My Proposed Bill for the California Legislature

[paul0660]

He might very well know many legislators, who all get glassy eyed as he walks toward them.

Shall issue is not a card to be bargained with, imo.

[JoshuaS]

22 hours training? That could easily cost $1000. That would be an outrageous requirement. Connecticut requires training, around 4hrs. 22 hrs is more than what is needed for a CCW

This makes no sense. Where did those numbers come from? 16 hours in a classroom? Excuse me?! Even in CA CCW classes range 8-16 hrs. Not 22.

Here would be my proposal. Standardized training for CCW, 4 hrs class (like Utah), reciprocity for any permit holder who had similar or greater training. Remove good cause clause and/or define it to include self-defense without an imminent threat, add the words "shall issue" or words to that effect.

In exchange I would be okay with the HSC (as is) becoming an FSC. No 22 hr course, just a similar test for any firearm purchase. And first time buyers can watch a 15 minute safety video if we throw in abolition of the Roster. Necessary? No. But that would be as far as I am willing to cede, especially in case the safety requirement parts were the only that survived amendments.

[berto]

22 hour class is unreasonable. Too many hours, too many hurdles, too much money. That's realistically three full days of class in order to exercise a fundamental right. Most people work during the week and have some kind of weekend comittment so you're looking at a month between when someone takes the first class and when they're done. Renting space, paying for time, the cost adds up.

How about modified hunter ed class instead?

I'm not any kind of genius but it looks as if your bill would charge instructors $100 per card and allow them to recoup only $10 per student. Who in their right mnd is going to lose $90 per student?

31650. (a) The certified instructor may charge a fee of twenty-five dollars ($25), fifteen
dollars ($15) of which is to be paid to the department pursuant to subdivision (c)

for
administration of each objective test.
(b) An applicant to renew a handgun firearm safety certificate shall be required to pass
the objective test. The certified instructor may charge a fee of twenty-five dollars ($25),
fifteen dollars ($15) of which is to be forwarded to the department pursuant to
subdivision (c).
(c) The department may charge the certified instructor up to fifteen one-hundred

dollars ($15

100) for each handgun firearm safety certificate issued by that instructor to
cover the department's cost in carrying out and enforcing this article, and enforcing the

provisions listed in subdivision (e), as determined annually by the department.

I'm calling BS. You're not on our side.

[stix213]

22 hours training? That could easily cost $1000. That would be an outrageous requirement. Connecticut requires training, around 4hrs. 22 hrs is more than what is needed for a CCW

This makes no sense. Where did those numbers come from? 16 hours in a classroom? Excuse me?! Even in CA CCW classes range 8-16 hrs. Not 22.

Here would be my proposal. Standardized training for CCW, 4 hrs class (like Utah), reciprocity for any permit holder who had similar or greater training. Remove good cause clause and/or define it to include self-defense without an imminent threat, add the words "shall issue" or words to that effect.

In exchange I would be okay with the HSC (as is) becoming an FSC. No 22 hr course, just a similar test for any firearm purchase. And first time buyers can watch a 15 minute safety video if we throw in abolition of the Roster. Necessary? No. But that would be as far as I am willing to cede, especially in case the safety requirement parts were the only that survived amendments.

Seems like a much more reasonable proposal, and probably actually constitutional.

[VAReact]

I've noticed in your proposed revisions that the words "may issue" are never replaced with the words "shall issue", and the subjective determination of "good moral character" is never stricken as well.

Fail.

[sdfire]

I think the idea of 22 hours of training that the buyer has to pay for will make it harder for lower income people to be able to get a firearm. I think a majority of responsible gun owners were taught proper gun use and safety by a family member or close friend. I was taught to shoot when I was only 8 years old, and had my own shotgun to use at 10. Plus, everyone seems to forget that criminals, and mentally unstable people will not be taking these classes. No law or requirement will be effective for people that don't care about laws and requirements.

But making it easier for law abiding, responsible gun owners to get concealed carry, to protect themselves and others, is a logical idea. But politicians and lawmakers are not logical, soooo....

[mrdd]

The Second Amendment also doesn't say that we must have a Handgun Safety Certificate to buy a handgun, but we do in California. That requirement has not been struck down as a violation of the Second Amendment, it's not unreasonable for the state to require some form of training prior to purchasing a firearm.

The HSC requirement exists because it has not been challenged in court. It is not a high priority.

Also, I do think that raising the hurdle to gun ownership would weed out a lot of the more irresponsible yet legal gun owners. I'm talking about people who just want a gun because it's cool, not people engaged in any sort of sport or exercising their Constitutional rights.

I strongly disagree with you. You are talking about a fundamental right. You are proposing having the government decide whether somebody's reason for wanting a firearm is sufficient. This is exactly the problem we have with LTC issuance today in this state. No thank you!

[Wherryj]

I propose a law that states that ANY person who writes a law that is eventually deemed unconstitutional is permanently banned from office. As with Lautenberg, there is no appeal and no sunset.

[mrdd]

I propose a law that states that ANY person who writes a law that is eventually deemed unconstitutional is permanently banned from office. As with Lautenberg, there is no appeal and no sunset.

And who is going to write such a law?

Hmm...

[ElDub1950]

I'm guessing you're a firearms instructor.

I can imagine no other reason you'd be in favor of limiting firearm purchases to only those who can afford a $400-$600 training class.

[darthnugget]

These newb people on here are plants from Brady and Media campaigns. Please do not give them your time.

[ElDub1950]

You should use your influence with your political pals to eliminate some of the idiotic restrictions we already have.

Not dream up more restrictions.

[Stewdabaker23]

Screw that s**t...Take a 22 hour class to "learn" to do something that I already know. F&*k that!!!

[Stewdabaker23]

Screw that s**t...Take a 22 hour class to "learn" to do something that I already know. F&*k that!!!

[Stewdabaker23]

And whom, exactly would get to make this decision? Who do you propose decides whether or not I'm "responsible" enough to own a firearm? What would be the limitus criteria? Is it that I have a home, gun safe, job, no kids,etc?

No thank you! KEEP YOUR GODDAMN NOSE OUT OF MY BUSINESS!!!

I'm thinking DiFi would get to decide effectively ****ing all gun owners.