Can DC do this? ....Is Ca next?

[Librarian]

It would be better for everyone if fathers just taught their children how to use guns. But we can't rely on that anymore. What I'd like to see is our public and private schools being required to ensure children know how to use firearms responsibly before allowing them to graduate. (Kids should be able to "test out" of the class if they receive instruction from someplace other than the school.) That way, we could eliminate the need for training requirements, and therefore for licensing requirements entirely.

Something like this would be ideal.

The problem with using training as a gating factor is who controls the training? If the training is offered once a decade by exactly one authorized trainer, or the class runs a month and costs $10,000, or some other onerous requirement is made, it's closely akin to voter qualification tests.

Imagine if the handgun purchase demonstration required detail stripping and re-assembly blindfolded.

Training, both physical (operation, accuracy) and legal (when can I use this?) should be viewed by each individual as an ethical/moral requirement imposed on him/herself.

[AKman]

Something like this would be ideal.

The problem with using training as a gating factor is who controls the training? If the training is offered once a decade by exactly one authorized trainer, or the class runs a month and costs $10,000, or some other onerous requirement is made, it's closely akin to voter qualification tests.

Imagine if the handgun purchase demonstration required detail stripping and re-assembly blindfolded.

Training, both physical (operation, accuracy) and legal (when can I use this?) should be viewed by each individual as an ethical/moral requirement imposed on him/herself.

Make everyone attend a CMP event (like a RWVA Appleseed event). Its good enough for CMP, so it should be good enough for any government agency requiring some sort of training.

[dwa]

Well, I am sure this is going to piss some people off but,,,, I have have to say that I agree in spirit with the idea of requiring training and some range time before gun ownership.

I do not agree with registration of the gun every three years. Once the gun is registered that should be it until the gun is sold. Even then a sale and a letter of notice of non-ownership should be voluntary. More of a CYA than a requirement.


Nor should a background check be required every six years. Once your name is associated with the pistol then other problems in your life should automatically reveal any legal issues. And really folks, do you think automated search processes don't already run on you?


The D.C. regulation (like all regulations) has an acorn of good intent with a whole tree of bad issues. Other bad issues like require photos along with the registration and a whole host of other regulations and restrictions that make the Kali regulations and restrictions seem tame in comparison.

Back to the training issue for te second. I seriously doubt D.C. will allow training on ranges that allow outside of D.C. to count towards the requirement. Yet another way to allow (but not allow) firearms access by the common citizen.

So I have to say I am against just about anything that D.C. has to offer int he way of "protecting the public from itself."

im suprised im the only one that connected the dots. im sure the registration and instrution has some FEES attached. they are just trying to extort some revenue and drive the cost of ownership up. "sure you can own a gun...after we get our piece of the action" hell they will probably use the money to pay for their next plan to remove firearms

[bulgron]

Something like this would be ideal.

The problem with using training as a gating factor is who controls the training? If the training is offered once a decade by exactly one authorized trainer, or the class runs a month and costs $10,000, or some other onerous requirement is made, it's closely akin to voter qualification tests.

Obviously training can't be used to disqualify the vast majority of the population or we end up with Jim Crowe laws all over again.

But there IS a intersection of personal rights versus public safety here that isn't easily answered with the way society currently is. The best answer is to make firearm safety training an exit requirement for high school. The next best answer is to define a very minimum amount of training that must be met by the individual SOMEHOW, but let there be multiple avenues for allowing individuals to seek out that training.

The important thing is that the training not be so onerous as to be a road block to exercising a right. Obviously we need a healthy court system that "gets it" so that we can make sure the training requirements aren't excessive. Else, we just have to throw open the floodgates and hope for the best in the way Vermont and Alaska does it. But, personally, I seriously rather prefer to know the people who are carrying guns around in public have some small clue as to what they're doing.

[jacques]

People don't know who our president is, or their congresperson, they don't know what the bill of rights is, but they still go out and vote and voice their opinion at every opportunity.

[bulgron]

People don't know who our president is, or their congresperson, they don't know what the bill of rights is, but they still go out and vote and voice their opinion at every opportunity.

Yep. And look at the mess that we as a society are currently in.

Not that I'm saying I was written tests for polling stations. Still, ignorance is apparently a terminal condition for a Constitutional Republic such as ours.

[grammaton76]

Obviously training can't be used to disqualify the vast majority of the population or we end up with Jim Crowe laws all over again.

But there IS a intersection of personal rights versus public safety here that isn't easily answered with the way society currently is. The best answer is to make firearm safety training an exit requirement for high school.

That would solve more problems in this country than we could even possibly imagine. Starting with the sensation of almighty power the second someone touches a handgun since they've never touched one before...

The next best answer is to define a very minimum amount of training that must be met by the individual SOMEHOW, but let there be multiple avenues for allowing individuals to seek out that training.

Or require, as part of operating a range, something like CA's forced-PPT system which dealers must perform. Any public shooting range must be willing to observe a basic proficiency demonstration and mark it pass/fail. Government provides the targets as a standard form, scoring is standardized, etc.

[nobody_special]

The next best answer is to define a very minimum amount of training that must be met by the individual SOMEHOW, but let there be multiple avenues for allowing individuals to seek out that training.

