The other day, I was at the pistol silhouette range when a guy with a .45 ACP pistol walked up next to me, opened up his ammo box, loaded his magazine with ammo and stuffed it into his firearm when all of a sudden, a gust of wind blew his shop towel to the ground in back of me and he lunged after it with the pistol still in his hand. They guy on the other side of me ducked for cover and nearly shat his pants while blurting out an expletive. I was too busy pointing my gun at someone else's head to notice what Yosmite Sam next to was doing to recognize the danger.

All this got me thinking about  whether Hawaii's laws are adequate when it comes to gun safety training.  I know that there are staunch Second Amendment advocates who are against imposing any laws (never mind additional requirements!) when it comes to acquiring firearms, but my own lack of experience and several incidents, including the one described above,  got me thinking about the question of whether more should be required. Hawaii currently requires a total of 6-hours of firearm training that covers everything from acquiring a firearm, safe gun handling, ammunition and fundamentals of pistol shooting. The "text book" stuff is covered in a span of 4 hours mingled with the instructors war stories.  IMO, that' seems hardly enough to cover something as serious as the handling of a handgun (compare that with what the law requires to obtain a drivers license!).  Moreover, current law doesn't require anyone to take any firearm safety training course in order to handle and fire a firearm; it only requires it to acquire a firearm.

What say you?

I am thinking that I cannot wait to leave this place in the summer.

The problem with needing more training is that it becomes a slippery slope. How much training IS really enough? I know lots of military police (from all branches except for the USMC) who even after going through a police academy are still clueless when it comes to weapon handling and manipulation. I would assume that the same can be said for the civilian LE side of the house, although I don't know any specific stories.

Furthermore, are we just talking about weapon-handling training? What about the nuiances of Use/Escalation of Force, Deadly Force, and the possible repercusions of using a firearm for lawful self-defense? That, in and of itself could take 1 day-or more. Where does it end? What amount of training in all of the various disciplines would make EVERYONE happy?

Lastly, I would like to point out that you compared a PRIVILEGE (driving) with a RIGHT (keep and bear arms). And even though the PRIVILEGE is far more dangerous statistically speaking, the ability to exercise the RIGHT is constantly questioned. Furthermore, compare the statistics of states that require driver's education compared to those which do not...I think you might be surprised to find out that there isn't a signficant difference in safety on the road.

- Alex

i'm not sure but from what i've seen my pistol qual is good enough for HPD for now.

OP:

Any requirement for training is an infringement of the right, and is therefore literally unconstitutional.  Saying that something like training is not a "significant burden" on the right is all the rage in courts these days, but where does the Constitution say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be significantly burdened?  It doesn't, and although I'm not a Constitutional scholar, I don't think one needs to be.  Requiring training, which imposes a de facto waiting period while you wait for your scheduled class, is an infringement.  With regard to your range incident, I'll wager that the offending party didn't leave the range with the impression that his conduct was acceptable, did he?  I applaud people for going out and getting training, but it should not be a requirement to exercise a right.  The gun-owners of America are an extremely responsible, self-regulating bunch of people.  Mandatory training does little to no good in improving that.

I should have qualified the poll by saying that the question posed should exclude any consideration over the 14 day waiting period for handguns and the 3+ trips you have to make between HPD and the dealer. I think 14 days seems excessive at first blush but considering the length of time it may take to perform a background check and the person's medical/mental history, 14 days may not seem so outrageous.

OP:

With regard to your range incident, I'll wager that the offending party didn't leave the range with the impression that his conduct was acceptable, did he? 

I honestly don't think the offending party saw the reaction of the neighbor on the other side of me nor realized what he had done.

Quote from: Cougar8045 on October 24, 2011, 04:27:30 PM

OP:

With regard to your range incident, I'll wager that the offending party didn't leave the range with the impression that his conduct was acceptable, did he? 

I honestly don't think the offending party saw the reaction of the neighbor on the other side of me nor realized what he had done.

I would encourage you to speak your mind on that sort of thing, it's a good opportunity for training.  But in any case, my vote would have been the same if you had qualified the poll to exclude waiting periods.  No mandated training will ever be constitutional. 

I voted for the hamburger

Quote from: Mr. Farknkocker on October 24, 2011, 04:40:37 PM

Quote from: Cougar8045 on October 24, 2011, 04:27:30 PM

OP:

With regard to your range incident, I'll wager that the offending party didn't leave the range with the impression that his conduct was acceptable, did he? 

I honestly don't think the offending party saw the reaction of the neighbor on the other side of me nor realized what he had done.

