California: "You take the test: Sample questions for handgun safety certificate"


PDA






cuchulainn
January 20, 2003, 10:12 AM
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/4988577.htm

From The Mercury News, San Jose

Posted on Mon, Jan. 20, 2003

You take the test: Sample questions for handgun safety certificate

Shopping for a handgun? Starting this year, gun buyers must first obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate, which requires them to show proof of residency, show they can handle a gun and pass a written test at the gun dealer. Here are some sample questions from the study guide:

1 An important lesson that children should learn is that guns are not toys. True or False?

2 Child safety precautions only apply if you have children. True or False?

3 The safety on a semiautomatic pistol is not foolproof. True or False?

4 Safety rule number two is to keep the gun pointed: a) to the north; b) in the safest possible direction; C) up; D) down.

5 Firearm or ammunition caliber refers to: a) barrel length; b) magazine capacity; c) barrel or bullet diameter; d) bullet velocity.

6 After ensuring a double-action revolver is pointed in a safe direction and with your finger off the trigger, you begin unloading the handgun by: a) releasing the cylinder latch; b) removing the cylinder; e) swinging out the cylinder; d) pushing the magazine release.

7 It is important for you to be a positive role model by always practicing the basic gun safety rules and displaying a positive safety attitude all the time. True or False?

Answers: 1: True; 2: False; 3: True; 4: B; 5: C; 6: A; 7: True

Source: Handgun Safety Certificate study guide, produced by the California Department of Justice

If you enjoyed reading about "California: "You take the test: Sample questions for handgun safety certificate"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tamara
January 20, 2003, 10:21 AM
8. Your Constitutional, natural and human rights are being infringed by having to take this test. True or False?

cuchulainn
January 20, 2003, 10:23 AM
Tamara,

I wouldn't be surprised if California added that to the test someday and took of points if someone answered "true."

Cougar
January 20, 2003, 10:35 AM
I have serious issues with question number two.

My wife and I have no children. Why in the heck should we have everything in our house 'child-proofed'? No children are in my house unsupervised. Even when little ones are visiting, they are not permitted free reign of our house. They are restricted from even going to the bedroom area of the house. They have absolutely no reason for being there. Off Limits. Is that too hard of a concept for them to understand? Violate that rule even once and you are never invited back into our home.

My own sister and her spoiled brats are not welcome in our home. She is of the thinking that once she and her brood come through the front door, that my wife and I are responsible for watching their every movement. We are not! We shouldn't have to temporarily remove our displayed breakables just because she can't control her kids. We shouldn't be required to have guards on all unused electrical outlets. We shouldn't have to have child safety latches on our cabinets and cupboards.

There are real dangers out there in the world. You can't be 100% safe 100% of the time. Get used to that fact. Teach your own kids responsibility. That isn't my job. It is not my place to do so. That is the reason we have the 'save us from our own stupid selves' syndrome that is working its way into making our society into a nation of bliss-ninnies.

[/rant]

Mustang
January 20, 2003, 11:21 AM
Those questions are almost identical to the "old" test. Believe it or not there are those who don't pass! Some of these poor human beings wander in to their local gun shops and refuse to look at the handbook thinking they know it all and blow it. (maybe it's not such a bad idea after all? - kidding)

These are sure to be next:

9. Are you aware you live in a state controlled by people who will do everything in their power to harrass, intimidate, annoy gun owners into submission? True or False.

10. Do you know that in this new millennial era with democrats in charge that only outdated, numbskull brutes feel the need to enhance their short-memberdness by posessing a firearm? Yes or No.

11. Aren't you still mad over Al Gore losing the election in 2000? Yes or No.

(If not, you are not thinking properly. We humbly suggest you get help at any one of our free county mental health clinics. You will be allowed to the front of the line upon providing proof that you turned in all your firearms to your local law enforcement office. We are here to help. Have a nice day.

cslinger
January 20, 2003, 11:25 AM
Ok, I don't belive in fingerprinting, holding of records etc, but I don't think it is a bad idea to have people answer a few simple questions about the firearm they are buying and or general firearms safety.

Heck I would rather scrap NICS and all that crap in favor of taking a 10-15 question safety test when I buy a firearm. Maybe have one for all the major types of firearms and have all of them stress some of the safety issues. This would take less time then NICS, I wouldn't have to get my fingers dirty and would most likely actually teach some people something and reinforce those things we should always be aware of.

