SB 6281 Would Allow Hunter Ed Instructors to Require Live-Fire Training 4 Minors

[bigtex]

Senate Bill 6281 sponsored by Senators Roach (R) and Pedersen (D) will be introduced tomorrow. The bill, will allow hunter education instructors at their discretion to require those under 18 to participate in a live-fire training as part of hunter ed.

In carrying out the program established under subsection (1)(b)(i) of this section, a hunter education instructor may, at the instructor's discretion:
(a) Require live-fire training for any person under the age of eighteen unless that person provides proof of having previously received a similar or greater level of live-fire instruction, as determined by the instructor; and
(b) Allow a student to use a personal firearm during a course after the firearm has been inspected and approved by the instructor.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6281.pdf

[j_h_nimrod]

I thought that was already mandatory. It was when I took the course in CO years ago. As written here I do not see a reason this would be bad. I guess if you were scared of a gun but a full on bow hunter maybe?  Otherwise I cannot fathom a reason why someone would want a HS card and not want to shoot.

[lokidog]

My first thought on reading the title was No, because the state's guns are generally not sized for the smaller younger shooters (from my experience as an instructor).  But then I saw part b.  I have always thought that parents should be allowed to bring the guns the kids will be shooting for the live fire portion of the classes.   

[dreamunelk]

I would like to see something to the affect of:  or assistant(s) assigned by instructor to inspect firearms.

(b) Allow a student to use a personal firearm during a course after the firearm has been inspected and approved by the instructor.

[dreamunelk]

My first thought on reading the title was No, because the state's guns are generally not sized for the smaller younger shooters (from my experience as an instructor).  But then I saw part b.  I have always thought that parents should be allowed to bring the guns the kids will be shooting for the live fire portion of the classes.   

Parents are often the problem.  I have seen to many kids that picked up bad habits from there parents.  Even know a couple that received their first violation because of their parents.

[Bob33]

Live fire is not mandatory currently. Policy prohibits use of personal firearms.

Policy: Students shall not use their own firearms and/or ammunition in any Hunter Education course. Instructors will notify all students at the beginning of each class that they are prohibited from bringing personal firearms and/or ammunition to any portion of a Hunter Education course. Any student who uses personal firearms or personal live ammunition during any portion of a Hunter Education course will fail the course and be asked to leave immediately.

[lokidog]

My first thought on reading the title was No, because the state's guns are generally not sized for the smaller younger shooters (from my experience as an instructor).  But then I saw part b.  I have always thought that parents should be allowed to bring the guns the kids will be shooting for the live fire portion of the classes.   

Parents are often the problem.  I have seen to many kids that picked up bad habits from there parents.  Even know a couple that received their first violation because of their parents.

How is the parent bringing the gun the kid will use providing a "bad habit"?  I'm not syaing the parent should be the one shooting with the kid.   

Not sure why this would only include juveniles though.  Bob, that is why the gun would be "inspected".  I do think they should require factory manufactured ammo though.

[bigtex]

Question BigTex:why is this a bill?why cant the international hunters safety administration just change that in the requirements to get a certificate?Our law makers should spend this time on other issues.  I do agree with this though.

There is no "international hunters safety administration". There is a "international hunters safety association" which is a private group consisting of hunter ed instructors, but each state can decide what their hunter ed program can consist of.

[bigtex]

I prefer everything to be uniform. Either everybody statewide shoots, or nobody shoots.

[j_h_nimrod]

Live fire is not mandatory currently. Policy prohibits use of personal firearms.

Policy: Students shall not use their own firearms and/or ammunition in any Hunter Education course. Instructors will notify all students at the beginning of each class that they are prohibited from bringing personal firearms and/or ammunition to any portion of a Hunter Education course. Any student who uses personal firearms or personal live ammunition during any portion of a Hunter Education course will fail the course and be asked to leave immediately.

This policy seems pretty inane. I assume there must be a reason for if but can not figure out what it is. The only justification I can figure is that certain ranges may not be suited for too powerful of a round but that should be made clear at the beginning of a class.

[Bob33]

"Not sure why this would only include juveniles though. Bob, that is why the gun would be "inspected". I do think they should require factory manufactured ammo though."

