Originally Posted by Merc1138
Yup, because CCW's are free and everyone can get a CCW without any trouble in CA(out of state permits still aren't free, and pretty useless unless you find yourself traveling to those states at least once in a while).
So yeah, that's asking people to spend more cash. But like I said, if that's how they want to run their business then so be it. At least it's not somehow requiring all training to involve background checks.
BTW, The Virus, apparently you don't realize how 2a has been eroded in places. Registration doesn't stop you from owning guns, so no harm, right? What's a little card that requires being renewed every once in a while to keep the right to own your guns(I'm talking about those FOID cards). 10 day waiting period? Why not just make it 30? Heck, change it to 1 handgun a year instead of every 30 days while you're at it. SO yeah, making broad comments like all training should require background checks is anti 2a unless you aren't too clear on the 2nd amendment. Zumbo was a pro-2a guy till he outed himself as an anti(and then later on had to apologize for his nonsense). I'm sure the groups that got exemptions for their cowboy guns into some of the CA bills we're stuck with didn't think they were doing anything anti-2a either.
Dude, I have no idea how you got to there from a training company requesting checks on students to ensure that criminals aren't enrolling, and to ensure the safety of others.
No one has to do anything, firearms training is voluntary, not required.
You can twist it anyway you like.
Here is what I said, not the spun interpretation.
Any potential student of a private firearms training facility should be required to submit a background check , and any students wishing to receive ADVANCED training should be required to provide adequate proof that there skill level in fact meets the requirements of the course in question.
It comes down to safety and making sure advanced classes have students of advanced levels, nothing more, no hidden agenda.