I mean think about it, how often do we hammer home to each other to keep our fingers off the trigger, keep the gun in a safe direction and most of all how often do we all expose the fact that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard...hence...

"It is important for you to be a positive role model by always practicing the basic gun safety rules and displaying a positive safety attitude all the time. True or False?"

I don't think it should be mandatory to having a trigger lock or locking mechanism on the gun but I think we all must be willing to childproof our firearms through both education and taking the proper precautions in keeping them out of the wrong hands. For me that means the gun is either in my immediate possesion when others are in my home, especially kids or they are secured in a reasonable fashion. When I am not at home my firearms are secured both as a measure of investment protection and protection from some scumbag taking one of my firearms and killing some poor gas station attendent.

I don't belive in licensing, I don't believe in registration and I don't think NICS has done jack for curbing crime. I don't believe crime can be controlled through laws. I do think we can eliminate a lot of accidents though by forcing everyone to have a basic familiarity with the firearms they purchase and the basic saftey rules that apply. We have all seen somebody throw away the manual, or the new guy or girl who is too proud to ask for advice because they feel they should inherintly know how a firearm works. These are the people I feel are a danger to our sport.

I say get rid of NICS etc. Put a series of age based laws in place, I.E. nobody under 21 can have a CCW or whatever and allow interstate transfers by private parties as long as they meet the legal age criteria and can pass an online or over the phone or in person 10-20 question test on the firearm they are purchasing and the saftey that must go with it. I personally would not mind doing it every single time I purchase a firearm because not only would it allow me to brush up on the saftey rules that can't be stated enough but it may teach me something that I might not know like...Your new GLOCK has no external safety and has a light trigger. This means you must be extra careful about keeping your finger off the trigger and must use a good stiff holster....TRUE OR FALSE.

Just my 2 cents. I will curl up into the fetal position and take what is coming to me now.

Chris
:uhoh:

ctdonath
January 20, 2003, 11:31 AM
Making sure the buyer is competent is a matter of personal responsibility, and should not be a matter of government compulsion.

The questions given are dripping with gov't agenda, and are not intended for actual safety screening.

twoblink
January 20, 2003, 11:35 AM
True or False,

Gun safety is 99% thinking, and 1% avoidance of stupidity..

Things like "Don't stare down a loaded muzzle with your finger on the trigger" I always find, if someone had to tell you that, you lack the common sense to own a firearm..

Then again, I wonder how many politicians would fail these tests..

I don't mind the tests actually; but I don't really see criminals taking them anytime soon, do you?

BenW
January 20, 2003, 11:43 AM
3 The safety on a semiautomatic pistol is not foolproof. True or False?

Another stupid question as NOTHING is FOOLproof. Fools will always find ways to harm themselves and others.

I'm seriously thinking of writing in Tamara's question on the test the next time I buy a pistol and answering "true." Giving the state a fit would be worth being denied the pistol.:evil:

NewShooter78
January 20, 2003, 11:49 AM
I agree with twoblink. Most if not all gun control, in all forms, only hinders law abiding citizens because a criminal is a criminal because he chooses to live outside of the law. A test like this does not seem to really be of much help. And to comment on this test being quicker than NICS, it only takes a quick phone call from my dealer to get me aproved for a gun purchase, which is less than 5 minutes.

Tady45
January 20, 2003, 11:50 AM
You guys don't know how lucky you are not to live in the PRK. We have even more gun control goodies in the pipeline, this state, (the only one) is run by the democrats lock stock & barrel, pardon the pun...


Larry :banghead:

rick_reno
January 20, 2003, 11:53 AM
Here's some questions they should have

8. "Shall not be infringed" as used in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is simply a recommendation. True or False?

9. In the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, the phase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" only applies to politicians, police and well connected fat cats. True or False?

CatsDieNow
January 20, 2003, 12:16 PM
6 After ensuring a double-action revolver is pointed in a safe direction and with your finger off the trigger, you begin unloading the handgun by: a) releasing the cylinder latch; b) removing the cylinder; e) swinging out the cylinder; d) pushing the magazine release.

