Surprise, Surprise: California City Could Impose Mandatory Firearms Training

gun store sales california

(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

The East Bay Times is reporting that gun owners in the East Bay town of Alameda are facing a possible new mandatory firearms training requirement. Now, this is coming from California so no one should be particularly shocked by anything related to firearms restrictions or controls, but some of the details of the proposal are…interesting.

Gun owners in Alameda might be required to receive mandatory training to use their weapons.

That’s one of the rules the City Council will consider Tuesday [March 3, 2020] when it reviews a proposed gun restriction ordinance, just a week after a man walked into his workplace at a Milwaukee brewery and shot dead five people before killing himself.

Is it surprising more firearms restrictions are being considered in the wake of the Milwaukee brewery murders in Wisconsin? No, not really, but this is:

The mandatory training could include lessons about how firearms can make domestic violence even more dangerous and how someone in a mental health crisis or struggling with substance abuse may be more likely to contemplate suicide if a firearm is nearby.

So they’re saying it should be a requirement to have an underpaid and most likely unqualified person teach a government-mandated class about mental health and domestic violence to people because those people own guns.

They’re going to lecture law-abiding gun owners about abuse, but not cover how gunc can be used to defend yourself against it. They’re going to tell people that their guns make these situations more dangerous.

They’re going to put pressure on adults who own firearms, saying that guns being around  the house make it more likely their kids are going to kill themselves (just saying…that’s how I see this playing out).

Other issues they want to cover in the forced training in Alameda include:

…also would require gun owners to store their firearms at home inside a locked container or have them disabled with a trigger lock. In addition, the ordinance would require all gun sales to be videotaped.

You read that right. They want to make it the law to videotape you buying a gun. NICS checks and being a law-abiding citizen aren’t enough. The many, many limitations and restrictions already put on Californians who wish to keep and bear arms aren’t enough.

Let’s add video footage of your time in the gun store!

And just for funzies, here’s a quote from Alameda Councilman Tony Daysog who told the media he’s really “disappointed” the ordinance didn’t have anything in it requiring the one store in town that sells guns to keep them away from all of their other products:

“The issue is that, when Big 5 at South Shore shopping center displays rows and rows of firearms right next to the check-out area in clear view by people of all ages, it sends the wrong message that the brute force that guns represent is normal, or as normal as soccer balls, tennis rackets, and running shoes at Big 5. Even if Big 5 isn’t selling military assault-style weapons, it’s the normalization of the brute force of guns that worries me.”

Maybe Councilman Daysog missed the man in the UK who was murdered by someone who used a tennis racket. You know, the UK, where they have all that gun wonderful control.

Or, closer to home, Daysog must have mised the guy in California who was killed by a golf ball. Or the many, many murders involving baseball bats. Look, Councilman, anything with sufficient mass can be and has been used as a weapon (and the mass required for something to be used as a bludgeoning weapon really isn’t that much).

I’m not even going to touch the entire mandatory training and guns issue. You guys can argue that one in the comments. But it’s worth pointing out that adding mental health and domestic violence issues to mandatory firearms training is an absolute dumpster fire waiting to happen.

Even better is the way these things tend to happen in waves, so when Alameda passes this – because they probably will – it’s going to show up elsewhere. If you’re just glad you don’t live in California, try to remember other cities and states tend to follow by example.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Ed schrade says:

    The insane are running the asylum ! Sounds like forced indoctrination.

    1. avatar Kevin Harrity says:

      I actually live in Alameda. As you might suspect, the heavily progressive City Council is wringing it’s hands over how to make the nasty guns go away.
      Now , I call myself a moderate. I measure that by being told by both the far left & far right, that I ‘don’t get it’ Now I’m going to offer an opinion that will probably P.O. a bunch of you, but here goes:
      The “training” they describe, sounds just like the aversion therapy required at clinics that offer abortion procedures in states that continue to restrict access. They are simply political crap piled on folks who have already decided what they want to do, and offer no value, while attempting to change that decision.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “The “training” they describe, sounds just like the aversion therapy required at clinics that offer abortion procedures in states that continue to restrict access. They are simply political crap piled on folks who have already decided what they want to do, and offer no value, while attempting to change that decision.”

        I’m a hard-core gunny, and you aren’t pissing me off in the least. So don’t sweat it.

        Your observation was correct, what they want to do is build an impression that gun ownership is abnormal, and someone who wants one is obviously abnormal.

        (According to them, not me, OK?)

        Personally, I think gun training needs to be offered alongside driver’s education in the High schools. The 4 rules, safe gun handling, etc. That would drop the accident rate with guns substantially.

        The Letist game plan is to do to guns what they did with cigarettes. Reduce exposure to guns in the first place, ostracize gun owners as (falsely) being dangerous and abnormal.

