Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Gun owners could face mandatory training in East Bay city
Gun owners in Alameda might be required to receive mandatory training to use their weapons.
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.

The proposed ordinance 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.

User avatar
Pomme
Been around awhile
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by Pomme »


The proposed ordinance also would require gun owners to store their firearms at home inside a locked container or have them disabled with a trigger lock.
Maybe someone should tell them that this law is already on the books for all of California :wall:

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11085
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by YankeeTarheel »

"How do we get to the nuclear wessels in Alameda?"

"I think they're in Alameda."
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
senorgrand
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 20875
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by senorgrand »

Step 1: outlaw all gun ranges
Step 2: require mandatory training
Step 3: peace in out time...
Image

Grand Poobah and Bass Player for the Conspiracy of Weenies.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 20978
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by CDFingers »

I sense a market opportunity. LGC Trainers.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Turn on channel six, the President comes on the news,
Says, "I get no satisfaction, that's why I sing the blues."

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by Eris »

CDFingers wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:21 pm
I sense a market opportunity. LGC Trainers.

CDFingers
No opportunity here. The "training" they want to require is not training in how to safely use a gun, it's political "training" in how dangerous and bad guns are.

This is a bill to require political reeducation classes. It *should* be obvious to anyone that this runs afoul of the Constitution, but the anti-gunners won't care.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14247
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by lurker »

great, aspiring rep pols are rubbing their hands together in glee.

User avatar
SubRosa
Chatty
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:48 pm
Location: AZ Desert
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by SubRosa »

Does one have to 'pass' the class or just sit thru it?

I'd have some fun there...

SR
We all come here to drink from the Fountain of Madness.

User avatar
BKinzey
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by BKinzey »

Pomme wrote:
Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:37 pm

The proposed ordinance also would require gun owners to store their firearms at home inside a locked container or have them disabled with a trigger lock.
Maybe someone should tell them that this law is already on the books for all of California :wall:
It is?

What I wanna know is it's already been shown some of the approved trigger locks won't stop the trigger from being pulled. So if that occurs, and someone is shot, who is to blame? The State for the approval? Or the owner for living in CA?

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 20978
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by CDFingers »

It's weird in California--duh. It's not required by law to store guns safely.

However, when you buy a gun, you have to sign a paper saying you have a gun safe or they have to sell you a trigger lock. And if someone steals your poorly-stored gun and does a crime with it, you're liable. And if a kid gets your gun, you're also liable. What kind of sorcery is this? It's Jerry Brown, who wrote that not every problem needs a law. So, no safe storage law, but if you don't store it safely and it gets stolen, you're screwn. Solution? Safe storage. Weirdly Californian.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Turn on channel six, the President comes on the news,
Says, "I get no satisfaction, that's why I sing the blues."

User avatar
Marlene
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5507
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by Marlene »

:roflmao: Alameda
Image

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 16199
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by highdesert »

It's the City of Alameda located on islands in San Francisco Bay, not to be confused with the County of Alameda (county seat is Oakland). City ordinance not a state law.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Elmo
Moderator
Posts: 5632
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:24 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by Elmo »

Isn't Alameda mostly retired cops and military? Not a place I would expect to pioneer this kind of law.
Image
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946

khlavkalash
Been around awhile
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by khlavkalash »

NIMBY in full force. They have all of <1 murder per year, clearly we can move that to the negatives by restricting legal ownership.

User avatar
danhue
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:23 pm
Location: SE PA
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by danhue »

CDFingers wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 8:05 am
It's weird in California--duh. It's not required by law to store guns safely.

However, when you buy a gun, you have to sign a paper saying you have a gun safe or they have to sell you a trigger lock. And if someone steals your poorly-stored gun and does a crime with it, you're liable. And if a kid gets your gun, you're also liable. What kind of sorcery is this? It's Jerry Brown, who wrote that not every problem needs a law. So, no safe storage law, but if you don't store it safely and it gets stolen, you're screwn. Solution? Safe storage. Weirdly Californian.

CDFingers
Are cops (active, off-duty, retired) also liable in case of theft? That's the litmus test in a democracy, IMO. In any case, I actually agree (in principle) with the liability regarding minors.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 20978
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Alameda considering requiring mandatory training for firearm owners

Post by CDFingers »

This is the closest I could come, so it looks like we're still a democracy in California. Haven't found about storage in the home yet.

"SEC. 2. Section 25452 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

25452. A peace officer and an honorably retired peace officer shall, when leaving a handgun in an unattended vehicle, secure the handgun in the vehicle pursuant to Section 25140."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20160SB869

CDFingers
ImageImage
Turn on channel six, the President comes on the news,
Says, "I get no satisfaction, that's why I sing the blues."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BKinzey and 3 guests