AZ - Unlikely Opponents To New Concealed Carry Law

[Realtor MA]

A gun safety course should be a part of all schools.
Bare bones safety in elementary school ie) leave the room and tell an adult
Handling and shooting etc in middle school
refresher and advanced course in high school.
IMHO it would reduce a lot of the accidents involving children and it would help gun owners and antis alike to understand guns.

 

[Zappa]

I know that I would never be able to convince you, but the State can not solve all of your problems. There's this thing called individual responsibility.

What does anything about this have to do with the State?
The thread is about Gun Dealers and Private Firearm Instructors being opposed to the new gun laws in AZ, which no longer require people to be knowledgeable about firearm safety before buying a gun.
And I'm all for individual responsibility, part of which is understanding that nobody knows everything. Seeking instruction in the name of safety is not a sign of weakness.
The point being made by the AZ gun dealers is that under the new law, anyone who passes the NICS check can buy a gun, without even the most basic understanding of its safe usage.
People who are responsible will seek professional instruction while many of the wahoos will not.

Why don't you start again from the beginning and try to improve your reading comprehension.

 

[NHAtHeart]

I like the way NH does licensing I guess, I'm ok with them running a quick background check for CCW holders if for no other reason to add another charge to actual criminals that are carrying illegally.

I don't agree with requiring training for anything, but I would advocate bringing rifle clubs back to high schools. My dad was on the rifle club when he was in school, I believe they used .22's and taught safe handling and proper shooting form etc. That would provide kids with an opportunity to learn firearm safety but wouldn't FORCE the anti's to have their kids touch evil firearms.

 

[Cato]

What does anything about this have to do with the State?
The thread is about Gun Dealers and Private Firearm Instructors being opposed to the new gun laws in AZ, which no longer require people to be knowledgeable about firearm safety before buying a gun.
And I'm all for individual responsibility, part of which is understanding that nobody knows everything. Seeking instruction in the name of safety is not a sign of weakness.
The point being made by the AZ gun dealers is that under the new law, anyone who passes the NICS check can buy a gun, without even the most basic understanding of its safe usage.
People who are responsible will seek professional instruction while many of the wahoos will not.

Why don't you start again from the beginning and try to improve your reading comprehension.

Zappa, My post that got you all upset was in response to what YOU wrote.

Zappa wrote: "Personally, I'm not opposed to making every first time gun owner take some kind of basic firearms safety class. IIRC, every state already requires hunters to pass a basic hunter safety course before you can even buy your first hunting license. Gun safety shouldn't [be] optional."

You obviously mean you want the State to "make" gun owners take a safety course and that it should not be optional.

I'm not being sarcastic here, but I really do think that you are drunk right now. Just stop.

 

[DickWanner]

What can an NRA certified course and instructor really teach me that I can't find on a website or pamphlet somewhere? It doesn't take a genius to be able to read and understand the four basic safety rules and to be able to read the manual that comes with each firearm they buy...

 

[M1911]

What can an NRA certified course and instructor really teach me that I can't find on a website or pamphlet somewhere? It doesn't take a genius to be able to read and understand the four basic safety rules and to be able to read the manual that comes with each firearm they buy...

Actually, we can teach you things, and we can see you doing things wrong that you don't see yourself.

 

[DickWanner]

Actually, we can teach you things, and we can see you doing things wrong that you don't see yourself.

I was referring strictly to the safety aspects of shooting. And I agree with you whole-heartedly about the technical aspects of shooting. I'm currently trying to join the "we" club myself

What I'm trying to say is that someone who does not take a safety course isn't going to be inherently less safe than someone who did. They may turn out to be a sucky shooter, but that's not the topic of discussion we're on right now.

 

[ShadeWPI]

DickWanner,

The problem is: Any mandated training, regardless of the source, has to come form the State, because the State generates the mandate and thus must approve the course.

While I don't believe there should be a government training mandate, I am always leary of a shooting range that does not require some level of certification or verification of safe shooting skills and practices. But this should be done at the Range/Club level, not at the government level.