This is an interesting question. No choice C and not even in alphabetical order.

10-Ring
January 20, 2003, 12:24 PM
Before 1/1/03, I met a lot of gun owners say that they weren't going to be buying another in this state. I wonder how true those intentions were?

Skunkabilly
January 20, 2003, 01:26 PM
California is a great state run by a bunch of clowns and is ruined by a mere square miles of urban wasteland and has made the state unsuitable for living: TRUE or FALSE?

GregoryTech
January 20, 2003, 01:29 PM
Ok, I don't belive in fingerprinting, holding of records etc, but I don't think it is a bad idea to have people answer a few simple questions about the firearm they are buying and or general firearms safety.

However slight, this is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. What problem exists that you would support any infringement such as this? Accidental firearms deaths? The CDC recorded 776 accidental firearms deaths for the US for the year in the report released in 2000.

Do you also support a simple test to help eliminate deaths caused by accidental poisoining (12,000), accidental drowning (3,000), and accidental fires (3,000)? Do you think people should have to take a government test to buy Clorox Bleach, a bathtub, or a book of matches?

I can understand where you're coming from, but if you look at the actual facts, you find it's not really necessary. Then it simply becomes another way for the anti's to make it more difficult for the law abding to obtain a gun. Which I can not support.

Link to CDC Stats (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html)

pogo2
January 20, 2003, 03:03 PM
Well, if you can't pass the test, you can always drive down to South Central LA and ask some guys standing on the corner where to buy a handgun locally. I'm sure they can fix you up, and there won't be any silly forms to fill out or waiting period, either.

sm
January 20, 2003, 03:15 PM
I sure miss the old days before Gov't meddled. Only Questions back then asked if your gun was to be mailed to the home or office--this is when you ordered through the mail, and paid COD.
Tear out order form from back of magazine and a stamp -boom - done deal.

Being asked if one had enough ammo , but thats a question I can live with.

Of course most everyone grew up with guns and safety and we didn't sue everybody over every little thing. I mean guns just a way of life like learning to walk.

Kids, hey we didn't have problems, kids taught firearms and safety just like they were taught no to touch a hot stove--personal responsibility. re-enforced in schools too.

Now everyone expects everyone to take care of them, or they'll sue. Get the Gov't out of the picture and lets get back to parents raising kids as they should , and turn back the wayback machine to when schools were not 'restricted' and could teach and re-enforce values, morals, more's. We'd be a bunch better off, if the Gov't and sheeple don't like it --they can just leave!

GregoryTech
January 21, 2003, 10:28 AM
I do think we can eliminate a lot of accidents though by forcing everyone to have a basic familiarity



Chris, these questions and my others are more than rhetorical.

What do you consider "a lot"?

Do you really believe that you can legislate responsible behavior?

Zundfolge
January 21, 2003, 03:55 PM
IMNSHO The only question that should be asked of a prospective gun buyer is; "Cash, check or charge?"

:neener:

OF
January 21, 2003, 04:05 PM
Making sure the buyer is competent is a matter of personal responsibility, and should not be a matter of government compulsion.Exactly. If a private business or seller wanted to implement some sort of training or questionaire or wants you to jump up and down on one foot and sing the theme from 'All In The Family', that's their choice.

Having the gov't, that would be the entity that the 2nd Amendment insures our right to resist if it comes to that, dictate how, who or when people can aquire the means to effect that resistance is a blunder of historic proportions.

It matters not one whit how 'reasonable' the proposal is. That fact that the gov't will have control over it is the only thing we need to know to make sure it doesn't happen. Ever.

- Gabe

Freedom in theSkies
January 21, 2003, 04:30 PM
if you need a licence to purchase firearms (in your locale) then if they add some safety questions in that may help you avoid a criminal negligence suit, and save the live of someone who may not know gun safety (kids or goofy friends who don't know any better) then why not...:scrutiny:

MitchSchaft
January 21, 2003, 04:38 PM
cslinger,
The issue is that these questions should not be mandatory by the government.

Shalako
January 21, 2003, 04:46 PM
Doesn't the requirement to pass a test to own a gun discriminate against stupid people? It is basically saying that a dumb person's life is not as valuable as a smart persons because the government sees fit to deny them the right to self-defense. In a perfect world, everyone would be as savvy as us regarding manual-of-arms for every weapon in the world and the Four Rules, but thats not reality. In the real world, dumb folks need to have every bit as much access to protection as the astute.

