You know, Senator Fortunato, it might have been nice if you’d pushed this before Washington State came apart at the seams.
State Sen. Phil Fortunato, R-Auburn, has introduced legislation in advance of the 2019 legislative session that would require lawmakers who draft gun legislation to be trained and pass a test.
“We have legislators drafting bills who have no idea how firearms work or any sense of firearm nomenclature,” Fortunato said. “When decision makers want to restrict someone’s constitutional rights, they shouldn’t go off half-cocked.”
So, what does “half-cocked” look like? I’m glad you asked.
“A weapon (AR-15) that shoots off 700 rounds in a minute.” – former U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Florida.
A ghost gun that “has the ability, with a .30-caliber clip, to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second; 30 magazine clip in half a second.” – California state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D).
– Auburn Reporter, Fortunato: Firearms Test Should Be Required for Lawmaker Who Want to Draft Gun Legislation
H/T Josh Amos
Lol that shit is funny. Never pass though.
Dangerous precedent. How about we make future gun owners to pass a test first. And that’s just for a single shot bolt action rifle. Want a semi auto? Pass another test. Want a pistol? Pass another test. Want to carry that pistol in public? Yup, another test.
And just who will make all these tests? No doubt we can all agree on that too.
I live in Connecticut. I had to pass a test to get a carry permit or even buy a firearm. Everybody in my state has to pass a test. And pass a Mental Health background check. The police officer in my town told me the reason it took 16 weeks as opposed to the mandated 6 explained that the financial background checks were holding up the process. There are no mandated financial background tests. In fact they are illegal and even if they were the back can approve a mortgage in minutes. Maybe the local police need to take some basic tests on honesty and ethics.
The people who wrote the egregious gun control laws after Sandy Hook did not have to pass any test. Seeing as how they are running one of the once most prosperous states in the Union into bankruptcy maybe they ought to have to pass some kind of test. Or maybe we should bring back literacy tests for the voters. A driver’s license test just isn’t working.
What the hell happened to the edit function……?
Theoretically, a good idea, but then we have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who graduated Boston College and now dabbles with economics… Or high school graduates, currently (and permanently) working as “customer representatives” at McDonalds who in utter confusion call a manager when you toss them a quarter to even out the change. Really, our collective level of moronity has reached immeasurable heights.
In Her Majesty’s colony of New South Wales, a 20 question “Firearms Safety and Awareness test” is a compulsory part of the licensing process. The pass mark is 18 out 20 AND this includes mandatory questions that must be correct. The other states and territories have similar requirements.
But you are given a book with all the answers to study and the clubs encourage new people to ask questions to clarify any particular issues. So this is not an onerous requirement.
I used to live in Connecticut. Worse state I ever lived in by far and I’ve lived in six.
Southern Cross, I’ve seen you here before and you generally make sense. I do not intend to flame you, but to point out the differences that make me surprised that this comment came from you. You do not have a 2A in Australia, but we do, here. If it is not defended when attacked, it is then assumed to have been modified, somehow, and that portion is gone forever. If such a “test” is allowed to stand, then a “test” is assumed to be authorized in the future. In the future, then, the “test” can be revised into one that the entire faculty of MIT, working together with the faculty of Yale, could not complete in a year, because “we all know” that a “test” is allowed. IOW, sensible or not, a test is an infringement, and must not be allowed. This is exactly why a test may not be a prerequisite for voting in America.
LarryinTX we did have similar to the 2nd here though not anywhere near as strongly worded sadly. In fact it was in multiple documents that were the foundations of our (and your) common law. However since federation all that has unlawfully been stolen from under our noses (i was too young to have a say in it when it happened) and replaced with “AUSTRALIAN COMMON LAW” which is statute law that has not passed the test of judge and Jury with Jury nullification in play. Yep this once great nation is now a tin pot dictatorship with a few little trappings of liberty to keep the plebs entertained while they screw us of everything
don’t worrk about it. We heard your message just fine.
Form 4473 is the test that says you are a US citizen, not a felon, and may exercise your Constitutional right to own a firearm.