I still maintain that we should be providing all children with a basic set of firearms safety, just like we provide them with basic safety education for other things they are likely to encounter: Sex, Drugs, Disease, First Aid, Crossing the Street, etc. Parents can choose to suppliment this basic education with their own training (and should in ALL of these cases) but I don't need my son's life being risked because someone keeps a gun at their house and chose not to teach their child how to handle it properly.

 

[Kev62nesl]

I dont believe that there should be required safety course to get a gun, nor do I believe people should be required to take a test to get a license to drive or to operate heavy equipment. I also don't think there should be a background check before you can get a gun. I love absolutists.

 

[M1911]

I was referring strictly to the safety aspects of shooting.

Even there, I think an seasoned instructor is likely to be able to teach a novice who has studied books a thing or two about safety.

What I'm trying to say is that someone who does not take a safety course isn't going to be inherently less safe than someone who did.

I disagree with you there. Most folks learn better when they read, hear, and see something, than when they just read it. Furthermore, many people have a hard time noticing the safety violations that they are making, which may be completely obvious to others.

I have instructed for a number of years. I have my students read the NRA basic pistol marksmanship book prior to attending my classes. Even though they have spent several hours reading that book, and several more hours listening to me in class, when the rubber meets the road on the range for the first time, most all students need some correction. That's just the way it is. I've been there, done that, and grabbed their gun before they could point it in an unsafe direction.

While I am all in favor of training, I am strongly against any state or federal mandate for it.

 

[DickWanner]

DickWanner,

The problem is: Any mandated training, regardless of the source, has to come form the State, because the State generates the mandate and thus must approve the course.

While I don't believe there should be a government training mandate, I am always leary of a shooting range that does not require some level of certification or verification of safe shooting skills and practices. But this should be done at the Range/Club level, not at the government level.

I still maintain that we should be providing all children with a basic set of firearms safety, just like we provide them with basic safety education for other things they are likely to encounter: Sex, Drugs, Disease, First Aid, Crossing the Street, etc. Parents can choose to suppliment this basic education with their own training (and should in ALL of these cases) but I don't need my son's life being risked because someone keeps a gun at their house and chose not to teach their child how to handle it properly.

How can we all believe in individual freedoms and then say that we believe that people should have to prove they are safe? It should be up to the individual to educate themselves either by their own means or by seeking outside education. Anything else is just feel-good hypocricsy. That part about your "son's life being risked" is just waaaaay too out there and completely irrational.

 

[Admin]

You're not free unless we say you are. I love the commies in here.

 

[Zappa]

Hunting isnt a constitutional right.....Owning a firearm is. Using that logic we should all have a english class before we are allowed to excerise our 1st amendment rights.

If you're an American citizen, grew up here and still reside here, there no reason why you shouldn't speak English.

 

[Kev62nesl]

For me it is this simple. If your are not a felon then you should be able to own any weapon you want, however, if you want to carry said weapon concealed or open in public (I advocate open) then i should be secure in the knowledge that you know safe practices. It shouldnt be this big issue because everyone on this sight is pro 2nd amendment. Would you want someone who has never taken a driving lesson driving down a street that your kids were on? You can own and can do what you will on private property but to carry in public you need to have taken a safety class. Its not about your freedom it about my life. Its not unreasonable. When weighing your constitutional right to bear arms verus my god given right to live, my right to live wins. Like I said you can own it no question there should be no question about it but to carry in public you should have to have a safety class.

 

[DickWanner]

For me it is this simple. If your are not a felon then you should be able to own any weapon you want, however, if you want to carry said weapon concealed or open in public (I advocate open) then i should be secure in the knowledge that you know safe practices. It shouldnt be this big issue because everyone on this sight is pro 2nd amendment. Would you want someone who has never taken a driving lesson driving down a street that your kids were on? You can own and can do what you will on private property but to carry in public you need to have taken a safety class. Its not about your freedom it about my life. Its not unreasonable. When weighing your constitutional right to bear arms verus my god given right to live, my right to live wins. Like I said you can own it no question there should be no question about it but to carry in public you should have to have a safety class.

 

[GSG]

I think people who buy a gun without getting some safety training are foolish.

So do I, but I agree with you that training shouldn't be mandated by law. I was taught firearms safety from age 2-3, and I'm still learning about it (and practicing it, and teaching others about it) today.