        Too bad the kids already know from Hollywood that guns are cool, they save the day, and protect the girl. No way can the Leftists compete with that message.

        Thank you Hollywood for James Bond, Jason Borne, John Wick, War movies, etc. You are the greatest gun salesmen of all time, and nearly every one of you is a hard-core Leftist.

        We’re laughing our asses off at you. Suckers… 😉

  2. avatar Mr. Tactical says:

    The problem with mandatory training is who sets the minimum level? Once that minimum level is set, people will complain that people are only getting the minimum training and that won’t be enough, so they raise it. Apply, rinse, repeat.

    Safety, just like responsibility can not be mandated. It can only be encouraged.

    Because they want this training, does this mean the fully support the NRA? I mean, the NRA has set firearm safety standards for training and ranges.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      I say the minimum should be Police/FBI minimum.

      That way they would hesitate to say its not enough.
      To say its not enough is to imply state LEOs and federal agents (the holier than thou superiors) are not properly trained.

      But yeah, safety is a crap shoot if the gun itself is not respected.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “I say the minimum should be Police/FBI minimum.”

        Then you would get to use whatever they get to use. What would be the excuse otherwise?

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          The problem with the same training that LEOs and FBI get is they will them want Joe six pack gun owner(or wifypoo) to pay for the training, and that could very well be too expensive for the battered spouse/significant other to afford, so they will NOT be able to protect themselves.
          Buying a firearm and going to a range and asking for basic instruction there will usually work. The range workers/owners are busy, but will give you enough time to teach you to shoot and be familiar with the firearm.
          It is too bad that it isn’t taught every other Saturday at the community college or police dept, just for asking.

        2. avatar Mr. Tactical says:

          I went through the minimum law enforcement firearms training and qualification. If you close your eyes for half the shots, you’re still likely going to pass.

          You will get far better experience joining a league, like IDPA, USPSA, or whatever your local range has.

          The FFLs I know always take the time to explain safety to new gun buyers. It’s not like the movie where Betty dumbass walks in, says I need a gun for protection, hands over the cash and walks out. Next scene she’s in her kitchen looking down the barrel. They explain how to be safe.

          What these fools demanding mandatory training want isn’t safety, it’s control. They think because the changed the name from gun control to gun safety, we won’t notice. They have set themselves so high on the intellectually superior pedestal, that they believe we’re all uneducated redneck hicks. Because if we actually were smart and stuff, we would see things their way.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The mandatory training will also be under resourced and under funded, will not be promoted, and eventually stopped because of budget cuts and lack of participation, despite still being a mandatory requirement.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        And you pass only if “they” say you passed.

    3. avatar Kevin says:

      I will set the minimum level:
      Level 1: Mozambique from concealment: par time 3 seconds.
      Level 2: El Presidente: par time 2.5 seconds.
      . . . and so on. . .

  3. avatar MrMax says:

    The unfortunate evolution of this phenomenon in California (and New York) is that the same folks who are voting in these representatives and advocate for laws like this are migrating to other states for a myriad of reasons like reducing their tax burden, going to a less regulated business environment, cheaper housing and overall cost of living. Then, without thinking how their vote and advocacy directly causes the very problems they moved away from, try to change their new local and state laws and regulations to the same failed state. I see this already in south Florida where the folks that believe in this way are on a high horse of “righteousness” with no clue of cause and effect.

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Out of state imports have more then f&*&;ked up Florida. Especially So Florida. This not the same place it was even 10 years ago. Not even close.

      1. avatar Florida is America’s Grundle says:

        Yeah now it has running water, sanitation and a (mostly) literate citizenry.

      2. avatar george lortz says:

        I was an ‘import’ to Fla. 33 yrs. ago. One of my last memories of N.Y. was going into a gun store with a friend who had gone through all the hoops to get a N.Y.S. permit. We went to a gun store for some ammo, and on the way out, he saw a particular firearm he was interested in buying. He asked the irascible old lady clerk if he could see it. “Can I see your license”, in the most irritating voice I have ever heard; was the answer. Cut to Melbourne Fl. I enter the local gun store, and ask to see a 9mm pistol. Clerk directs me to a particular counter; pulls out about 5-6 guns; lays them on the counter with a big smile, and walks away. Welcome to Florida!

  4. avatar Lance says:

    So when does the actual training come in this mandatory training?

    Whatever, any and all mandatory training should be funded by the state.
    Firearms and Ammo should not be subject to special taxes.

    The simple act of forcing liberals to pay for their own shenanigans and watching them throw temper-tantrums as a result will show how much they actually care about public safety.

    1. avatar Casey says:

      Never.

      I used to teach at one of the big schools in a state that (at the time) had no training requirement for CCW. We did great – our classes were booked. Our overflow classes were booked. I volun-taught for NRA classes at three local ranges on the side, and those classes were always full. The level of training all around was excellent (yes, even the NRA training), and all the students were truly engaged. Why else would they be there?