I would encourage you to speak your mind on that sort of thing, it's a good opportunity for training.  But in any case, my vote would have been the same if you had qualified the poll to exclude waiting periods.  No mandated training will ever be constitutional.

+1. It is EVERY shooter's responsibility to call out others for a violation of the 4 firearm safety rules. Just because the RSO doesn't see something doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  Yes, the offender will probably think that you're a dick for calling him out and may even smart off to you, but I can almost guarantee you that he'll think about it later on after he gets home and cools off. Even in an informal setting, the range is a training environment and it should be treated as such.

- Alex

I should have qualified the poll by saying that the question posed should exclude any consideration over the 14 day waiting period for handguns and the 3+ trips you have to make between HPD and the dealer. I think 14 days seems excessive at first blush but considering the length of time it may take to perform a background check and the person's medical/mental history, 14 days may not seem so outrageous.

So every other state in the US is doing things wrong? The NCIC background check takes LITERALLY 30 seconds over the phone. And, as we saw in the case of Jared Loughner, if institutions aren't reporting Mental Illness, then no reasonable amount of background check is going to dig that stuff up...especially with HIPAA.

Furthermore, if I already own a gun, what does the state gain (in the way of public safety) by making me wait another 14 days when I buy another? If someone was going to commit a crime, they would just do it with a gun they already owned or acquired illegally; they wouldn't go through the entire Permit to Acquire/Registration process.

EDIT TO ADD: Do yourself a favor, spend some time researching the 4 states that offer Constitutional Carry - I haven't seen any reports of blood on the streets...despite the anti-2a crowd's best efforts to frighten the sheeple. As Cougar stated, gun owners are, as a whole, an extremely responsible crowd. There will always be bad apples, but in my experience, no amount of training is going to help them.

- Alex

Quote from: Mr. Farknkocker on October 24, 2011, 04:37:21 PM

I should have qualified the poll by saying that the question posed should exclude any consideration over the 14 day waiting period for handguns and the 3+ trips you have to make between HPD and the dealer. I think 14 days seems excessive at first blush but considering the length of time it may take to perform a background check and the person's medical/mental history, 14 days may not seem so outrageous.

So every other state in the US is doing things wrong? The NCIC background check takes LITERALLY 30 seconds over the phone. And, as we saw in the case of Jared Loughner, if institutions aren't reporting Mental Illness, then no reasonable amount of background check is going to dig that stuff up...especially with HIPAA.

Furthermore, if I already own a gun, what does the state gain (in the way of public safety) by making me wait another 14 days when I buy another? If someone was going to commit a crime, they would just do it with a gun they already owned or acquired illegally; they wouldn't go through the entire Permit to Acquire/Registration process.

EDIT TO ADD: Do yourself a favor, spend some time researching the 4 states that offer Constitutional Carry - I haven't seen any reports of blood on the streets...despite the anti-2a crowd's best efforts to frighten the sheeple. As Cougar stated, gun owners are, as a whole, an extremely responsible crowd. There will always be bad apples, but in my experience, no amount of training is going to help them.

- Alex

In my opinion I have never seen the logic of making someone who owns numerous handguns legally wait an additional two weeks  for every new gun.

Quote from: Alex Europa on October 24, 2011, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: Mr. Farknkocker on October 24, 2011, 04:37:21 PM

I should have qualified the poll by saying that the question posed should exclude any consideration over the 14 day waiting period for handguns and the 3+ trips you have to make between HPD and the dealer. I think 14 days seems excessive at first blush but considering the length of time it may take to perform a background check and the person's medical/mental history, 14 days may not seem so outrageous.

So every other state in the US is doing things wrong? The NCIC background check takes LITERALLY 30 seconds over the phone. And, as we saw in the case of Jared Loughner, if institutions aren't reporting Mental Illness, then no reasonable amount of background check is going to dig that stuff up...especially with HIPAA.

Furthermore, if I already own a gun, what does the state gain (in the way of public safety) by making me wait another 14 days when I buy another? If someone was going to commit a crime, they would just do it with a gun they already owned or acquired illegally; they wouldn't go through the entire Permit to Acquire/Registration process.

EDIT TO ADD: Do yourself a favor, spend some time researching the 4 states that offer Constitutional Carry - I haven't seen any reports of blood on the streets...despite the anti-2a crowd's best efforts to frighten the sheeple. As Cougar stated, gun owners are, as a whole, an extremely responsible crowd. There will always be bad apples, but in my experience, no amount of training is going to help them.

- Alex

In my opinion I have never seen the logic of making someone who owns numerous handguns legally wait an additional two weeks  for every new gun.