Lokidog I'm not advocating for or against this. I'm only pointing out that current policy prohibits it. I do think it increases the risk of firearm failure. Do you believe most instructors can inspect visually a firearm which may be very old and in poor condition, and ensure it is safe?

[Fl0und3rz]

I prefer everything to be uniform. Either everybody statewide shoots, or nobody shoots.

Agree. Thus, a no vote.

[bigtex]

If this bill is passed anyone that is prohibited from firearms will not be able to get a hunters ed. certificate,And we lose a lot of the people in the sport.We need as many as we can get.If I am wrong about this bigtex feel free to correct me.

This bill only applies to those under 18. Not too many people under 18 are prohibited from possessing firearms...

[j_h_nimrod]

I prefer everything to be uniform. Either everybody statewide shoots, or nobody shoots.

Agree. Thus, a no vote.

This would make it consistent so why a "no" vote?

Lokidog I'm not advocating for or against this. I'm only pointing out that current policy prohibits it. I do think it increases the risk of firearm failure. Do you believe most instructors can inspect visually a firearm which may be very old and in poor condition, and ensure it is safe?

I guess this is a slight possibility and in our litigious society maybe an issue but would hope any instructor worth the name would be able to determine if a gun were likely safe or not and accept or reject a gun for use. There are always responsibility release forms that should cover liability. All the courses I have been in and seen only used .22lr, maybe that should be written in. There is no reason for some kid to bring in a .300 RUM or even 30-06 for that matter. Guns are available for use from the instructor as well so it is unlikely many would bring in their own gun anyway.

Do we really need kids that have been prohibited from firearms representing us as hunters anyway?  There are likely very few people that would be affected by this, not enough to make a difference any way you look at it. This would be fixed with a provisional card for bow hunters only.

[Fl0und3rz]

Leaving it to discretion is the opposite of consistency.

[bigtex]

I prefer everything to be uniform. Either everybody statewide shoots, or nobody shoots.

Agree. Thus, a no vote.

This would make it consistent so why a "no" vote?

Read the bill, this would not make it consistent. The bill says it is up to the instructor if they want minors to fire or not.

[j_h_nimrod]

My apologies, I misread the OP. I though it was saying that live fire would be required for passing not the discretion of the instructor. I do not see what this would fix now, why do we need this exactly then?

[Bob33]

It will be one more very significant task for instructors to deal with: looking at Grandpa's WWII surplus rifle that hasn't been taken care of, and trying to explain to the boy and his angry Mom why he can't shoot it.

As for making live fire mandatory: quite a few programs do not have access to a shooting facility.

[danderson]

I agree with Bob, we have never allowed students to bring in any firearms into the classroom or bring there own personal firearms or ammunition for the live fire portion, we are not certified gunsmiths and will not take in any undue liability.

[bearpaw]

It will be one more very significant task for instructors to deal with: looking at Grandpa's WWII surplus rifle that hasn't been taken care of, and trying to explain to the boy and his angry Mom why he can't shoot it.

As for making live fire mandatory: quite a few programs do not have access to a shooting facility.

I like the bill because it allows instructor discretion. Therefore instructors who want to have their students live fire have the option, they could also decline live fire if they feel a weapon is unsuitable or if they do not have a range for their course.

I agree with these thoughts:

The instructor should be able to ask anyone of any age to live fire.
The instructor should be able to decline a firearm.
The instructor should be able to decline live fire unless using factory ammo.

I voted yes, but encourage that the law should apply to all ages.

[pianoman9701]

"Not sure why this would only include juveniles though. Bob, that is why the gun would be "inspected". I do think they should require factory manufactured ammo though."

Lokidog I'm not advocating for or against this. I'm only pointing out that current policy prohibits it. I do think it increases the risk of firearm failure. Do you believe most instructors can inspect visually a firearm which may be very old and in poor condition, and ensure it is safe?

I don't think personal firearms should be allowed. I agree it increases the opportunity of failure and that would come back on the instructor regardless of circumstance.

[pianoman9701]

It will be one more very significant task for instructors to deal with: looking at Grandpa's WWII surplus rifle that hasn't been taken care of, and trying to explain to the boy and his angry Mom why he can't shoot it.