      Then I moved to a state with mandatory training. I took several state-qualitifed classes, because honestly I was looking to grab a share of the market myself. But the training is terrible. It’s minimum-required-by-some-state-lacky and that’s it. The price is limited, so the instructors make up for it in volume and add-ons. The students mostly aren’t there to learn – they’re just there to get a slip that says they can do what they’ve always done. The few actual newbs are left behind, while the angry idiots suck up all the attention on the range, lest they shoot somebody.

      I’m all for training. I make a significant portion of my income doing firearms training. I LOVE teaching people about guns. But I could never in good conscience run a state class, and there’s limited market for “advanced” classes because, and I quote, “everybody already had gun training to get their CWP. If it’s good enough for the state, why should I do more?”

      Mandatory training is the worst.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        just sit there and smile and nod…then do what you want…it’s very similar to cozying up to a prof tho get the grade you want…then laughing as you exit the premises…

  5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    “Gun owners in Alameda might be required to receive mandatory training to use their weapons.”

    To use, or to buy through an FFL? Words matter. If this were enacted in my own town not far from Alameda, would this require me to take a gov-approved training course for the simply ownership of my guns?

    “…also would require gun owners to store their firearms at home inside a locked container or have them disabled with a trigger lock.”

    I thought the explicit wording of the HELLER decision already forbade this as unconstitutional? Are the Alameda council members being defiant and begging for the opportunity to be overturned in court?

    Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

    – District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    Why is it that whenever Dems get involved, it always includes a restriction of our freedoms, not a support of our liberties?

  6. avatar FB says:

    Its. All about the state making more money.
    If you have a ca ccw, theres already hours of mandatory training.
    To buy a firearm, you need a handgun safety card.

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Florida requires a firearms safety course for a CCW permit. Nothing for purchase except passing the background checks. I didn’t keep a tally, but it had to be hundreds I if not in the low thousands, that I’ve given firearms training. That said, let’s make the following mandatory: college level English class before exercising free speech, a theology class before going to church, a political science class before voting… You get the point. Why is it these people that would howl at what I just suggested think it’s alright to treat 2A differently than all other rights?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      Florida requires evidence to show you’ve had some training…at least it did when I applied for my non-resident permit….

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    This is all about forcing Big 5 to stop selling guns by making it too expensive to continue something that is a small portion of their bottom line. Any resident of Alameda is free to go to another county to buy his/her guns without complying with the training mandate, and probably will, further cutting into any profit margin.

    Moreover, the purpose of the mandate is to “educate” people that “guns are bad, m’kay?” It has nothing to do with gun safety or safe gun handling. I also have to question whether it violates the state pre-emption clause, but that is for another day and time.

    Last but not least, there are several counties in California that require guns to be kept in locked containers or with a trigger lock UNLESS in the immediate possession of the owner. The intent off the law was to get as close to the Heller line as possible without actually crossing it. The Ninth Circuit upheld the law and SCOTUS declined review. Moreover, there is already a criminal statute on the books that requires that adult firearm owners keep firearms away from unsupervised minors, with the penalties running from a fine if no one is injured all the way up to full fledged felonies in the event of serious injury or death. So on this score, at least, Alameda can probably implement the restriction.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      hard to sleep with a holstered gun……

  9. avatar possum says:

    Mandatory, protocol and must are three words I really don’t care to hear.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Oh possum, ye crazy critter of scattered brain and humorous wordcraft, where art thou? Who is this charlatan posing with your name?

  10. avatar Ark says:

    Of course. The “training” has nothing to do with actual firearms safety or use, it’s just vapid ideology pushed by a non-gun owner.

    SCOTUS strict scrutiny when?

  11. avatar Alan says:

    Might such idiocy as is proposed awaken gun owners of law abiding stripe to the following? Elections Have Consequences.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      In the Bay Area? No, not a chance. Alameda fought for years to ban the one gun show a year in the county held at the fairgrounds, caving during oral arguments (in front of a very irritated Ninth Circuit panel) that it would allow shows as long as the guns were secured to the tables (as we now see pretty much everywhere). Alameda is one of the “hardly ever” CCW issue counties (slightly better than the never issue under any circumstance San Francisco on the other side of the Bay Bridge). Now it is trying to ban the one gun store in town, just as SF did a few years back. The gun owners in Alameda are vastly outnumbered, at least 2 to 1 if not 3 to 1.

  12. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    If the guns are near the checkout there will be many impulse buys.

    “I’ll take some JuicyFruit and that Zastava M57A 7.62×25.”

  13. avatar Hannibal says:

    I’m sure that guy who decided to murder his coworkers wouldn’t have done it if someone had told him not to in a class he attended years earlier. Dang.