Amen to that
Shall not be infringed was the test. Y’all keep adding to it and it makes you little different than them. Just another moron begging for gun control. SMH
“Form 4473 is the test that says you are a US citizen, not a felon,…”
Read the form 4473 again, Jim.
Question # 12, parts b and c :”Form 4473 is the test that says you are a US citizen, not a felon,…”
“b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for
more than one year? (An information is a formal accusation of a crime by a prosecutor. See Definition 3.)
c. Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more
than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?”
So much for “Form 4473 is the test that says you are a US citizen, not a felon,…”, eh, Jim? 😉
Rhode Island already does that. Anyone who can fill out a 4473 and pass a FBI background check can buy a shotgun or rifle, but in R.I. you need a “blue card” from R.I. Department of Environmental Management to buy a handgun. You have to complete training/pass a test in a R.I. gun shop or at the DEM and wait for the “permit” to arrive in the mail then wait another 7 full days ( pickup on 8th day ) to pick up a gun you purchase. One of the many reasons I moved out of R.I.
What the hell does the Department of Environmental Management have to do with handguns?
It’s Rhode Island, the most corrupt state in the union. That’s why I moved to Texas. Chicago political corruption looks like amateur hour compared Rhode Island.
“What the hell does the Department of Environmental Management have to do with handguns?”
Inhaling airborne lead from firing guns, and the solid waste lead in outdoor bullet backstops, perhaps? 🙂
Won’t pass, but there’s a big difference between saying regular citizens need to pass a test to exercise a constitutional right and a lawmaker has to pass a test before restricting them.
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about either.
You are part of the problem here.
There already have tests you have to take.
And a federal background check.
You are the exact kind of moron that this article is describing.
Thanks for proving his point.
I may be being pedantic here, but I’ve bought a bunch of guns through gun shops, and I haven’t had to take any tests beyond being literate enough to fill out the forms properly.
Did I have to fill out a form that was unconstitutionally required? yes.
Did I have to undergo an unconstitutional background check? Yes.
Did I have to pass any test? No. (A background check is not a test. It checks the results of choices I’ve made in my past, maybe, but it is not a test.)
So when you say, “There already have tests you have to take,” I’m not sure you really know what you’re saying. If, instead of using “you” you had used “I,” because you live somewhere where you (personally) had to take a test before you could buy a gun, you may have been right. But since I am included in your use of “you,” you just aren’t right.
It is, and it would be used to club the “opposing” group of pols no matter who that is. Even so I can find it amusing. They’d be right to decry it, just like citizens would be right to decry any sort of test or tax at the point of enumerating their constitutionally protected rights. Why is it unconstitutional to put dedicated taxes on newspapers or voting, but it’s totally okay on guns?
I think that a far better measure would be to make a legislator in support explain what the law means in exacting detail. None of this copy shit from interest groups as boilerplate and make it what I’m advocating for. That goes for both parties too. People thinking for themselves would overall do a lot of good.
Not for the public dumb dumb! This bill would be for legislators requiring them to be educated about firearms before they even submit a gun control bill! This in no way would be a president for actual gun control! SMFH Many States already require some kind of test before you can carry and even purchase a firearm so that president has already happened!
First off, “precedent”. Second, a state requiring something does not establish precedent overriding the US Constitution. Don’t be ridiculous.
We dont have to pass tests to exercise any of our other constitutional rights.
That’s great if you only want to fill the public coffers but, it won’t do “jack” to make for a safer environment. So many states now require completion of a safety course by a qualfied instructor, certified by the STATE, to do the 8-hour instruction including live firing of a weapon just so you can purchase a weapon. Military personnel should be exempt from this requirement because we know which end of the barrel the bullet comes out!!! Evidently lawmakers haven’t figuered this out yet!!!
Do you live under a rock??? It’s you that needs to educate yourself, and take a rest before responding… WOW!!!
Pass ALL the laws you want, the criminals who do gun crimes don’t care. The phrase ” When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns”.
You’re right, wouldn’t pass, but then neither would the idiots that had to take tests to try and pass anti-gun legislation.
Of course the lawmakers are “trained”, by the movie and TV industries (unfortunately).