My kids are just a bit above the Eddie Eagle age (they know that well). I've started teaching them the 4 rules of firearm safety. In addition, I drilled them the steps to clear firearms. They know each type of guns and especially 'the round in the chamber'. They still lack the strength to rack the slide or bolt to clear the round though. Hopefully my older one will be ready for range this summer.

When I was a young kid & couldn't rack the slide my dad showed me how to catch the sights on a hard surface and chamber a round while pushing down with my bodyweight, if that makes sense.

The thread is about Gun Dealers and Private Firearm Instructors being opposed to the new gun laws in AZ, which no longer require people to be knowledgeable about firearm safety before buying a gun.

...

The point being made by the AZ gun dealers is that under the new law, anyone who passes the NICS check can buy a gun, without even the most basic understanding of its safe usage.

This is total bullsh*t on the part of the dealers. First off, regardless of their stupid law requiring a safety class for a concealed carry permit, anyone not legally prohibited in AZ can buy a gun and open carry it with no proof of training with nothing more than a NICS check, or in the case of a private transfer, displaying ID to prove their age.

Secondly, check out these Arizona laws.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/15/00714-01.htm&Title=15&DocType=ARS

15-714.01. Arizona gun safety program course

A. In addition to the voluntary training in the use of bows and firearms prescribed in sections 15-713 and 15-714, each school district and charter school may offer as an elective course a one semester course in firearm marksmanship that shall be designated as the Arizona gun safety program course.

B. A pupil shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the Arizona gun safety program course by demonstrating that the pupil has the ability to safely discharge a firearm.

C. The course of instruction prescribed in this section shall be jointly developed by the Arizona game and fish commission, the department of public safety and private firearms organizations and may include materials provided by private youth organizations. At a minimum, the Arizona gun safety program course shall include:

1. Instruction on the rules of gun safety.

2. Instruction on the basic operation of firearms.

3. Instruction on the history of firearms and marksmanship.

4. Instruction on the role of firearms in preserving peace and freedom.

5. Instruction on the constitutional roots of the right to keep and bear arms.

6. Instruction on the use of clay targets.

7. Practice time at a shooting range.

8. Demonstration of competence with a firearm.

D. School districts and charter schools shall arrange for adequate use of shooting range time by pupils in the Arizona gun safety program course at any established shooting range.

E. Pupils who satisfactorily complete the Arizona gun safety program course shall receive a certificate of accomplishment.

F. Instructors shall be certified by the Arizona game and fish department or by a national association of firearms owners.

G. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand the liability of any person under other provisions of law.

This law only affects who can carry concealed without a permit. Allowing a shirt to ride over a holster is no more dangerous than open carry; in fact, open carry is much more dangerous IMO because of weapon retention and escalation of force issues. But I still won't ever support either one requiring a license.

While I don't believe there should be a government training mandate, I am always leary of a shooting range that does not require some level of certification or verification of safe shooting skills and practices. But this should be done at the Range/Club level, not at the government level.

I've been muzzle swept and nearly shot at the range before, sometimes by "highly trained" experts who took state approved safety courses or who had military training. I was muzzle swept by an Iraq War combat veteran recently at a gun store, with his finger on the trigger. He got slightly offended, but I explained the importance of safety to him and corrected his mistake when it happened. I do the same no matter where I am.

I dont believe that there should be required safety course to get a gun, nor do I believe people should be required to take a test to get a license to drive or to operate heavy equipment. I also don't think there should be a background check before you can get a gun. I love absolutists.

I missed your sarcasm and thought that we were in agreement here.

If your are not a felon then you should be able to own any weapon you want

I agree, when someone is convicted of a felony and goes to prison, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns in prison. Once they're out though, they have rights just like every other human being on earth. If they're evil and bad, don't let them out.

What about this convicted felon?

Anthony Circosta, a decorated Iraq War veteran from Agawam, needed a gun permit in Massachusetts to get a promotion at his security guard job and to pursue a possible career as a police officer. But first he needed to have his record cleared of a childhood felony - shooting a classmate in the shoulder with a BB gun when he was 13.

