Random thought on #I1639

There are lots of grounds to challenge Washington state I-1639. None are a sure thing and since there are so many components to it seems likely the courts will throw out some aspects of it and leave others intact. I have been wondering if the training requirement might be something we have power over and can eliminate even if the courts don’t find it a sufficient burden on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

What if there were no classes that met the requirements of I-1639? Or, at least, the classes were so few, far between, and/or expensive that the vast majority of the population could not take the class. What if all trainers refused to include material which met the requirements? Wouldn’t the courts be, essentially, forced to say I-1639 is blocking the exercise of specific enumerated right?

I realize gun manufactures are not meeting the microstamping requirement of California law. And that has resulted in no new guns being added to the list of “safe guns. But that is going through the courts now and may result in a path to a victory on one element of I-1639.


15 thoughts on “Random thought on #I1639

  1. Sorry to say, two friends with really strong reputations in training already have preliminary curricula developed for their schools.

    • I know a range that says they already have the class. That doesn’t mean they need to follow through with it.

    • Also, just because there is training available in, say, Vancouver doesn’t mean it is practical for someone in Kettle Falls (over 400 miles away).

  2. Since I-1639 requires that “the proof of training shall be in the form of a certification that states under the penalty of perjury the training included the minimum requirements”, I think it would be wise for firearms instructors to refuse to sign the certificates. I wouldn’t give anti-gun prosecutors the opportunity to maliciously prosecute me for perjury.

    • I was thinking along the lines more of a “perform to the minimum specification” type of thing, and have the training available in a WBT format with a PDF certificate. The “instructor” just has to be NRA certified.

      No video, no audio, no tests, just text. Knock it out in 5 minutes following proof that each page was served to the specific student.

      If you want, include an extra credit links to the proof that all the gun control is useless.

      EDIT: If this form of training is declared to be non-qualifying (on what legal grounds?), then the whole range of availability, distance, etc becomes open for challenging.

  3. This is an unfunded mandate- the state says we have to have safe storage -AKA- a safe- will they pay for it? Same with training- If not, they are infringing.

    • I think the unfunded mandate thing only applies to the Feds telling the states they have to do something. Otherwise training for a professional license and liability insurance to drive a car on public roads would be unconstitutional.

  4. IIRC, that was the path for striking down the training requirement for an east coast state.
    Step (1) Pass a law requiring training, w/o specifics of training stipulated.
    (2) Only offer one class a year, 30 people max, invitation only, and disallow any substantially similar classes be qualifying.
    (3) Get sued.

    The training requirement in Sec 3 (2)(a) can easily be gamed by an administration to effectively eliminate an class as “qualifying.” For example what does “nationally recognized mean,” legally speaking?

    Too, can it be tossed because they keep using the term “assault rifle,” when that has a definition that is formally recognized (some machine guns), and then defines and oxymoronic “semiautamic assault rifle” to be used. Inflammatory language.

  5. As I read it, the required class is basically an outline of the NRA Basic Rifle lesson plan. It’s pretty standard verbiage from the training requirements other states use for things like pistol permits. It would be tough to argue that the class isn’t available. Which is probably why they used the verbiage.

    Where I think an NRA instructor could get in trouble is with the legal instruction portion. The basic lesson plan is pretty generic, and for the self defense classes you need to bring in a cop or attorney.

    If possible, I think technology should be used to create an easy “check the box” free (or near free) training option to bypass time wasting and costly classes. Ideally it’d be a smart phone app that customers could swipe through at the point of sale while the NICS call goes in. This requirement is intended merely to chill rights, it should be made as painless to bypass as possible.

    • So those people too poor to own a smartphone will have to pony up for the more expensive classes? Make a electronic tracking record connecting the sale of a gun with serial number to a personally identifiable device, aka gun registration for rifles? Help the gun-owner-hating authoritarians enforce their entrapment schemes?
      No, thanks.

      • I-1639 requires registration:

        The department of licensing shall keep copies or records of applications for concealed pistol licenses provided for in RCW 9.41.070, copies or records of applications for alien firearm licenses, copies or records of applications to purchase pistols or semiautomatic assault rifles provided for in RCW 9.41.090, and copies or records of pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle transfers provided for in RCW 9.41.110.

      • You need to make it easy for low information gun owners to bypass the nonsense. Another model could be the Silencer Shop Kiosk, where a self serve workstation handles the whole atf process for cans. Most people don’t read gun blogs, aren’t nra members, don’t know Otis McDonald from the fast food joint where you can get a McDouble with fries, and have never heard of SAF. Those low information folks need to be able to impulse but a 10 22 for their kid or a cool AR for Xmas.

        If low information buyers are later victimized by the state then it sucks but creates (1) sympathetic defendants for lawsuits and jury nullification and (2) info ops wins for us. The state will not cover themselves in glory arresting normal middle class people who buy 10 22s. If we focus too much on security and anonymity vs making it as easy as possible to acquire semantics we will lose the culture war. The Royal Authorities knew well and good who had powder and arms in Colonial Massachusetts. The ownership of such was so widely spread that attempts to conduct raids would inevitably impact the general populace and hand the patriots an IO win. We need to ensure semiautomatic ownership remains broad and common.

        High information gun owners will be smart and ensure they have paperless private sale lowers, but stripped lowers or ar pistols, or 80% lowers that the state doesn’t know about.

        On the culture war front, LGBTQ folks didn’t win their culture war by insisting on anonymity and secrecy. They came out publicly and dominated the IO campaign.

    • NRA Basic classes fail the test – they do not include suicide prevention and state & federal law in adequate detail, for example.

  6. The Feds made the training for the Armed Pilots Program(?) so onerous that virtually none got certified. This was deliberate. They did the full monty, weird schedules, remote training location, limited classes, etc. The courts let it stand.

Comments are closed.