Laws made in haste and ignorance end up causing bad laws, unenforceable laws, or technical impossibilities. In Australia law makers were luckily completely ignorant of lever action shotguns. And think lever action rifles are “rapid fire”, when in reality bolt action rifles are actually faster.
And I can imagine the collective freakout the law makers will have over the current trend of accurate long range rifles which are starting to be described as “too accurate” for us “civilians” to own.
Bolt actions are not faster than lever actions. I don’t where you acquired this bit of wrong information, but you should give it back. In terms of speed of the action in manually operated firearms, it goes bolt, lever, pump.
how many of you could achieve mad minute levels of accuracy and speed with a lever action or even a pump action without modifying the action (so it fired automatically on closing the action) and then doing so accurately. Yes the Lee Enfield was a rarity in its speed of operation as bolt actions go but it was also decidedly more accurate (at least the ones out of Lithgow were) than just about any pump or lever action rifle
Maybe the lever action to semi automatic was referring to the
RIFLEMAN old TV show. lol
Another Republican waiting until the damage is done (or, nationally, the Democrats control the House again) to act all feisty. Talk about virtue signaling…
Where were you when it mattered? Where were your colleagues when they could have changes laws about suppressors and national concealed carry.
In to the shredder with the lot of them, whichever letter is after their name.
Phil is a good guy and has always been strongly pro gun, but he’s outnumbered big time by the communists in WA. I don’t blame him. I blame the fucking scumbags that live in Seattle.
Just like cook county screws the whole state of Illinois, NYC screws all of NY, Portland screws Oregon, King county screws WA.
Then maybe he should have introduced this bill— that is clearly only meant to draw attention to the fact that people writing gun laws don’t know shit about guns— before 1639 passed. Yes, that was an Iniative, but the same point stands.
Well that is the wonderful initiative process in Washington state. Which allows special interest groups to bypass the Legislature. You can figure out the rest from there.
The worst republican is ten times better than the best democrat.
Two immutable facts:
1. Democrats will pass Australian Style Gun Control or worse as soon as they are able.
2. No US Congress will ever repeal NFA or Hughes or 1968 GCA. Not going to happen..
The worst republican is ten times better than the best democrat?
Do you know who your lying, Commie President is????
Thanks to our President, we now have Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who will be the only means to restrain the tyranny that will be inevitably thrust upon us by the Dems and Rinos of this country.
You don’t have to like Trump. But you should realize how close we came to a Hillamonster president who would have created a solid communist majority on the SCOTUS.
hey dhimmi-rat, your lying former pres. taquiyya-bama the commie?
What party is full on socialist? Spare me your Russian fantasy
“Do you know who your lying, Commie President is????
Hillary (who actually IS a lying commie) was not elected.
Please, try to keep up.
Testing “new” edit plugin.
Nope, despite being told a new plug-in was installed, still not edit function.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what “being part of the problem” looks like.
Here’s my take: the best form of theft and coercion* is ten times worse than no theft and coercion at all.
*i.e. the state
Never been to California then????
because the GOP here sees the DNC do stupid each day and then yells out.. ‘hold my beer and my vote!”
All elected officials cities and above should have to pass a functional civics test before they can be sworn into office,PERIOD,perfect example of a Failure would be one AOC.
I doubt they (or most Americans) could pass the test for naturalized citizenship.
Absolutely, undoubtedly true.
I don’t know about that; out of curiousity, I just took the practice test on the USCIS site, and got 39 out of 40 correct; and I’m no constitutional scholar.
It’s pretty easy. I just had my 11 year old take it. She got 80%,
JWT, that’s pretty good, but will she still be able to do that well when high school has finished with her?
I’d like to see all politicians pass background “tests” before running for office. It might not stop them from running but it’d be nice for the public to know about laws a potential lawmaker may have broken (although many won’t care if they give them “stuff”). Of course, looking for politicians to pass a law that would likely make a lawmaker look bad is like hoping they’ll pass Term Limits, or making pols have to live within the laws they pass, etc. I know, it’ll never pass but it’s nice to have goals…
Could apply to any lawmaker on any subject. Very rarely do any of them understand any of the things they propose to legislate and never do they honestly express their ignorance or offer to abstain until adequately educated.