As for making live fire mandatory: quite a few programs do not have access to a shooting facility.

This is very true. Where we live fire it's a shotgun only range and a 410 is used for the live fire. Allowing personal firearms wouldn't work. Most young kids are shooting .22s or another rifle.

[bearpaw]

It will be one more very significant task for instructors to deal with: looking at Grandpa's WWII surplus rifle that hasn't been taken care of, and trying to explain to the boy and his angry Mom why he can't shoot it.

As for making live fire mandatory: quite a few programs do not have access to a shooting facility.

This is very true. Where we live fire it's a shotgun only range and a 410 is used for the live fire. Allowing personal firearms wouldn't work. Most young kids are shooting .22s or another rifle.

Because the language says it's discretionary, it would be up to the instructor if they even wanted to do live fire.

[lokidog]

It will be one more very significant task for instructors to deal with: looking at Grandpa's WWII surplus rifle that hasn't been taken care of, and trying to explain to the boy and his angry Mom why he can't shoot it.

As for making live fire mandatory: quite a few programs do not have access to a shooting facility.

This is very true. Where we live fire it's a shotgun only range and a 410 is used for the live fire. Allowing personal firearms wouldn't work. Most young kids are shooting .22s or another rifle.

Because the language says it's discretionary, it would be up to the instructor if they even wanted to do live fire.

Isn't it already discretionary?  Some seem to do it and some don't.

[wildweeds]

Course I took in 1981 was live fire and right here in washington,the weapons were supplied and the live fire drill was with a bolt action .22 and a single shot 20 guage.Paper target on .22 and a straight away clay pigeon for the shotgun.Each person got 5 rounds with each.There might have been a total of 10 in that class I took.

[Curly]

Course I took in '78 had no requirement for shooting.  It was only classroom instruction.  Seemed adequate to me....... 

[lokidog]

1998 or so to 2004 or so, the team I taught with in Lacey did live fire with .243s and 12 or 20 g shotguns.  I think everyone was required to shoot and they had to at least hit the berm with the rifle.  It was tough for the smaller framed shooters, especially the shotgun.  I didn't think it was quite fair to require a kid to shoot a gun that was too big for them. 

[BigGoonTuna]

i took the online course with the field evaluation, our instructor encouraged us to bring our own guns but it was not required.  he supplied a 20 gauge and a .223 bolt action.

[Bob33]

1998 or so to 2004 or so, the team I taught with in Lacey did live fire with .243s and 12 or 20 g shotguns.  I think everyone was required to shoot and they had to at least hit the berm with the rifle.  It was tough for the smaller framed shooters, especially the shotgun.  I didn't think it was quite fair to require a kid to shoot a gun that was too big for them.

Our program just secured three youth sized .22 rifles. I think it will help the smaller shooters.

[bearpaw]

1998 or so to 2004 or so, the team I taught with in Lacey did live fire with .243s and 12 or 20 g shotguns.  I think everyone was required to shoot and they had to at least hit the berm with the rifle.  It was tough for the smaller framed shooters, especially the shotgun.  I didn't think it was quite fair to require a kid to shoot a gun that was too big for them.

Our program just secured three youth sized .22 rifles. I think it will help the smaller shooters.

That's awesome Bob, it would be nice to see other programs get some youth guns as well. 

[lokidog]

1998 or so to 2004 or so, the team I taught with in Lacey did live fire with .243s and 12 or 20 g shotguns.  I think everyone was required to shoot and they had to at least hit the berm with the rifle.  It was tough for the smaller framed shooters, especially the shotgun.  I didn't think it was quite fair to require a kid to shoot a gun that was too big for them.

Our program just secured three youth sized .22 rifles. I think it will help the smaller shooters.

That's awesome Bob, it would be nice to see other programs get some youth guns as well. 

    

[hiway_99]

When my daughter took the course two years ago every student had to shoot a 20 gauge 3 times.  The students had to maintain control of the firearm and have proper muzzle control.  My daughter did it at age 9.  There was a very good selection of 20 gauge shot guns.  They had several youth models to boot.  I like the live fire so instuctors can see if a student can actually handle the firearms properly.  There just needs to be minium caliber or gauge restrictions to keep it fair across the board.  There's a big difference between the recoil of a 22 and a 243.

