Like I said earlier, I think the purpose of the law is to open instructors up to litigation in the event of a shooting (which if found guilty would make them felons and likely put them out of business) and probably to discourage firearm training in the state. Certainly to discourage firearm training facilities in the state.
Also, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove they had said knowledge. They need to convince a jury of Virginian’s that they had knowledge to whatever the standard of guilt is in this case.
That certainly seems like a likely outcome, yes. I’m reluctant to believe that was the motive at time of writing though. That sounds too well thought out.
5 to10 years ago I probably would have agreed, but I think people that are anti-firearm/anti-2A know they aren’t going to get the outright bans many of them are looking for so they’re exploring alternative ways to limit gun ownership and use. Of course, that’s just my opinion this very well could all be unintended.
Fuck that. I love draconian gun laws… But my #1 law would be that every gun owner must complete a fairly strenuous AND GRADED firearm training course to keep their firearms.
I really don’t see instructors or training courses being targeted here.
As a firearm owner, I am not opposed to this.
Heck, to be a hunter in my home state (Wisconsin) you have to pass a graded course on proper hunting practicesand firearms safety. But there is no course required to actually own the firearm.
However, I wouldn’t apply it retroactively like you suggest - just moving forward.
Thanks for the reading. I wonder what the reason behind the parallels is? The article seems to paint a picture of a few rotten eggs that people daren’t confront, but why would they not be comfortable, if the mindset isn’t shared by a reasonable proportion of their followers?
I think it is simply the nature of a closely divided electorate. The lost of 10-20% (or whatever) dooms the Democratic Party and the Labour party to irrelevance.
Weird parallel, if you were actually drawing a parallel and not just joking altogether - owning a firearm shouldn’t require you to demonstrate any level of knowledge and safety about it? I’d make my own parallel here and say we should just abolish drivers license tests and road tests. Want a car? Just go get it. No need to learn how to drive.
I spent several years in the Marines, from ITB to BSG to AUC courses, learning firearms, too. I’d dare you to go do something stupid in one of those courses, and we had already been handling firearms professionally for a couple years by that point. I’m a current gun owner. So this isn’t from the point of view of someone who doesn’t own and hates firearms. Just an observation from someone who has a lot of friends who own firearms, that should never have been allowed anywhere near a gun.
Not at all. Both voting and firearm possession are fundamental rights under the US Constitution, whether we like it or not. (Driving is not, BTW.)
If you can require a test for firearms, then the same Constitutional standard would apply to voting.
However, just as requiring voting tests were found illegal in MS (which was just a scam to keep blacks from voting), so should most firearms tests (which are also largely just a scam to keep poor folks from having weapons – or such is the case in NYC).
Mind you, I fully agree that both classroom and practical training is an essential part of being a responsible firearm owner. Just as being an informed voter is an essential part of being a responsible voter.
But we don’t have tests before you can exercise fundamental rights under the US Constitution.
Shit, we don’t even require proof you’re a US citizen before being allowed to exercise the right to vote, but you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to buy a firearm.
Perhaps we should have a strenuous firearms course in public school in lieu of The History of Rock and Roll (a real course I took in HS). Crazy thought I know.
Yeah, if we’re talking about ambiguity, the U.S. constitution might be the most widely interpreted document since ancient religious texts. It’s also heavily amended, and we already have “tests” to buy a firearm that prohibit certain people from doing so, so adding another test that wouldn’t necessarily test for skill or technique, but rather a basic understanding of safety protocols, which could be taught and tested in a one hour period is not something that’s insane or oppressive. A written test on firearms, that’s infringing on someone’s rights, sure, but when we’re discussing basic safety protocols, the only thing that’s insane is that the guy in Green Top handed me a new Glock within 15 minutes of me walking in and never even asked if I knew to keep my finger off the trigger.
@anon50325502 what hoops? Depends on what state you’re in, I suppose - NY is absolutely nuts, although I still walked out of Dick’s with a rifle in maybe 25 minutes, so their insanity only extends to handguns, but still. And I definitely have always had to register and provide proof before I’ve voted. Although, there are certain states that have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, but Federal elections, that’s long been illegal, and Trump’s own voter fraud commission did not find widespread voter fraud, so I’m not sure what you mean in either instance.
Although, I’m totally not against public school firearms courses in safety. Some people might think I’m crazy, but seriously, I kind of like that idea.