Exchange between DiFi and Kavanaugh was a great example, she showed her abject ignorance and then was too stupid to quit while she was behind.
The election process is supposed to weed out those who have no idea of just how the government works.
See Ocasio-Cortez to understand just how far both the candidates and the voting public are from that ideal. She actually said she would sign bills into law.
The campaign process has turned into a US vs THEM war (certainly not the first time this has happened; at least it hasn’t degenerated into actual dueling yet). Ocasio-Cortez is a direct result of the failure of the campaign process as it now stands. There are other examples.
That Hillary actually won the majority of counted ballots only proves that the voters can’t even vote in their own best interests, mush less the interest of their country. So it can’t be laid totally on the candidates/those elected. Our voting public is woefully under-educated.
Big Bill wrote “Our voting public is woefully under-educated.” Is Civics still a course in High School? I fear it has gone the way of the dinosaurs like American History in some areas (all?). Evidently Boston College is not the best place to go to for a education in Economics. If we are to learn anything from Ocasio Cortez, it’s that!
We really don’t need any “Feel-good” crap. Very few legislators, state or US actually seem to believe that they, or their intentions have any limits at all. They’re in office, we’re not, and they know what’s best for us regardless of their overall background, personal experience or lack thereof.
We all realize how stupid our gun laws are. Keep in mind that all of our other laws are written by the same idiots
We all realize how stupid illegal our gun laws are. Keep in mind that all of our other laws are written by the same idiots
Fixed it for you. Washington State Constitution states, in part:
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired
Strike out “stupid”, replace with illegal….
No edit ability… It is 2019, no?
Testing for firearms literacy? Has testing for driving competency kept idiots off our public roadways? Why then would we expect any improvement in the idiots legislating firearms?
There is a little truth in what they say, there are many stupid gun owners out there – they are not always safe or intelligent in what they do with their guns…..that being said, it is not illegal to be stupid(or else these laws would never get introduced.
If it was illegal to be stupid, most of the population would be incarcerated…not that such a thing would surprise me eventually, as it’s cheap labor to make widgets and so forth.
Lol, very true, except that I’d argue most of the population is already incarcerated in a digital prison, and certainly incarcerated by real debt. The coming order doesn’t need us behind us bars, we’re easier to control thinking we’re a little free.
Pg2, I can’t believe that you and I finally agreed on something. See, my monkey with a typewriter approach DOES work! Amazing. Fist bump.
I’m not entirely convinced that our (PotG) sentiments on this “testing” prerequisite are well conceived.
Do we want to stake-out a political position that: everyone has a God-given right (RIGHT! I say!!) to keep and bear an arm about which he knows NOTHING? There are at least a couple of arguments against such a position.
First, how eager are we to have such a person handling a gun when we are present – either at a range, or in his house next door to our own? Second, how much of our debate time do we want to defend our position on the righteousness of defending the RIGHT of people to keep and bear arms about which he knows NOTHING?
Can we conceive of no other strategy? Is our imagination so impoverished?
Yes, there is certainly a Constitutional argument about testing to exercise an enumerated right. That can be dealt with simply. Congress has the enumerated power to prescribe the discipline for the militia. And “who are the militia?” Tenche Coxe posed this question and answered it as well: “Are they not ourselves?”
Once Congress exercises its indisputable power to “prescribe” the “discipline” for the militia then We the People, as law abiding members of this republic, are duty-bound to conform ourselves to this law.
Arguably, it is within the federal power of each legislature to adopt a state law imposing a testing or training requirement. “. . . reserving to the States . . . the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
By way of illustration, Congress could adopt as its “prescription” the curriculum of the NRA’s “First Step . . .” courses. A state’s legislature could provide for state rod & gun clubs to administer such a test. (Observe that there is not conspicuous necessity to “enroll” a citizen in the militia to implement testing. A rod & gun club could simply issue a certificate/card evidencing the administration and passing of the prescribed test.)
