun are coming to an end in CA, gun bills, ammo bills, training with guns bill, when does it stop? Will it stop?

So yea I compromised. Call me yellow all day long while I shoot my happy toys with almost no infringement . ;)

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

KenpoProfessor
04-04-2008, 12:47 PM
You're right there are a lot of idiots out there with guns its just when the government requires it and the has the power to regulate it theres potential for abuse. I don't go shooting with dangerous foolish hoodlums. I do not like guns pointed at me either... I agree though there must be more education among young and older people and firearms. Not just fear and propaganda how they are only bad bad bad. Like we see all the time the demonizing. A friend and I discussed this very issue over the phone and yes there should be more training and empathesis on gun safety.


I believe they should have a firearms class as an electable class in Jr. High and High School. Kids should be taught the value and dangers of firearms at a young age, just as they were many years ago.

If you, or your parents elect not to take these classes, you should never have to, that would be a personal choice. Should those people who elected not to have those classes, then they must take them when they choose to own a firearm in the future.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

bulgron
04-04-2008, 12:47 PM
Yep, I compromised, won't even argue.

If you haven't noticed, your gun days of fun are coming to an end in CA, gun bills, ammo bills, training with guns bill, when does it stop? Will it stop?

So yea I compromised. Call me yellow all day long while I shoot my happy toys with almost no infringement . ;)


Call me a hopeless optimist, but I believe the tide will soon turn for gun owners in this state, thanks to Heller. A lot of the nonsense we're seeing right now should go away once we get a good opinion out of SCOTUS.

Anyway, I have to be an optimist .... my wife won't let me move to Arizona. :D

But I also have to be a realist, and if that sometimes means compromising on some non-critical things so as to move the ball in the right direction, then so be it.

Not all of us have the option of running away, you know.

eta34
04-04-2008, 12:51 PM
Here we go again with the "running away" argument. It is so tired. Kenpo, much like everyone else, places priorities on things in his life. For him, owning, shooting, and carrying firearms with little restriction is a high priority in his life. He clearly values it more than the other great things in CA. What is your problem with that?

I am still not ready to leave. I love my church, my kids' school, my job. I love being 2 hours away from the beach or snow on any given day. I like that I can ride my quad out of my driveway and 1/4 up the road and ride all day with no hassle. At this time, I am willing to stay and hope things change. In addition, I will stay and try to help make things change.

So Kenpo is a coward for leaving? How so? I would like you to compare your 2a resume to his and see who wins.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 1:01 PM
So Kenpo is a coward for leaving? How so? I would like you to compare your 2a resume to his and see who wins.

I never called Kenpo or anyone else a coward.

I merely noted that Kenpo was accusing someone in this thread on compromising in the fight for gun rights, so I asked him if running off to Arizona also wasn't a form of compromise. In other words, I made a pot/kettle/black comment.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

That sort of thing.

OK?

bwiese
04-04-2008, 1:08 PM
Bulgron, good point. (Sorry I didn't get a chance to say Hi to you at last nite's MC meeting, hadda leave early.)

Not everyone's life revolves 100% around guns - even mine :) There are more benefits for many of us in staying in CA than moving out.

In fact, CA law tendencies (due to fears of court property rights issues in past) have been to stop future acquisition of various gun types, etc. - and not ban current possession. So quite a few of us are 'well off' gunwise and are really fighting the fight for others.

I've got 35+ guns; technically, I don't need any more, they're just frills - so the 'fight' is, in many ways, irrelevant to me. I have zero need for OLLs as I have an armful of legal reg'd AWs, but I'll fight for others to have their rifles.

Ultimately we just need to outthink and outlast the others and use the courts to our advantage. We'll get there - it's always darkest before the dawn.

bulgron
04-04-2008, 1:36 PM
Bulgron, good point. (Sorry I didn't get a chance to say Hi to you at last nite's MC meeting, hadda leave early.)

No worries. I'm still getting my feet wet with the NRA crowd, so I'm not sure I would have gotten down to your end of the table anyway.

It was good to see CalGuns there, though. http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif


I've got 35+ guns; technically, I don't need any more, they're just frills - so the 'fight' is, in many ways, irrelevant to me. I have zero need for OLLs as I have an armful of legal reg'd AWs, but I'll fight for others to have their rifles.


For me, this fight is about CCW. But I'm happy to team up with you "scary rifle" guys if it helps me to get there -- or at least gets me an opportunity to play with a scary rifle someday. :D

MudCamper
04-04-2008, 5:00 PM
Sounds like our representatives in California are trying to kill anything related to the firearms by regulating them to death.

