My Proposed Bill for the California Legislature

[dram]

I know a number members of the California Assembly. I have been thinking about using my connections to propose moderate gun law reforms that might actually have some ability to reduce the amount of gun crime. I'm interested in everyone's feedback so I can better understand the arguments people will have against this proposal so I can fix it or at least prepare my rebuttals.

Here is the first draft of one proposal I'm thinking about making. It does two things:
1) Makes California a shall-issue state for concealed carry permits; and,
2) Requires more extensive training prior to buying any firearm (and renames the "Handgun Safety Certificate" to "Firearm Safety Certificate".)

With this proposal, I'm trying to align the education requirements needed to purchase a gun with what's required for getting a CCW. Right now, there is almost no education requirement to purchase a gun in California, the current written test to get a handgun safety certificate is a joke. I'm proposing that the handgun safety certificate is a starting place for being able to buy a gun, but that prospective gun buyers would also have to take a 22 hour course of instruction (sixteen hours in the classroom and six hours on the range).

In addition, I've removed the requirement that CCWs must only be issued for "good cause". It is this "good cause" provision that most sherifs in California cite when rejecting CCW applications. I've also required that people applying for CCWs have the same training that's required for purchasing a gun (this is mostly so people aren't grandfathered in with their current guns and get issued a CCW without going through the training).

I thought about requiring that people have a firearm safety certificate to purchase ammunition as well, but stopped short there. I think this is the best way to ensure existing gun owners get the training required of new gun owners. However, I also think that requiring a firearm safety certificate to purchase ammunition will get a lot more push-back than anything else in this proposal.

My goal with these proposals is to reduce gun injuries by requiring better training for gun owners and enabling more law-abiding gun owners to be armed. Of course, this won't solve the entire issue, but it's a place to start.

[stix213]

I like your effort, but I don't remember anywhere in the 2A where it says "shall not be infringed unless you haven't taken a 22 hour training course"

Accidental gun injuries are actually pretty low as it is, so I don't see why there is a big need for this.

[Rock6.3]

Your proposal would quickly be amended to strip out item one and leave only item two.

Thus an attempt at reason will result in more losses of rights.

Beyond that I will not speculate on non-existent legislation.
I will not feed the troll.

[CitaDeL]

No, thanks. I do not believe we need the help of the legislature to moderate liberty. They have done a fine job of reigning that in without our help.

[Synergy]

Just some thoughts:

How does your proposal address the problem with criminals in possession of illegal or stolen guns?

Who is going to pay for this 22 hour class?

What happens if a person does not pass the class?

Are you aware that on average 3500 guns are sold per day in California, many to first time buyers. Do you foresee a logistic problem with classes?

Why do states that have zero HSC tests, shall issue laws and make the process of gun ownership simple... Have less crime with guns?

[dram]

I like your effort, but I don't remember anywhere in the 2A where it says "shall not be infringed unless you haven't taken a 22 hour training course"

Accidental gun injuries are actually pretty low as it is, so I don't see why there is a big need for this.

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.

I do agree with you that accidental gun injuries are pretty low, but I also think better training would help ensure guns aren't intentionally used by people who shouldn't be using the guns. With better training, we'd probably have more people locking up their guns.

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.

[DrDavid]

Here's my proposed California Gun law:

All existing laws regulating guns are hereby revoked and will become invalid on the day this bill is signed by the Governor. California acknowledges the supremacy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and hereby acknowledges that, "Shall Not Be Infringed" is crystal clear.

Well, something like that....

[CitaDeL]

Yeah, that's still a no.

Regardless of anyone's reasons for owning or carrying a firearm, they are still entitled to have one if they want one.

[randomBytes]

Training is good - if and only if people want to be trained.
Mandatory training is like mandatory anything - a waste of time.

But thanks for the effort on shall-issue.

[Rock6.3]

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.

Owning a gun is my Constitutional right. I do not have to engage in sport or training to have this right.

Want see how wrong your argument is? Try replacing 'gun ownership' with 'voting rights' or 'freedom of speech'.

[tcrpe]

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.

Yet it IS unreasonable to require some form of identification to vote.

[dram]

Your proposal would quickly be amended to strip out item one and leave only item two.

Thus an attempt at reason will result in more losses of rights.

Beyond that I will not speculate on non-existent legislation.
I will not feed the troll.

I'm not interested in trolling, I'm interested in using my connections within the legislature to propose useful and reasonable laws that will help reduce gun violence.

I don't think the education requirements would reduce gun violence by much, but might reduce accidental injuries a little. The meat of this proposal is really making California a shall-issue state. However, I do no believe it's possible to pass the first part of this proposal without also including something like the second part. This is a compromise proposal that will hopefully appeal to the moderates on both sides of the aisle. My goal here is a bi-partisan bill that would actually do something to reduce gun violence without giving up too much.

If you don't like the education requirement, how would you structure a bill that ends up with California being a shall-issue state?

[FF/EMT Nick]

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.

I do agree with you that accidental gun injuries are pretty low, but I also think better training would help ensure guns aren't intentionally used by people who shouldn't be using the guns. With better training, we'd probably have more people locking up their guns.

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.

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!!!

[stix213]

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.

I do agree with you that accidental gun injuries are pretty low, but I also think better training would help ensure guns aren't intentionally used by people who shouldn't be using the guns. With better training, we'd probably have more people locking up their guns.

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.

The handgun safety certificate hasn't been attacked yet because there are bigger fish to fry, it is a fairly minor inconvenience compared to other blatant unconstitutional restrictions, and really if you can't pass the HSC test I don't want to be shooting next to you at the range.

A 22 hour training course is a whole nother animal. Are there really going to be thousands of these courses running every day? What this will turn into is a year backlog of people needing to take the class because there will only be a dozen or so places to take the class, but 90,000 people a month trying to take it. This quickly turns into a defacto gun ban.

Also, there is nothing wrong with people who just want a gun cause it is cool. The 2A isn't about participating in a sport, and owning a gun in the first place regardless of reason is an exercise of their constitutional rights in itself.

[dram]

Just some thoughts:

How does your proposal address the problem with criminals in possession of illegal or stolen guns?

It doesn't and it doesn't try to. That's another issue entirely, but I agree it's a big one that needs to be focused on if we're to reduce gun violence. However, I do think increasing the number of law-abiding citizens that are armed would go a long way to reduce the damage caused by criminals with illegal or stolen weapons.

Who is going to pay for this 22 hour class?

The gun owner. This is almost exactly the same as what's required for drivers education, but with less hours.

What happens if a person does not pass the class?

I haven't built in any way to fail the class, just the written test which doesn't change from the current Handgun Safety Certificate test. The proposal doesn't change what happens if somebody should fail the written test.

Are you aware that on average 3500 guns are sold per day in California, many to first time buyers. Do you foresee a logistic problem with classes?

Yes, there would be a huge logistical issue at first. Eventually, an industry would be established just like there is for drivers education. I see this as a boon for shooting schools and classes, they'll have more work than they know what to do with.

Why do states that have zero HSC tests, shall issue laws and make the process of gun ownership simple... Have less crime with guns?

I agree with you, however that's not a political possibility in California. I'm trying to work within the realities of our current situation.