I hasten to add that I do NOT expect either Congress nor many states to carry out a proposal along such lines. THAT is NOT my point. Rather, the point is to counter any call for testing with a constructive and Constitution-based implantation. I.e., we insist that the proposal for testing be implemented in strict compliance with the Constitution.
Do the advocates for testing have any objections to pursuing their proposal as explicitly enumerated by the Constitution? Please, we pray earnestly, explain these objections!
Bear in mind that any such prescription of the “discipline” would have to win 60 votes in the Senate; and, that the 40 right-to-carry states send 80 Senators to Washington. It is inconceivable that 41 such Senators would fail to filibuster a prohibitive discipline prescription.
The objective, here, ought to be to win the debate. We PotG ought to be just delighted to win by Congress following the Constitution to the letter. To so prescribe for We the People – all of us – as contemplated by Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” And as articulated by Georgia’s Supreme Court in Nunn v Georgia: “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, . . .; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
If our fellow citizens – the gun-controllers – do not wish to implement their training requirement in conformance with the Constitution and the sentiments expressed above; well, then, perhaps they are not as committed to their proposal as they would have us believe.
The 2A and 5A have much to say about a test required to exercise a right and are mute on requirements for proposing legislation or holding office. The leap between requiring a basic understanding of a topic prior to proposing legislation on it and requiring a test to exercise an enumerated right is so vast that one wonders whether the objections to the former are sincerely related to the latter, merely the product of ignorance, or an agenda driven possition unrelated to either. Suspecting that such a position is born of ignorance, it should suffice to say that a restriction placed on the privilages of the legislature do not equate to the exercise of rights by the citizenry. One has not and does not inform the other nor does it set precedent regarding the other.
If what you fear is that in opening the question a slippery slope may result I understand, but it doesn’t follow. Furthermore, if we are afraid to act in limiting the legislature for fear of finding out own rights abrogated, we are well on the way to tyranny and essentially without lawful means of redress. Put another way, what you’re suggesting, if true, would mean we should immediately take up arms and oust the sitting legislature.
I don’t think we are anywhere near that point, but if we embrace cowardice as opposed to speaking truth to power, we are lost, and we will have only ourselves to blame.
“If what you fear is that in opening the question a slippery slope may result I understand . . . ”
Thank you, Ardent, for taking the time to comment on my remarks. However, nothing in your comment seems to relate to what I wrote. Perhaps you should re-read my thesis.
In any case, I have no fear whatsoever of a slippery slope, in this particular case. Quite to the contrary. I think we would be best-off taking on the proposal for testing to keep and bear arms with full-throated support!
I said not a single word about any effort to rein-in legislators.
May be dangerous. Can’t get the satisfaction or points when you argue about how stupid their proposals are.
99.9% of the bills written by Congress critters about guns. Have almost if not zero knowledge of guns or gun owners. Why would anyone expect knowledge of guns to be behind a bill. It’s all about control. Not safety or anything beneficial to the general public. Certainly not to or for the benefit of the people in general. Every one of these bills benefits one group and one only. Carrier criminals.
Like Rep. Diana DeGette pushing for magazine restrictions and thinking they were disposable and not refillable. She thought they’d be used up when “the bullets will have been shot,” and there wouldn’t be replacements available in the future. It’s kind of true, if you consider being “used” to be thousands of times without replacement parts. She’s in a safe seat and has been reelected 3 times since then, and she hasn’t changed her position.
Isn’t that astonishing?
gun laws were never meant to be passed based on firearms knowledge
the entire anti-gun base relies completely on conjecture and ignorance, not fact in any sense
Does he expect people to vote for legislation that says, “We’re too stupid to write laws” even if it is the truth? Let them pass laws that make no sense so we can really prove how stupid they truly are. Or at least introduce it so their knowledgable colleagues see how dumb they are.
Kids- in the end, the voters put these people into their positions of authority.
So, who do you think really ought to pass a competency test???
And then, who do you think ought to come up with the questions on the test in the first place???
I don’t know about the ballots in any state but Florida. It doesn’t give me the choice. “None of the above”. It’s always been here anyway. “The lesser of 3 evils”.