  14. avatar Barack Obama says:

    I hope they incorporate the Mozambique drill. 🤣

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      2+1?

  15. avatar Jr says:

    To those in favor of mandatory training I say lets teach gun safety in school. Even the most rabid anti gun people cant deny they could benefit by 1) knowing more about what they hope to ban 2) knowing what to do if they come across a gun 3) being able to recognize when somebody else is being unsafe with a gun.

  16. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    I’m sure its a certified course sponsored in part by the AMA.

  17. like I said, this is not about crime or even gun control. WAKE UP. this is about people control. the democratic party is not “democratic” they are really the communist party and they want a communist country so they can have all of the power and we the people ( or as they say, “the working class” something that the commies in Russia used to say that went over everybodys head here) will have none. they also will have all the money and we will have none. oh, but we will have free this and free that, SURE ( we will be taxed up the wazoo to pay for all of it) and then they will discontinue all that saying there is not enough money ( but it will be in their pockets).and they can’t do any of that while we the people can oppose them, with our guns, and that is why they want to take them away. start by banning this and that, regulating this and that, and brainwashing the people. and there are a lot of very stupid people who fall for all of this in this country. which, by the way, is going down the tubes. so WAKE UP!

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      does sound a lot like a re-education camp….

  18. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I love this shit! I have a Colt Detective Special in my safe which I bought in 1972. That is very similar to 48 years ago. Try to picture a gun store 48 years from now attempting to produce a video of someone buying a gun today. First you haul out your 48 year old computer or iphone, and it gets more and more fun from there. It just does not seem like anyone could really be that stupid.

  19. avatar A. C. says:

    Perhaps gun owners should step in and raise the ante: training should be mandatory for EVERYONE, all adult residents who are not disqualified by law from handling guns by law (this would require hoplophobes to get training, too) and include sixth graders and up (maybe even fourth and up). Regardless of whether they own a gun or not, no exceptions. Police must be trained to be course instructors to keep their jobs with Alameda. Urge them to use NRA developed materials, just don’t tell them the source. Include California laws and regulations, especially what is self defense and what isn’t, and what can happen after a self-defense shooting. Along the same lines as that town that tried to require every resident to own a gun.

  20. avatar Keith says:

    There is no point in arguing about training. The idea that any significant crime or even accident issues involving guns would be affected by this sort of training is absurd on its face.

    This is about the hubris of snowflakes (hard to fathom there would be such a thing, but here it is) infecting the body politic and actually getting traction.

    The fact that a “man” would decry guns being sold within sight of other sporting goods as something to truly worry about shows just how unhinged the authors of this sort of legislation are.

    As the author of this post has pointed out, if Tony were consistent he’d have his panties equally twisted over baseball bats and golf clubs being on prominent display, since they figure into the crime statistics right along side long guns.

    So much crap.

  21. avatar GS650G says:

    Mandatory training by the same people who ignore illegal immigration and pander to criminals by allowing them to steal 950 dollars worth of stuff penalty free.

    Sure.

  22. avatar SurfGW says:

    The problem with California voters is that most vote their pocketbook:
    -Republicans vote that way for tax reasons and don’t care about guns
    -Most gunowners are blue collar and they have been herded into unions and they vote Democrat because the union tells them to vote for pocketbook items not their “hobby”.
    It is a tough nut to crack.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      If someone told me how to vote they would have my boot so far up their behind they will taste shoe leather for weeks.

      If they have community organizers with them, smile and wave, and vote my own way out of spite.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      people vote for what’s in their interests…and the unions can’t control that….

      1. avatar Keith says:

        Maybe. But there is a cult-like vibe in unions.

  23. avatar Jay says:

    “representatives” need to Google search for How easy is it to pick a trigger lock. Or search for lockpickinglawyer on youtube and then trigger locks.

    Trigger Locks especially those available or given away for free are toys for infants and toddlers. Some preschoolers having watched their Dad, brother or a friend use something called a screw driver can easily remove any trigger lock.

  24. avatar Butcher O. Soul says:

    Nothing wrong with Education. You can make better choices when you are properly informed. Sometimes that knowledge can change opinion. Are we afraid that the Anti-gun folks might actually learn enough about guns to support their cause? Sometimes things like this could work in favor if they are supported. If the NRA for example would help “sponsor” these classes then they would have an actual say in the directive and impose a much bigger influence than trying to be the opposition. Think about it, mandatory gun training is really conceding to the fact that people will continue to have guns.

    1. avatar Kevin Harrity says:

      I am an Alamedan and the “training” is to include how keeping a gun puts your family in danger and things like telling us how guns increase the likelihood of a gun suicide, backed up with stats from folks like Frank Zimring & Galen Wintemute, who luuuvvv guns…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email