He sounds pretty evil and dangerous.

you should be able to own any weapon you want, however, if you want to carry said weapon concealed or open in public (I advocate open) then i should be secure in the knowledge that you know safe practices.

Knowing safe practices and practicing safe firearms ownership are two completely different things. And guess what, the only way to tell when someone will do something is unsafe is after they have done it. Trained people make stupid mistakes all the time, as do the untrained. Both should be punished if what they do is criminal, but neither can be prevented by forcing the law abiding to sit through some class.

It shouldnt be this big issue because everyone on this sight is pro 2nd amendment.

That is the issue. The 2A was put in place to hold the government in check, not to hold law abiding gun owners who haven't passed a safety course in check.

Ask the Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership why licensing and restricting a right the way you suggest is such a bad idea.

Would you want someone who has never taken a driving lesson driving down a street that your kids were on?

They do, every single day. There's an estimated 10,000 unlicensed drivers driving in MA every day. They get arrested for it, every day. They also drive drunk, try to kill people by running them over and sell drugs from cars. They do this because they don't care about the law. Passing a law that only applies to the law abiding who submit to the legal licensing process achieves what exactly?

When weighing your constitutional right to bear arms verus my god given right to live, my right to live wins.

We have a constitutional right that recognizes our God given right to life, liberty and self defense. People like you trying to legislate the poor out of the group of people who can access their "rights" are greasing the slippery slope that American gun owners are trying not to slide down.

 

[06LemansC6]

That's awesome. Best post here.

 

[JRyan]

You're not free unless we say you are. I love the commies in here.

No kidding, we are really seeing the big gov types vs. the more libertarian minded in this thread. I'm surprised at how many people advocate forms of required control. In every case it's backed up by personal nonsense that can never be solved with more garbage laws.

 

[ShadeWPI]

How can we all believe in individual freedoms and then say that we believe that people should have to prove they are safe? It should be up to the individual to educate themselves either by their own means or by seeking outside education. Anything else is just feel-good hypocricsy. That part about your "son's life being risked" is just waaaaay too out there and completely irrational.

I believe strongly in individual freedom. The freedom of a person to choose there own path, but also the freedom of a Club/Range to choose to require their members to prove they can be safe. There is NOTHING hypocritical about that. I would strongly encourage every range/club to REQUIRE anyone using its facilities to prove they understand firearms safety, but I would also oppose any government regulation that required it. While I would support a range/clubs decision not to, I would also minimize my exposure to such a facility for my own safety. There is nothing hypocritical about that position.

There is a huge difference between a government mandate and a local facilities requirement and choosing (or not choosing) to patronize a facility whose policies you agree or disagree with.

Heck, I would support a gunshop owners decisison to require anyone purchasing a Firearm to provide proof of taking an NRA approved safety course prior to selling them a firearm, and might even pay a slightly higher price for a firearm at a shop that did require such a form in support of their decision. Still, that is wholy consistant with my belief that the Government should not impose such a requirement.

The government should not require to you have car Insurance. The auto dealler and/or bank officer should be allowed to make such a requirement AND enforce such a requirement.
The government should not require you to have Home Owners Insurance. The mortgage broker / bank should be allowed to make such a requirement AND enforce such a requirement.
The government should not require private establishments to BAN smoking. Every private establishment should have the right to Ban smoking and the right to enforce a smoking ban.
The government should not require any certification to purchase or carry a firearm. Every firearms dealer should have the right to impose any restriction on who the choose to sell firearms to. I don't care if it's racist, classist, elitist or even political association based. The owner of a private establishment should have the RIGHT to choose who he does and does not sell to, for any reason and without question. If you don't like his policies, you'll find someone else who likes your money.

 

[TomH]

I didn't say they should make a basic gun safety class mandatory, I said I wasn't opposed to it.

You should be if you value the Constitution.

 

[DickWanner]

I believe strongly in individual freedom. The freedom of a person to choose there own path, but also the freedom of a Club/Range to choose to require their members to prove they can be safe. There is NOTHING hypocritical about that. I would strongly encourage every range/club to REQUIRE anyone using its facilities to prove they understand firearms safety, but I would also oppose any government regulation that required it. While I would support a range/clubs decision not to, I would also minimize my exposure to such a facility for my own safety. There is nothing hypocritical about that position.