In one of those all-night BS sessions a decade or so back, my kid brother convinced me of the value of his conviction that if we could magically pass one Constitutional Amendment, it should be that every election for any position must always include “none of the above”, and that when that selection gains the most votes the election must be held over with all-new candidates.
…Also, Universal Background and Mental Healthcare Checks on ALL Liberal/RINO politicians…As well as surrendering all private access to Facebook/Twitter/Emails/Standard mail, and personal diaries to the general public to constant transparency…All politicians MUST PASS a mandatory American History/Civics/Social Studies test that will be accessible for view by the public–We The People…All politicians that support any kind of gun control/Anti-2nd Amendment stance will immediately relinquish all government-funded armed security…The individuals in question will have to fund it themselves…Privately….
Don’t forget, their private security has to obey all the laws that everybody else does (no guns, be nice, don’t hurt anyone, etc).
At least lever action revolvers are protected under one law.
Sounds good to m, make it a physical test!
Lock them in a room with 1000 loaded guns and let them at it….see how many can make them all safe and LIVE
the dead or wounded ones fail!
YAWN. Next some fool will want to pass a law requiring representatives and senators to actually read the bills before voting on them.
We have a state senator who once introduced a bill to require all legislators to take an economics course. Symbolic posturing, nothing more, but perhaps mildly amusing.
Judging from many of the posts here, a test definitely should be required before most are allowed to post anything on TTAG
Such a test would require an IQ and reading comprehension of 30 caliber or above – unless in a clip of at least .410 gauge.
. . . what a bunch of maroons!
Pass a test? Don’t make he laugh.
If brains were gunpowder, politicians couldn’t blow their noses.
Wait wait wait. You mean intelligence, knowledge, and relevant experience should be verified before candidates are hired?
Please do tell.
Far as I can tell, Kevin de Leon is a Mexican-“American” who wants to return parts of America back to Mexicans’ control.
I wonder if Mexico is considered an enemy of America. They sure are getting a lot of aid and comfort.
de Leon, born Kevin Leon, is of Guatemalan and Chinese descent.
He famously said that if California wasn’t a sanctuary state, half of his relatives would be arrested. But it doens’t matter any more. After losing the senate race to Feinstein, I am pretty sure that his political career is over. I have to wonder, though, how he will manage to find a real job.
So, he’s a Mexican-“American” of Guatemalan and Chinese descent? How totally urbane.
“Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have.”
It’s not unusual for laws to be poorly written. What’s annoying is that many of the legislators responsible for the errors are lawyers. Did they run for public office because they couldn’t make it in private legal practice?
sometimes, it’s almost like theyre trying on purpose to destroy the United States, like they are in an undeclared war or something
How about passing a test on the Constitution instead
The trolls who live in Left Wing controlled states talk about all the tests they’ve had to pass in order to buy a weapon in the hell-holes where they live. Too bad I can’t put up charts here to show that it is precisely in those hell-holes where they live that the body counts are horrendous. It’s about everything but availability of guns. If it were gun availability, then cities like New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, etc. would have the fewest gun casualties, & the rest of the country would be the ones soaked in blood. According to the CDC&P 80% of the felonious gun homicides in the USA are perpetrated by drug-dealing gangs of 14-20 year olds, already barred from a very large array of laws from owning weapons, who commit those homicides. They often like to point fingers at countries in Europe, which until very recently, were very HOMOGENEOUS in terms of race & religion, & are not right next to Narcotic Central, i.e. Mexico. Countries that have families that are not dysfunctional & have traditions which go back hundreds & hundreds of years. No one seems to notice that Democrat-controlled cities have a terrible record insofar as harshly punishing gun law violators. If Leftists will remember, it was Obama that let a whole bunch of them out of prison before he left office. And by all means, RESTORE violent felons right to vote (sarcasm). They will vote for pro-Gun Control Democrats because it will make a life of crime SAFER for them knowing Democrats have disarmed & continue to disarm law-abiding American Citizens. The Press ignores it, but people who live in border states, like me (New Mexico) have experienced a explosion in violent crime thanks to ‘Sanctuary Cities’. It not only encourages the drug trade, but the rampant corruption in this state through bribes.