This, because If I need a firearm right now to commit a crime, AND I HAVE ONE ALREADY, I am going to go spend money and buy another.

Stupid requirement and a complete waste of taxpayers money.

Quote from: Jkeone808 on October 24, 2011, 07:06:00 PM

Quote from: Alex Europa on October 24, 2011, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: Mr. Farknkocker on October 24, 2011, 04:37:21 PM

I should have qualified the poll by saying that the question posed should exclude any consideration over the 14 day waiting period for handguns and the 3+ trips you have to make between HPD and the dealer. I think 14 days seems excessive at first blush but considering the length of time it may take to perform a background check and the person's medical/mental history, 14 days may not seem so outrageous.

So every other state in the US is doing things wrong? The NCIC background check takes LITERALLY 30 seconds over the phone. And, as we saw in the case of Jared Loughner, if institutions aren't reporting Mental Illness, then no reasonable amount of background check is going to dig that stuff up...especially with HIPAA.

Furthermore, if I already own a gun, what does the state gain (in the way of public safety) by making me wait another 14 days when I buy another? If someone was going to commit a crime, they would just do it with a gun they already owned or acquired illegally; they wouldn't go through the entire Permit to Acquire/Registration process.

EDIT TO ADD: Do yourself a favor, spend some time researching the 4 states that offer Constitutional Carry - I haven't seen any reports of blood on the streets...despite the anti-2a crowd's best efforts to frighten the sheeple. As Cougar stated, gun owners are, as a whole, an extremely responsible crowd. There will always be bad apples, but in my experience, no amount of training is going to help them.

- Alex

In my opinion I have never seen the logic of making someone who owns numerous handguns legally wait an additional two weeks  for every new gun.

This, because If I need a firearm right now to commit a crime, AND I HAVE ONE ALREADY, I am going to go spend money and buy another.

Stupid requirement and a complete waste of taxpayers money.

I now have a delightful mental picture of a ski-mask-wearing Ricky Bobby mindlessly repeating, "Ya gotta spend money to make money, ya gotta spend money to make money..."  in the style of "If you ain't first, you're last." 

I can't vouch for all the courses, but I've been to the LIFE course twice (once on my own, and once to accompany the GF) and I thought they more than covered the full breadth of topics and subject matter. A person coming to the class knowing absolutely nothing about guns, will leave with a healthy understanding of the basics of firearm ownership.  But like any knowledge or skillset, unless practiced and applied regularly it depreciates.  Moreover, unless the person is willing to apply what they learned, it doesn't mean a damn thing.  More training will not fix stupid, irresponsible, or lazy. 

I look at firearm permits like drivers licenses. Yes there are idiot drivers out there, just as there are idiot firearm owners out there.  The vast majority of drivers and shooters are good decent folk, and you barely even notice them.  It's when those idiots mess up, that's when everyone starts paying attention.   BUT to say the government needs to step in and implement more rules and regulations just to handle a few stupid people is ridiculous. 

Part of the risk of a public range, is it is open to the public-- shooters of all skillsets and mindsets.  If you don't feel safe, don't shoot there.

BUT to say the government needs to step in and implement more rules and regulations just to handle a few stupid people is ridiculous. 

They  (GOV) already does way too much of this as it is.  Good point.


Just because you took a class in 1987 doesn't mean you are proficient.  A class doesn't prevent humans from being human.

I think it's enough.  It's up to the owner to use common sense and exercise good judgement.

I think it's enough.  It's up to the owner to use common sense and exercise good judgement.

What is "enough"?

The class?

What if you can't afford it? Should you then not be able to defend yourself and family?

What if you can't afford to wait? Should the same apply?

Please clarify for the group.

This is always a hot topic and it should be.

"shall not be infringed"

 

"shall not be infringed"

^^^ This bears repeating, loudly and preferably from the rooftops!

Quote from: 42itus on October 24, 2011, 10:09:54 PM

I think it's enough.  It's up to the owner to use common sense and exercise good judgement.

What is "enough"?

The class?

What if you can't afford it? Should you then not be able to defend yourself and family?

What if you can't afford to wait? Should the same apply?

Please clarify for the group.

This is always a hot topic and it should be.

"shall not be infringed"

I thought the class was enough.  Necessary?  Probably not.  I've learned most of what I know by surrounding myself by people with experience (2ahawaii.com, friends at the range) and practicing at home.  What I don't get is why is it so easy to acquire a rifle in comparison?

I don't know if you interepreted my post as an agreement with the current policy for having to take a class and wait.  I don't.  The 2 weeks doesn't make sense to me.  After the first one, maybe.  Every subsequent purchase?  I don't get it.