Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 09:23:02 PM
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 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6281.pdf)
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 19, 2014, 09:38:13 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 19, 2014, 09:45:49 PM
Post by: dreamunelk on January 19, 2014, 09:47:15 PM
(b) Allow a student to use a personal firearm during a course after the firearm has been inspected and approved by the instructor.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 19, 2014, 09:50:22 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: Bob33 on January 19, 2014, 09:54:01 PM
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.
Post by: lokidog on January 19, 2014, 10:00:40 PM
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. :twocents:
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. :dunno:
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:10:59 PM
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. :twocents: 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.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:12:10 PM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 19, 2014, 10:13:26 PM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on January 19, 2014, 10:13:43 PM
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?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 19, 2014, 10:17:18 PM
I prefer everything to be uniform. Either everybody statewide shoots, or nobody shoots.
Agree. Thus, a no vote.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:35:56 PM
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...
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 19, 2014, 10:49:54 PM
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.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 19, 2014, 10:56:42 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 11:02:00 PM
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.
Post by: j_h_nimrod on January 19, 2014, 11:10:09 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2014, 06:34:26 AM
As for making live fire mandatory: quite a few programs do not have access to a shooting facility.
Post by: danderson on January 20, 2014, 06:42:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 06:46:22 AM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 12:26:13 PM
"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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 12:28:36 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:32:25 PM
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.
Post by: lokidog on January 20, 2014, 03:17:40 PM
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.
Post by: wildweeds on January 20, 2014, 03:48:26 PM
Post by: Curly on January 20, 2014, 03:59:01 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 20, 2014, 05:34:10 PM
Post by: BigGoonTuna on January 21, 2014, 12:10:24 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 21, 2014, 12:14:36 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 12:35:38 PM
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. :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: lokidog on January 21, 2014, 02:56:01 PM
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. :tup: :tup: :tup:
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: hiway_99 on January 21, 2014, 03:29:47 PM
Sent from my RM-860_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 21, 2014, 03:52:10 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2014, 10:55:49 AM
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.
Post by: JLS on January 22, 2014, 10:59:33 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2014, 11:04:37 AM
I don't know if I should admit it here :peep: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. :tup: :tup: :tup:
..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.
Post by: CP on January 22, 2014, 11:46:16 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2014, 11:52:25 AM
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.
Post by: CP on January 22, 2014, 12:23:54 PM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2014, 12:58:03 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2014, 01:07:33 PM
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.
Post by: steen on January 22, 2014, 04:09:21 PM
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?
Post by: bigtex on February 03, 2014, 02:12:06 PM
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.