There is a huge difference between a government mandate and a local facilities requirement and choosing (or not choosing) to patronize a facility whose policies you agree or disagree with.

Heck, I would support a gunshop owners decisison to require anyone purchasing a Firearm to provide proof of taking an NRA approved safety course prior to selling them a firearm, and might even pay a slightly higher price for a firearm at a shop that did require such a form in support of their decision. Still, that is wholy consistant with my belief that the Government should not impose such a requirement.

The government should not require to you have car Insurance. The auto dealler and/or bank officer should be allowed to make such a requirement AND enforce such a requirement.
The government should not require you to have Home Owners Insurance. The mortgage broker / bank should be allowed to make such a requirement AND enforce such a requirement.
The government should not require private establishments to BAN smoking. Every private establishment should have the right to Ban smoking and the right to enforce a smoking ban.
The government should not require any certification to purchase or carry a firearm. Every firearms dealer should have the right to impose any restriction on who the choose to sell firearms to. I don't care if it's racist, classist, elitist or even political association based. The owner of a private establishment should have the RIGHT to choose who he does and does not sell to, for any reason and without question. If you don't like his policies, you'll find someone else who likes your money.

And I will continue to only join clubs that do not require such 'provings' and only buy guns from shops who mind their own f'in business. Your other examples are just rediculousness. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money and control.

 

[ryan81986]

This is pretty much the same as that douchebag gunshop owner that ratted out online ammo dealers to the AG

 

[ShadeWPI]

And I will continue to only join clubs that do not require such 'provings' and only buy guns from shops who mind their own f'in business. Your other examples are just rediculousness. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money and control.

Whether it has to do with safety or money depends entirely on how they impliment and enforce it. One could argue that a club that does not require its members (or those using a public range) to demonstrate some level of safe use is actually putting profits infront of safety since thier policy allows them to attract and charge unsafe users where such a policy would force them to refuse their money.

As for my other examples being rediculousness, let's see:

Many of those examples are real worl examples of places where the government has over-stepped its bounds by taking away liberty from an individual or a business. Since they're real world examples, how rediculous can they be?

 

[DickWanner]

Whether it has to do with safety or money depends entirely on how they impliment and enforce it. One could argue that a club that does not require its members (or those using a public range) to demonstrate some level of safe use is actually putting profits infront of safety since thier policy allows them to attract and charge unsafe users where such a policy would force them to refuse their money.

As for my other examples being rediculousness, let's see:

Many of those examples are real worl examples of places where the government has over-stepped its bounds by taking away liberty from an individual or a business. Since they're real world examples, how rediculous can they be?

I shouldn't have to sit here and explain to you how most safety rules actually do nothing for safety. Furthermore, the whole point of not having the government tell us what to do, is not so that we can have someone else do the exact same thing. You really need to go back and rethink what you are actually advocating and what you actually believe in.

 

[cekim]

I shouldn't have to sit here and explain to you how most safety rules actually do nothing for safety....
You really need to go back and rethink what you are actually advocating and what you actually believe in.

Yes...

First, the "putting profits before X" nonsense is liberal-speak BS. You cannot make profits for very long by screwing and/or injuring your customers. The profit motive has "safety" built into it via liability (getting sued) as well as the increased transaction cost incurred by harming your customers. Loss of credibility means you have to spend more to "convince" people to buy your crap anyway.

There are "snake oil salesmen" who don't care about the long term, but the more people rely on caveat emptor rather than nanny state regulators, the harder it is for snake oil salesmen to function. Market forces regulate them better than any regulator ever can.

Second, just because something is a good idea does not mean government should do it.

Third, you have to include the unintended consequences in a system that is heavily regulated. I tried to post this earlier and had some IT issues - so pardon the duplication if it got through and I missed it, but if we could buy directly from manufactures or online without FFLs then it might be a different story, but since there is a monopoly power in place because of the regulation, it is exponentially more dangerous to have FFLs adding requirements.

It quickly degrades into "Freedom on paper", when you can't drive, move, buy, sell, or breath without getting through the government sanctioned gatekeepers.