Or require, as part of operating a range, something like CA's forced-PPT system which dealers must perform. Any public shooting range must be willing to observe a basic proficiency demonstration and mark it pass/fail. Government provides the targets as a standard form, scoring is standardized, etc.

The problem with requiring some sort of proficiency test is that it will be abused. As long as it is administered by humans it is subject to corruption.

Other states have gotten along without such tests for a long time, I see no need to introduce such a requirement now.

[aileron]

Not even the founding fathers thought people should be walking around with guns without having some clue on how they work, and how to use them safely.

Prove it.

What source do you have to make such a statement? I've never read of it. Now I'm not suggesting I'm the best read, or your wrong. But its a blanket statement I have never heard, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me where this is being stated.

Hopefully it does not come from Saul Cornell. If so... I would be extremely suspect of it.

[grammaton76]

The problem with requiring some sort of proficiency test is that it will be abused. As long as it is administered by humans it is subject to corruption.

Other states have gotten along without such tests for a long time, I see no need to introduce such a requirement now.

Only way I can think of to abuse a strictly "rounds on paper" target test would be to alter the lighting conditions in the lane in use, introduce additonal stress, etc.

[bulgron]

Prove it.

What source do you have to make such a statement?

I don't have time to do your research for you, but just as a jumping off point try reading the text of the 2A. Then ask yourself what "well-regulated" means. Then ask yourself how a free state is supposed to get a "well-regulated militia" if the members of said state have no freaking idea of how to use their weapons.

See also the origins of the RKBA in ancient England, and the role the development of the longbow had in the creation of the right. It is the early desire to keep the citizenry well-practiced in the usage of the longbow from which the right to arms eventually sprung, and we see echos of that desire in the 2A.

[Draven]

Ok.

Can I see your Internet Forum Training Certificate please? and your Computer Operator Registration with the Internet Connectivity Stamp?

[nobody_special]

Only way I can think of to abuse a strictly "rounds on paper" target test would be to alter the lighting conditions in the lane in use, introduce additonal stress, etc.

And what would happen if a new shooter couldn't get their rounds on paper? They can't take possession of their gun? That's a denial of the RKBA. This is what you call due process?

So, should we also require a literacy test before someone exercises their 1st amendment rights? How about a reading comprehension exam before voting? Maybe we should do away with the 4th amendment -- in order to avoid unreasonable seizure, you must pass the test of out-racing the police.

Once again (and I'm shocked that I have to explain this to distinguished members of this board): if you have to pass a test, pay a tax or fee, obtain a license or permit, or otherwise ask the government for permission to do something, then that is not a right. It is a privilege.

Edited to add: there are plenty of other ways to abuse a "rounds on paper" test. The easiest is to tweak the ammunition; maybe even substitute blanks. Of course, the government will define the test, and as such they could always redefine it to be arbitrarily difficult (small paper, long range, scoring etc.). As long as a test is required, it can be abused in order to deny people their rights. The slippery slope argument applies, in that the test would likely become more difficult with time, and perhaps other "rights" could eventually require a test as well.

[bulgron]

Once again (and I'm shocked that I have to explain this to distinguished members of this board): if you have to pass a test, pay a tax or fee, obtain a license or permit, or otherwise ask the government for permission to do something, then that is not a right. It is a privilege.

Once again, you are completely ignoring the fact that unlike all other rights and privileges, there is a very serious intersection of personal right vs. public safety here. And whether you like it or not, unless we as a community figure out a way to address that intersection, the people WILL figure out a way to strip us of our personal rights in favor of protecting their public safety.

Think of it as being in a debate. You know what arguments the other side are going to make. Now, what are you going to do to head off those arguments?

And, no, taking a hard line inflexible attitude on this won't work. Hard line inflexible attitudes is one of the things that lead to Californians being largely stripped of their private right to arms, because the inflexibility lead them to a place where they were unable to defend against the public perception attacks.

[nooner]

You're ignoring the potential collision of two rights: the right to bear arms in self defense, and the right to remain healthy and alive.

In a free society you do not have the right to "remain healthy and alive". If you do then who is responsible if you are no longer healthy? Or if you are no longer alive? The government has no responsibility or duty to protect you, unless they deny you your right to self defense. However once they do that it is now a police state and no longer a free country.

If someone exercises the first right irresponsibly, they can easily interfere with someone else's enjoyment of the second.

That's what the system of courts and laws are for. You've already condemned everyone as guilty before they've done anything because they have the potential to do something. Anyone can drop a bowling ball off the 15th floor and kill someone or drive over them with their car. But unless and until they do it they have done nothing wrong.

Not even the founding fathers thought people should be walking around with guns without having some clue on how they work, and how to use them safely.

I disagree. Try reading some American history.

It would be better for everyone if fathers just taught their children how to use guns.

I agree.

But we can't rely on that anymore.

Says who? You? By what right?

What I'd like to see is our public and private schools being required to ensure children know how to use firearms responsibly before allowing them to graduate. (Kids should be able to "test out" of the class if they receive instruction from someplace other than the school.) That way, we could eliminate the need for training requirements, and therefore for licensing requirements entirely.

What I'd like to see is people take responsibility for themselves and their actions. It is because we as a society no longer do and everyone has turned to the government to take care of us. That's not the governments job it is your job.

This is why we have ridiculous draconian laws.