Is 'Training Requirement' an Infringement,
Impairment or Just a Costly Scam?
Are training mandates an impairment on the right to keep and bear arms?
By Dave Workman. Mar 18, 2025
Article Source
In addition to Washington state, where legislation mandating a firearms safety course as a prerequisite to purchasing a firearm, Colorado lawmakers have now added a similar requirement to a controversial bill which has been amended 15 times and is strongly opposed by gun rights activists.
Colorado Senate Bill 25-003, an 18-page measure which Outdoor Life has acknowledged is likely to pass, began life as an effort to ban certain guns with detachable magazines, but has morphed into a bill which will now allow people to buy such firearms, but only if they complete an approved training course, according to KDVR News.
WASHINGTON PERMIT-TO-PURCHASE, TRAINING REQUIREMENT HB 1163
And, buried down in Section 5 is this language: "In order to enroll in a basic or extended firearms safety course, a person must pay to the instructor the firearms training and safety course record fee set by the Parks and Wildlife Commission…and hold a valid firearms safety course eligibility card… The instructor shall remit the firearms training and safety course record fee to the Division of Parks and Wildlife."
Attorney William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, likens this sort of thing to a poll tax in a video regarding Washington's proposed law. A poll tax is unconstitutional.
There is also this requirement: "At the conclusion of a basic or extended firearms safety course, the instructor shall administer an exam that tests a student's knowledge of the subjects taught in this course and requires the student to demonstrate the ability to safely handle firearms and a mastery of gun safety. To complete a basic firearms safety course, a student must achieve a score of at least ninety percent on the exam."
This requirement could easily be considered the equivalent of a literacy test, which was used to prevent African Americans from voting in the last century and was also found to be unconstitutional.
But the recent ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals upholding Measure 114's constitutionality in its entirety, including a mandatory training course and permit-to-purchase, adds to the debate.
The common denominator with all such requirements, say critics, is that they reduce the right to keep and bear arms to being a government-regulated privilege. It is likely that the Colorado measure, if it becomes law, will be challenged in court. Fighting such restrictions can take years in court, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the meantime, citizens will be paying fees to the state.
