Even if that were true, it would be hard to argue with because this is a legal open carry state. Why would it be legal for a person to carry in a holster, but be required to take a class to move their gun to a fanny pack, pocket, or purse? Also, there's hardly blood flowing in the streets in Alaska and Vermont, the two other Constitutional states, so it's pretty hard for Arizona to make the case that this restriction is as narrowly tailored as possible to avoid mass bloodshed. That having been said, I think it's still very wise to take a class, I just don't think people should have to participate in a de facto registration scheme to do so.
Wise, sure. It should not be a requirement to exercise a right affirmed by the second amendment to the Constitution. Maybe we should require parenting classes before anybody can bear a child? Get a license, good for a year?
Yahooo!!! Great news. When I would go to the border, I’d have to worry about if I had my gun in my pack momentarily, that I’d get arrested. I agree about the class and everything that you said. It’s not that I was too lazy to take it, had even called around to try to get into one, but I don’t want to be put on their Stalinist lists just because I might need to have my gun in my pack (or hidden by a blowing shirt) for a few minutes.
I think it’s wise for city folk who don’t know jack about firearms to take a class, but for we folks who grew up in the sticks shooting beer bottles off fence posts and drove our daddy’s pickup with a shotgun or rifle in the back window rack to school every day, it’s really not necessary.
I’d still like to see ghetto scum and gangbangers take a class, if for no other reason than to improve their aim at each other.