 

[ShadeWPI]

I shouldn't have to sit here and explain to you how most safety rules actually do nothing for safety. Furthermore, the whole point of not having the government tell us what to do, is not so that we can have someone else do the exact same thing. You really need to go back and rethink what you are actually advocating and what you actually believe in.

What am I advovating? What do I believe it? Freedom.

That includes my freedom to choose, your freedom to choose, the retailer/range/club's freedom to choose.

I choose to reward businesses and organizations who promote safety and responsibility with my business. You are free to patronize the organizations and businesses that you choose. Safety rules may not do much for safety (though in almost every "accident" multiple safety rules have been violated) but I feel more comfortable when I know the person beside me has at least been training how to be safe.

 

[offcamber]

All us gun owners here in NH just run around waving our guns at people....we don't need no stinkin classes....

 

[Batbox]

i haven't thought this fully through, just throwing it out there:

what do you think if there was no mandated training, the state gave some sort of tax incentive to gun shops that only sold to people who had taken a safety course?


personally, i think that state-mandated safety classes create more problems than they solve. i think everyone SHOULD get safety training, and that much i think we all agree on.

 

[cekim]

i haven't thought this fully through, just throwing it out there:

what do you think if there was no mandated training, the state gave some sort of tax incentive to gun shops that only sold to people who had taken a safety course?


personally, i think that state-mandated safety classes create more problems than they solve. i think everyone SHOULD get safety training, and that much i think we all agree on.

Controlling behavior with tax is a non-starter...

Taxation is tolerated to pay for services rendered. Any other use abuses one group to the benefit of another. Wealth redistribution.

 

[ShadeWPI]

Offcamber,

No we don't.

I'm from NH, born and raised. Was taken out shooting my by uncle and father when I was quite young. I learned firearms safety very early - Dad kept an unlocked, loaded revolver on top of the Fridge most of my life. I got refresher courses in firearms safety: When I joined a shooting team, every year at the start of the shooting team's season. When I took hunter's safety. When I joined a shooting club while at college and when I took the NRA basic firearms class in MA.

Here's my point:
It is not the governments place to impose a training requirement on the purchase or posession of a firearm. That is a personal liberty. However, an extention of that - It is not the governments place to restrict a retailers choice about who to sell to or what requirements they can place on those sales. Unreasonable requirements will be weeded out by Market Forces, let them work.
Moreover, I am saying that I appreciate and will patronize establishments that demonstrate a concern for the safety of their customers. From asking each and every customer, "Are you familiar with the safe handling and operation of this firearm?" before renting it to them to requiring a member demonstrate familiar and safe handling of firearms before allowing them on the range.
Again, it's the market forces that will weed out the unreasonable. A club that requires its members to take a $100 certification class before using its facilities might find members hard to come by, just as a shooting range might find they loose a lot of business requiring all users have completed their 8-hour basic firearms course. However, it makes me feel more comfortable when I go to a range that requires members demonstrate safe handling to become members and non-members to demonstrate safe-handling to be use the facilities. And this can be as simple as handing a prospective user a handgun and asking them, "Here, please make this safe" to observe that they follow safety procedures and understand what "make it safe" means.

Such policies might take a little time, feel childish or inconvient, but they do make everyone safer by ensuring that the person who does need some safety instruction get its before they're on the line with a loaded firearm.

Another range I've visited required all first-time visitors have a range employee on the line for them for basic handling instructions. I brought 7 of my own firearms, but that was their policy so I agreed. The guy asked me if I knew the basics, I said I did, and then he asked me to follow a few simple tasks - Load a handgun, make it ready, make it safe, etc. Less than 5 minutes and he was satisfied. When I left, they gave me their certification card so I wouldn't need to repeat that next time.

Policies like that have nothing to do with profits (other than maybe liability reduction) and have everything to do with customer / member safety and as little as they may do, they do make me feel better about using such facilities.


I agree, everyone SHOULD get safety training, but again, the State has no place requiring it (offering a tax incentive to gunshops who require it isn't the way to go either. It's not the States place to artificially affect Market forces. Not getting training would be like buying a Table-saw without learning about its safe use. But if a Store wants to make sure everyone buying a table saw understands its safe use, that is and should be, their choice.