Bingo! Correct answer. Not only is it their goal to regulate it to the point where most people give up, but the more laws they pass, the harder, more timely, and expensive it is to fight them all.

H Paul Payne
05-07-2008, 3:10 PM
There has been some discussion, and a little confusion, regarding AB 2498. I would like to clarify NRA's position on this sometimes confusing piece of legislation.

NRA's position was previously OPPOSE.

AB 2498 has been amended (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1169366&postcount=61) to a level where the NRA's position is now WATCH.

We will soon be amending/updating our web site and all appropriate alerts.

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

Paul

SteveH
05-08-2008, 1:58 AM
There has got to be a better way of dealing with the shady "trainers" than background checks of the students.

yellowfin
05-08-2008, 7:44 AM
There has got to be a better way of dealing with the shady "trainers" than background checks of the students. This isn't about shady trainers, this is about the opposition trying to discourage training in total. They want to eliminate via hassle as many new firearms enthusiasts as possible. That has always been their goal. This has absolutely zero to do with crime or criminals.

hawk1
05-08-2008, 8:33 AM
There has been some discussion, and a little confusion, regarding AB 2498. I would like to clarify NRA's position on this sometimes confusing piece of legislation.

NRA's position was previously OPPOSE.

AB 2498 has been amended (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1169366&postcount=61) to a level where the NRA's position is now WATCH.

We will soon be amending/updating our web site and all appropriate alerts.

I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.

Paul

Paul I'm sure you've read the amended version (I think), but the only word amended was teaches which was stricken from the language. Now reads,
(a) Any organization that -> teaches <-stricken
provides firearms training, firearms tactical training, or
security tactical training pursuant to a contract with the
federal government shall require proof that any individual
obtaining the training is eligible to possess a firearm. Proof that a
person is eligible to possess a firearm shall include either of the
following:
(1) A copy of a firearms eligibility check issued by the
Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12077.5, provided that the
document was obtained within three months prior to obtaining the
training.
(2) A valid certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of
Justice pursuant to Section 12071.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Firearms training conducted pursuant to Section 7585 to
7585.20, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code.
(2) Firearms training required to obtain a handgun safety
certificate as defined in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12800)
of Title 2 of Part 4.
(3) Firearms training conducted pursuant to Section 832.
(4) Firearms training conducted by the United States Military or
the California National Guard.
(c) The following persons, properly identified, are exempted from
providing proof of firearms eligibility prior to obtaining the
training:
(1) Any active or honorably retired peace officer, as defined in
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.
(2) Any active or honorably retired federal officer or law
enforcement agent.
(3) Any reserve peace officer, as defined in Section 832.6.
(4) Any person who has successfully completed the course of
training specified in Section 832.
(5) Any individual who has a valid concealed weapons permit issued
pursuant to Section 12050.
(6) An active, or honorably retired member of the United States
Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, the active
reserve components of the United States, where individuals in those
organizations are properly identified. For purposes of this
paragraph, proper identification includes the Armed Forces
Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that
the individual is an active or honorably retired member.
(7) Any person who is authorized to carry loaded firearms pursuant
to subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 12031.
(8) Persons who are the holders of a special weapons permit issued
by the department pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, or 12305.

(9) A person who is listed with the Department of Justice pursuant
to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11106 as being the
registered owner of a handgun and who uses that handgun provided that
the person was registered with the Department of Justice within six
months prior to obtaining the training.


Nothing else has been changed according to this amended bill text. How can the NRA move this to a "watch"? It still requires the firearms owner to jump through hoops just for training...:confused:

mymonkeyman
05-08-2008, 10:22 AM
Paul I'm sure you've read the amended version (I think), but the only word amended was teaches which was stricken from the language. Now reads,


Nothing else has been changed according to this amended bill text. How can the NRA move this to a "watch"? It still requires the firearms owner to jump through hoops just for training...:confused:

Teaches was the word stricken, but look at the words added (the ones in italics): "pursuant to a contract with the
federal government." Not only does it gut the bill, it makes it essentially completely unenforceable (because the federal government can do whatever it wants to do and state laws that get in the way will get preempted).

bwiese
05-08-2008, 10:26 AM
Teaches was the word stricken, but look at the words added (the ones in italics): "pursuant to a contract with the
federal government." Not only does it gut the bill, it makes it essentially completely unenforceable (because the federal government can do whatever it wants to do and state laws that get in the way will get preempted).

Correct. This bill's originator seems less inclined to attack gunnies and instead go after after Blackwater-type training orgs.