Sent from my RM-860_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

I agree with Bob. Live fire isn't possible in some classes. They don't have a range to access. It's great when it's possible. The final outside course determines the individual's ability to handle the firearm safely. This should be a no vote.

[bigtex]

Senators Benton (R) and Conway (D) have added themselves as sponsors of this bill

[pianoman9701]

Senators Benton (R) and Conway (D) have added themselves as sponsors of this bill

Thanks for letting me know. I'll make sure Sen Benton has another perspective on this.

[JLS]

I could care less if my kids are exposed to live fire in hunter ed.  As long as they can handle a gun safely, great.  A .243 for some kids is a good invitation to developing a flinch.

[Bob33]

1998 or so to 2004 or so, the team I taught with in Lacey did live fire with .243s and 12 or 20 g shotguns.  I think everyone was required to shoot and they had to at least hit the berm with the rifle.  It was tough for the smaller framed shooters, especially the shotgun.  I didn't think it was quite fair to require a kid to shoot a gun that was too big for them.

Our program just secured three youth sized .22 rifles. I think it will help the smaller shooters.

That's awesome Bob, it would be nice to see other programs get some youth guns as well. 

I don't know if I should admit it here 

..but we used some of the funds our program received from student donations to purchase the rifles.

We collect $20 for the class but refund $15 to everyone that attends. Some students voluntarily donate a portion of the $15 back to the program. 

[CP]

My daughter was required to live fire when she took the course a few years ago.  She used my vintage 1966 Browning A5 but ammunition was provided.  Apparently policy is not always followed.

[Bob33]

My daughter was required to live fire when she took the course a few years ago.  She used my vintage 1966 Browning A5 but ammunition was provided.  Apparently policy is not always followed.

The policy was implemented in 2012.

[CP]

Thanks for clarifying that Bob. 

I see that this bill also makes it mandatory for the director to establish (changes may establish to shall establish) and maintain the training program.  I vote YES for this one.

[Bob33]

This is the current Live Fire policy:

Live-Fire Optional

Policy: Live-fire activities are optional.

WDFW Hunter Education staff strongly encourages Instructors to include both live-firing and field course activities in all courses, but live-firing is not required. Student participation is not mandatory and a student may not fail the course for declining the opportunity to shoot. However, a student opting out of live-fire exercises still must complete all associated steps using inert (dummy) ammunition. Students who opt out of live-fire will still have all related handling skills evaluated using the WDFW Field Skills Training and Evaluation Form, see appendix.

If live-fire occurs, one certified Hunter Education Instructor shall serve as range officer and assume responsibility for supervision of overall range activities and for the roles of other certified Instructors, Instructor applicants and registered volunteer employees. Marksmanship is not a program objective and students may not fail Hunter Education training as a result of poor marksmanship skills.

[pianoman9701]

Thanks for clarifying that Bob. 

I see that this bill also makes it mandatory for the director to establish (changes may establish to shall establish) and maintain the training program.  I vote YES for this one.

You're going to eliminate a great many classes which don't have access to ranges, then. As an instructor, I vote no. The field course is still mandatory in every class and establishes the student's level of awareness and safety/muzzle control.

[steen]

That is a "loaded"  question!  I put no because there are so many variables to work out.  When hunter safety is all done (even if you do a shoot) it is still the parent's responsibility to continue safety in gun handling.  There are always the ones who are poor examples as with anything.  Anytime you add more rules to something to me it is never better.  To me, hunter safety really is more about teaching kids who don't have parents that know how to handle firearms.I have learned more teaching hunter safety than I ever did taking hunter safety.
For example: It would be similar to giving a 12 hour class on how to ride a horse and expecting someone to be able to just know how to ride.  It's not that simple. 
There will never be enough class time to teach them everything so why add more?

[bigtex]

There has been a change to this bill. The changes to the bill are when an instructor requires live-fire training DFW will provide notice of the particular class requirement when publishing the class schedules. The amendment also removes the ability for a student to bring their personal firearm to class.

The amended bill passed out of the committee with no opposition and now sits in the Senate Rules Committee which will schedule the bill for a full Senate vote.