Dang, I hate elitism.

-Shalako

GregoryTech
January 21, 2003, 04:46 PM
if you need a licence to purchase firearms (in your locale) then if they add some safety questions in that may help you avoid a criminal negligence suit, and save the live of someone who may not know gun safety (kids or goofy friends who don't know any better) then why not...

FitS,

Because there isn't a problem with accidental firearms deaths significant enough to mandate it.

I'll ask you the same questions. Do you support the idea that you must submit to a simple test before you are allowed to buy Clorox bleach? Or before you are allowed to buy a book of matches or a lighter? Or before you are allowed to buy a bucket or a bathtub?

Each of the above mentioned items KILL thousand upon thousands more people (children!) each year accidentally than guns do, and none of those things are constitutionally potected. Do you or don't you also support government testing for these other items too?

Sportcat
January 21, 2003, 04:47 PM
If people pass "the test" and receive the certificate, then who will the anti's sue when there is a shooting?

Airwolf
January 21, 2003, 05:19 PM
Easy. You have to pass a "safe handling" test at the time of purchase. Both the instructor and purchaser must sign an affidavit that the test was passed satisfactorily.

Can anyone guess who'll be named in a lawsuit? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

anchored
January 21, 2003, 05:22 PM
Doesn't the requirement to pass a test to own a gun discriminate against stupid people? It is basically saying that a dumb person's life is not as valuable as a smart persons because the government sees fit to deny them the right to self-defense. In a perfect world, everyone would be as savvy as us regarding manual-of-arms for every weapon in the world and the Four Rules, but thats not reality. In the real world, dumb folks need to have every bit as much access to protection as the astute.

What's wrong with discriminating against stupid people? I know quite a few law-abiding, American citizens whom I would not want to be anywhere near a gun. It's not like the only people they can accidentally shoot are themselves. Ya gotta take a test to drive a car, fly a plane, perform surgery, wire a house . . . It's a pretty accepted practice to deny stupid people the same privileges others have. I realize gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, but I also think rights may be mutable depending on ability to exercise the right responsibly - which is why felons, mentally ill, and spouse abusers can legally lose theirs.

Shalako
January 21, 2003, 05:38 PM
So who decides who's life is worth defending? You want the government to take that job too? Felons made a choice and they pay for it. People make a choice that they need to drive a car. Someone that ranks a little lower on the bell curve gets the choice made for him because some folks are high and mighty enough to not to trust him. I guarantee you, if it was up to folks like Schumer, et al., NONE of us would be trusted.

So who decides? You?

-Shalako

GregoryTech
January 21, 2003, 05:46 PM
. . . It's a pretty accepted practice to deny stupid people the same privileges others have. I realize gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, but I also think rights may be mutable depending on ability to exercise the right responsibly - which is why felons, mentally ill, and spouse abusers can legally lose theirs.

Do you support the idea that one must take a test to exercise their right to free speach? Are some people too stupid to be free from illegal search and seizure?

I'll repeat, with just 776 accidental gun deaths in 2000, per the CDC, compared to 12 thousand accidental poisoning deaths, why aren't we trying to determine that stupid people don't buy cleaning supplies?

ctdonath
January 21, 2003, 05:56 PM
What's wrong with discriminating against stupid people?

What's wrong with it is that it's the stupid people who get to make that decision - and they think YOU are the stupid one.

T.Stahl
January 21, 2003, 06:02 PM
I wonder how many dealers will pin a paper with the answers to the questions to the wall behind the counter? :D

Ryder
January 28, 2003, 07:00 AM
Not like I haven't done it before though, eh? :eek: Anyway I just discovered the thread and would like to comment

A couple of guns back Michigan started doing this during the registration procedure (up to 10 days after the purchase). I was informed that you had to correctly answer 6 of the 10 questions to pass. IF you failed :what: then they would inform you which ones you missed and what the correct answer should have been. You would then be allowed to re-take the test. You could re-take the test as often as required until it was passed. I suppose if you had to come back the next day you would be walking out with your property. Dunno for sure, I didn't ask about that.

It's just an educational tool. They were not trying to weed people out and the sheet is tossed in the trash afterwards.

BTW. I missed a question on mine. My answer was more safe than common practice. A real tricky question. I got 100% with the next gun purchase. Same sheet.

tyme
January 28, 2003, 02:40 PM
If people pass "the test" and receive the certificate, then who will the anti's sue when there is a shooting?The shooter, the gunstore, the distributor, the manufacturer, and local and state governments. What, you thought that a piece of paper certifying that the licensee has a <50% chance of being braindead would have any effect on lawsuits?

Russ
January 28, 2003, 02:51 PM
I lived most of my life there. This I fought with numerous letters. I passed anyway as will any anti-gun measure in the PRK as long as Jack Scott is in the Senate and Shelley and Sheila Kuehl (from Dobie Gillis fame) are in the Assembly and they have a DemocRAT Governor to sign all the bills. If the Governorship whould have changed to Simon, all this BS would have stopped.

Oh well, he won in 95 percent of the counties but the libs are packed tightly togther in the Bay Area and in LA and have a larger population. If only Simon could walk and talk at the same time he would have won.

This test is not really anything more than the BFSC we had before except you have to renew every 5 years. Also, watch Jack Scott try to register all your guns bought before this abomination passed before it's over. His kid got shot with a shotgun by a stupid friend and now he has a vendetta against handguns. Makes sense to me?

Anyway, what happens to you when you get too old or sick to renew this POS HSC? Do you have to turn in your guns to the Gestapo?

pogo2
January 28, 2003, 03:21 PM
Russ asked: "Anyway, what happens to you when you get too old or sick to renew this POS HSC? Do you have to turn in your guns to the Gestapo?"

No, you just need the HSC to buy a handgun, not to own one.

Shalako
January 28, 2003, 04:40 PM
Also, you need the HSC to borrow a handgun. I will not get the HSC. Ever. Therefore I will never be able to shoot my girlfriend's model 60 ever again without her present, even though it is stored in my gun cabinet, I clean it, buy holsters for it, caress it, love it, .... ur, uh, whatever. No more taking it with me on hikes in the woods or camping trips. I'm not qualified anymore. Yes, I can't ever borrow that Model 60 ever again because I will not be on the special list that notifies everyone with a simple swipe of my driver's license that I am a Handgun Permit Owner and that they should be wary of me. No thanks. I like my freedoms as they are, thank you.

-Shalako

TexasVet
January 28, 2003, 11:01 PM
True... Especially if it's a Glock. "They put the safety on the WHAT??!!":what:

Russ
January 29, 2003, 11:33 AM
POGO, thanks for your reply,

At some point many of will find ourselves in position where it is probably imprudent to own a gun. My Grandparents died of strokes eventually after they had several smaller ones that impaired them severly. Then the BIG one came that did them in. There was a point in their downward spiral that I don't think they should have owned guns anymore. In my case they didn't but I have to wonder for myself seeing that this may be the same way I bite the big one eventually. Best pass them to my sons before something like that happens.

I really don't trust Jack Scott. What a total SOB. He represents the are I know as my hometown. Pasadena, CA.

I think that SOB will keep trying to add things to this HSC law to the point where you one has to forefeit their guns to the State if you find yourself in such a position.

Glad I'm out of there for now. However, I miss the West quite alot having lived there for 45 years. I may return someday.


Skunkabilly,

While there are few square miles that have precipitated much of the anti-gun sentiment in CA, (South Central, Oakland), I have to look at what has happened since the DemcRATS gained 100% control over the Legislature and Governorship. Most of my life, we had Republican Governors that stopped alot of the anti-gun nonsense. Now that Red Davis got elected, there is no stopping the socialist agenda. Sure, California was always a bit more restrictive with the 10 day wait and all, but ever since Davis came in, he has not seen a gun control bill he didn't like. I fear that now he is lame duck Gpovernor that has blown his national asipriations due to the energy debacle, you will see even more restrictive anti-gun measures. That's all Jack Scott, Kevin Shelly and a few others think about.

I've been gone a little over a year now but it's my home state and it still concerns me. I still have family there and one day might return.

Russ

If you enjoyed reading about "California: "You take the test: Sample questions for handgun safety certificate"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!